论文部分内容阅读
学术争鸣有助于澄清历史事实。赵立人《南海神庙史实辩正》一文提出拙文《宋南海神东西庙与广州海上丝绸之路》的四点商榷意见,本人认为其观点有争论和商榷的必要。其一,赵文忽视《市舶条》等外贸制度,混淆国内贸易管理机构“都税务”、“市务”与国外贸易市舶司的区别,其结论扶胥镇“在宋代为外贸港口”所用史料和解读有误;其二,广州南海神西庙始建时间与北宋南海神不断显灵的背景有关,洪圣王庙既与“东祠”同文对比出现,自然为南海神西庙无疑,赵文判断西庙方位参照物互换,存在偏差;其三,从宁宗开禧至南宋亡,广东海上丝路日趋式微的观点正确,赵文运用和解读史料不当。
Academic contests help to clarify historical facts. Zhao Li Ren “South China Sea temple historical facts are correct,” a text proposed Zhuo Wen “East and West Temple Song of the Sea and Guangzhou Maritime Silk Road,” the four points of view, I think its argument is controversial and necessary. First, Zhao ignored the foreign trade system such as “Shizhu” and confused the differences between the domestic trade administrations, “all taxation”, and “municipal services” with those of foreign trade and shipping agencies. The conclusion was that “ Second, the time of the establishment of the Shenxi Temple in the South China Sea in Guangzhou is related to the continually apparent background of the Nanhai God in the Northern Song Dynasty. Both the Hongsheng Wangmiao and the ”East Temple of the East" Naturally, the South China Sea Temple of the West is undoubtedly, Zhao Wenxi Temple to determine the location of the reference object swap, there are deviations; Third, from the Ningzong Kai Hei to the Southern Song Dynasty death, Guangdong Sea Silk Road increasingly micro-point of view is correct, Zhao Wen and interpretation of historical materials improper.