对圆仁《入唐求法巡礼行记》中所记载的船舶部件搙■(搙栿)的批判性考察

A Critical Review on “Nou(搙■)”,a Ship’s Part,Recorded in Ennin’s Diary

838年日本派遣第15批遣唐使,有关此次遣唐使的航海活动被其随行人员圆仁详细地记录在《入唐求法巡礼行记》中。在记录中尤其被人关注的是圆仁所乘坐的遣唐使船漂流到中国扬州海陵县时的日记中提到的,无法判断其具体用途和形状的船舶部件“搙[木我](槈[木我])”。通过研究所得出的最终结论是,很多人认为搙[木我](槈[木我])是搙栿(支撑、横梁)的笔误。日本学者并没有把遣唐使船认定为中国帆船,而是根据中国帆船在船底和甲板处无独立横向补强材的特点,认为遣唐使船是和船型船舶或韩船型船舶。如果是和船型船舶时,搙[木我](槈[木我])应为船梁(ふなばり),而若是韩船型船舶时应为加龙木或驾木,但考虑到和船型船舶很难造出大型船舶的事实,就可以判断出遣唐使船很可能是被日本史书以百济舶或新罗船来记录的韩船型船舶。

During the 7^th to 9^th centuries,15 diplomatic missions were dispatched to the Tang Dynasty Imperial Court by Japan.Ennin(圆仁),a Buddhist priest,was in the party which accompanied the 15 th diplomatic mission in A.D.838,as recorded in his diary,The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law(《入唐求法巡礼行记》).To many scholars’interests,according to the book,when the mission arrived in Hailing County of Yangzhou,Ennin mentioned a ship’s part called“Nou搙[木我](槈[木我])”whose function and shape were unknown.However,studies show that搙[木我](槈[木我])might have been a misreading of搙栿which is a supporting transverse beam.Since there are no separate transverse beams at the bottom or decks of the Chinese junks,some Japanese scholars believed that the Japanese envoy ships would not be Chinese junks.But considering that,it was likely that the envoy ship might be of Japanese or Korean origin,the term Nou may be regarded as the hunabari(ふなばり,船梁)of Japanese ships.It could also be garongmok(加龙木)or gamok(驾木,橫梁)on Korean ships.Considering the fact that it was not feasible to build a large Japanese ship hosting more than 100 passengers,we can conclude that the Japanese envoy ship was of Korean origin,which was recorded as“Baekje ship(百济舶)”or“Silla ship(新罗船)”in the Japanese history.