《六韬》是中国古代重要的兵学文献，对兵学思想的发展和实践产生了深远影响。今传本《六韬》是六卷六十篇的结构，是宋代编纂“武经七书”时的删定本。但清人已注意到，《六韬》古本有更为丰富驳杂的内容，主旨不只是“论兵”而已。20世纪以来，随着敦煌写卷、西夏译本、银雀山汉简、定州八角廊汉简等材料陆续被发现和公布，《六韬》一书的研究有了新的材料和契机。银雀山汉简、定州八角廊汉简、敦煌写卷虽经过整理，但尚有未尽之处，辑佚本过去也多不全。通过对敦煌写卷内容的考察以及错讹现象的统计，可以发现写卷底本可能是一行为14-15字、有校注的卷子。辑佚文本则可补充《武经总要》和敦煌类书等材料。在汇集《讲义》《直解》等版本和汉简、写卷中的重要异文（即“汇校”）的基础上，收集学界已有的重要意见（即“集释”），充分利用出土和新见材料，可以提供更为全面、准确的《六韬》校释本，并得出部分新解。结论包括今本《文师》篇“非龙非螭，非虎非罴”是与《史记》传本讹混的结果；《举贤》《六守》《守国》等篇不能直接与汉简对应，汉简反映的是其他太公书内容而非《六韬》；《武锋》篇的“十四变”很可能原作“十五变（击）”等。编连方面，银雀山汉简641与642号简之间似尚缺一支简，713与714号简之间也缺一支简，659-661号简当从《六守》篇移出；定州汉简0823号简当归入《趋舍》篇，2453号简当归入《殷妖》篇，0304号简等当移出。对《六韬》自汉代以来的三种不同编纂体系进行梳理，沿着《六韬》从子书到兵书的定位的推移，能更加清晰地把握《六韬》在此过程中的文本变化。文本经过元丰以前“无意”的讹混和元丰校书者“有意”的删节，最终形成了今本《六韬》。《六韬》与其他太公书之间，是“同质异态”关系，银雀山汉简、定州汉简不宜直接命名为《六韬》。按照不同的情况，《六韬》今本的60篇和佚文30余篇可分为6组进行断代，通过与出土材料比对、与他书比对、分析时代特征等方法，大概可以判断各篇成书时间的上限或下限。思想研究层面，过去对《六韬》的关注点主要集中在兵学价值上。《六韬》与其他兵书有同有异，其实有着自己的特色。此外，《六韬》的学派属性过去也引起过不少争讼，由与马王堆帛书等材料比对可知，其近于黄老思想，并且是过去黄老研究往往忽视的材料。

Liu Tao is an important military literature in ancient China, which has had a far-reaching impact on the development and practice of military thought. The current Liu Tao is a structure of 6 volumes and 60 articles. It is an abridged version when compiling the ＂seven military classics book＂ in the Song Dynasty. However, scholars in the Qing Dynasty have noticed that the ancient version of Liu Tao has more rich and complex contents, and the main purpose is not just on military. Since the 20th century, with the discovery and publication of Dunhuang manuscripts, tangut version, Yinque mountain bamboo slips, Dingzhou bamboo slips and other materials, the study of Liu Tao has new materials and opportunities. Although the Yinque mountain bamboo slips, Dingzhou bamboo slips and Dunhuang manuscripts have been sorted out, there are still some deficiencies, and the collection of lost articles in the past was incomplete. Through the investigation of the contents and the error phenomenon of Dunhuang manuscripts, it can be seen that the manuscripts is a section manuscript with about 14-15 words in a line and proofreading marks. The lost text can be supplemented with materials such as Essentials of Militaryclassics. Based on the collection of the important different texts in various versions and important opinions, by making necessary proofreading and discussion, we can provide a more comprehensive and accurate proofreading version of the Liu Tao and get some new interpretations. Conclusions include that the sentence＂非龍非螭，非虎非羆＂ is the result of confusion with Historical Records; Some articles such as chapter ＂舉賢＂ can not directly correspond to the bamboo slips of the Han Dynasty, which reflect the contents of other books of Taigong rather than the Liu Tao; The ＂十四變＂ in chapter ＂武鋒＂ may have originally been ＂十五擊（變）＂. In addition，there seems to be a lack of bamboo slips between No. 641 and No. 642 of Yinque mountain bamboo slips, and there is also a lack of bamboo slips between No. 713 and No. 714. No. 659-661 bamboo slips should be removed from chapter ＂六守＂; No. 0823 bamboo slips of Dingzhou bamboo slips should be included in chapter ＂趨舍＂, and No. 2453 bamboo slips should be included in chapter ＂殷妖＂, No. 0304 should be removed. Combing the three different compilation systems of Liu Tao since the Han Dynasty, we can more clearly grasp the text changes in this process along the changes from a book of scholars to a military book. After the ＂unintentional＂ changes before the Song Dynasty and the ＂intentional＂ abridgement in Yuanfeng, the text finally formed the current Liu Tao. Between the contents of Liu Tao and other books named Taigong, there is a phenomenon that the text is similar in theme but different in text. Yinque Mountain bamboo slips and Dingzhou bamboo slips should not be directly named ＂Liu Tao＂. According to different situations, 60 articles and more than 30 lost articles of Liu Tao can be divided into 6 groups. By comparing with unearthed materials and other books, we can probably judge the time when each article was produced.In terms of ideological research, the main focus on Liu Tao is the military value in the past. However, Liu Tao has its own characteristics. In addition, the school of Liu Tao has caused many disputes. Through comparison with Mawangdui silk books, it can be seen that it is close to Huang-Lao thought and is a material often ignored in the research of Huang-Lao thought in the past.