本文主要是利用考古材料來重新檢視春秋時代的宋文公葬禮。經與考古材料比對，筆者認為宋文公的墓葬真正逾越王禮的大概只有「益車馬」及「重器備」二項可談。惟《左傳》對這二項並無明確的記載，或因此墓已遭盜擾，故《左傳》只能用「益、重」來強調宋文公墓葬的奢華。至於積炭墓流行於晉國的墓葬中，此因宋國與晉國往來密切，故宋國墓葬文化也受其影響。「槨有四阿」在春秋時代的墓葬中屬較特殊的喪葬制度，為當時少見，故《左傳》特別記載。「棺有翰繪」，杒預將之解為棺飾是合理的，不過棺有紋飾在春秋各國的貴族階級中已相當流行。以上這三項經師或將之視為王禮，但以考古學的視野來看，皆不符合實情。至於殉人制度，春秋時代也並非完全沒有，只是數量上少了許多，宋文公的葬禮遭受批判，除了人殉不合人道之外，可能也與人殉數量不少有關。

This paper mainly uses archaeological materials to review Song Wengong's funeral in Spring and Autumn Period .Compared with archaeological materials, the author considers that there are only “excessive carriages and horses” and “abundant utensils” in Song Wengong's funeral which exceed these in king 's funeral truly. But there are no clear records for two items in “the Commentary of Zuo”, or because this tomb has been stolen, therefore, “the Commentary of Zuo” can only use “excessive and abundant” to emphasize the luxury of Song Wengong's tomb. Because carbon deposit tombs were popular in Kingdom Jin's tombs, and State Song had close contact with Kingdom Jin, therefore, the burial culture of State Song was also influenced by it. “The outer coffin had four sides appearing slope shape” belonged to a special burial system in tombs of Spring and Autumn Period, and was rare in that time, therefore, was recorded specially in “the Commentary of Zuo”. “The coffin had writing and painting”, Du Yu considered that the coffin decorations were reasonable, because the coffin decorations had been quite popular among nobilities of various countries in Spring and Autumn Period. Above three items were scribed or taken as king's etiquette, but from the perspective of archaeological view, they all did not confirm to the truth. As for the buried alive system, which existed in Spring and Autumn Period actually, just was less in quantity, the funeral of Song Wengong was criticized, expect for human sacrifice which did not conform to human sympathy, may related to large number of human sacrifice.