唐代文化燦爛，石刻豐富。歷來研究石刻作者，多涉撰者、書丹兩類，少有刻工之議。刻工研究始於碑石上之題署，其制可溯及先秦時代，曰「物勒工名」，旨在效實百工所造之物，考其誠信與不。此後歷代相沿，加以工匠自我意識抬頭，使原本考核之用的署名，漸有標榜產品品質的意味。從東漢以降，勒名制度雖行，但具名的石刻極少，可見還不成通例。唐代誌墓風氣盛行，墓誌成了最普遍的一種石刻，適可作為唐代石刻之樣。本文分析唐代墓誌刻工題署106 例，所獲結果如下：依時代分布，初唐題署情況最少，中唐以後漸多，到晚唐則明顯增多；題署形式概有四種；題署多列誌文之末；題署所稱的籍貫，經常是郡望。有些單一墓誌卻有兩種以上的書風，推測刻工概不只一人。其因或出於學習的需要，先由師傅示範，學徒從旁模仿，老練與稚嫩並陳，以致書風不一；或出於工程日短，喪家催促工時，刻工不得不加派人手，以利如期交件。這類「刻工不只一人」的墓誌，按其書蹟的分布，當可揣摩其工法或步驟。常見的示範區位在誌石的四個角落。推想刻工並不按著文章的順序，而是憑書丹的記號奏刀，依勢借力，以求速效。也就是從誌石的四個邊角奏刀，漸次向中央輻射進展，以達省力省時的目的。

The Tang Dynasty had a splendid culture and rich stone carvings. All through the ages, those who studied the authors of stone carvings had more discussion on writers and calligraphers, and less on carvers. The research of carvers began with the Ti-Shu (carved inscription about authors and their purpose) of stone tablets. Its institutioncan be traced back to the pre-Qin period. It was “Wule Gongming.” Its aim was to examine the works of craftsmen, and to investigate its credibility. The subsequent generations continued its institution; besides, on account of the awakening of carvers’ self-consciousness, the names carved on the products, which was for examinations, gradually became to indicate the quality of products. The Wule Gongming institution existed in the Eastern Han Dynasty, but only few stone carvings had the names of their carvers on them. It could clearly be seen that it was not a general rule. The epitaph of the Tang Dynasty was prevailing, and it became one of the most common stone carvings; thus it was suitable to be the sample of the stone carvings of the Tang Dynasty. This article analyzes sample 106 of the carver’s Ti- Shu of the epitaph of the Tang Dynasty. The results of my research are as follows: As for Ti-Shu at different times, there were the fewest in early Tang Dynasty, and more in middle Tang Dynasty; it significantly increased in late Tang Dynasty. There were four types of Ti-Shu; Ti-Shuwasplaced in the end of an epitaph; the birthplace which was included in Ti-Shuwas often Jun Wang(good family pedigree). Some single epitaph had more than two kinds of carving style, and thus we infer that there was more than one carver. The reason for this might be that the master stone carver would demonstrate how to carve it in advance and apprentices would try to imitate it. Thus, it displayed different styles of skilled masters and novices. Because of time restriction, the bereaved pressed the carvers to finish it quickly and thus the carvers needed more people’s help so as to submit their works in time. According to the distribution of the inscribed words of the epitaph which was carved by more than one carver, we can try to fathom its methods and procedure. Most of the time, the areas which were used to demonstrate carving skills were the four corners of a stone epitaph. We speculate that the carvers did not follow the order of an article, but they carved by virtue of the sign written by the calligrapher, and carved according to the characteristic of the stone and their habit of using their knife so as to increase efficiency. That is, the carvers carved from the four corners of the stone epitaph and gradually moved toward the center so as to save time and effort.