Shuji Funo: Ancient Chinese Capital ModelsーMeasurement System in Urban Planningー, Proceedings of the Japan Academy Series B Physical and Biological Sciences November 2017 Vol.93 No.9, 721ー745. 日本学士院紀要
Ancient
Chinese Capital Models
-Measurement
System in Urban Planning-
By Shuji
Funo[*][1]
（Communicated
by Yoshitika Utida, M.J.A.）
Abstract: Measurement systems are very
important in urban design. This article reviews the theories of grid plans, particularly
with respect to the spatial formations of ancient capital cities in Asia, and clarifies
three Chinese Capital Models. The “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z) is based on the ancient text “Zhōu lǐ” that makes mention of the ideal city. However, because the
description of the physical plan of the city is very brief and includes
contradictory elements, conclusions regarding the specifics of the city design
are extremely difficult to reach. This article proposes the most appropriate Model (Z) as an architype
of the ideal Chinese city. Interestingly, there are no excavated examples of Model
(Z). The two existing models, the Chang'an
Capital Model (C), which is well known as the model for ancient Japanese capitals
like Heiankyo (the present Kyoto) and the Dà Yuán (Dadu) Capital Model (D),
the model for the city that is today Beijing, are described as Variants I and
II, with a focus on the
land division system of bo (street blocks).
Keywords：
urban and architectural planning,
urban tissues, street system, block formation, modular coordination, unit of
measure
Introduction
The city is
as complicated an artifact as language; it represents the combined work of
society and history, and is transformed according to the needs of its citizens.
In the field of urban and architectural planning, the city is seen as composed
of urban tissues (fabrics), which are sets of buildings and open spaces
supported by infrastructure, analogous to an organic body that consists of
genes, cells, internal organs, blood vessels, bones and so on. Based on field
work conducted by the author, a continued analysis of the various urban tissues
of Asian cities is presented here.
This
article takes a general view of city plans based on the grid systems of the
world and focuses on Chinese capitals as examples. The ancient classic “Zhōu lǐ（周礼）”
‘Kaogong ji（考工記）’ （Rites of Zhou, Book
of Diverse Crafts）1 mentions the ideal model of a Chinese
capital, and many scholars have
attempted to draw its model plan. However, no definitive model has emerged, as the
description concerning the physical plan of the city is too brief and includes a
number of contradictory elements. This article evaluates past reconstruction
plans and proposes the most appropriate original model plan.
Builders, along with architects/planners, have, from ancient times,
repeatedly referred to “Zhōu lǐ”
‘Kaogong ji’ as the only text mentioning
the ideal model of a Chinese capital. In the Capital Model, with the palace at the center, “Zhōu lǐ”
describes the fundamental model of the ideal Chinese city. However, no city has
yet been found with a palace at the center and following precisely the city
model given by “Zhōu lǐ”. If we dare list a city that might show at least some resemblance
to such a model, Beijing of the Ming and Qing dynasties is the only possible example.
In terms of the relative location
of the palace within the city, there are actually two classifications of
Chinese capitals: the ‘Center Palace’ type, as described above, and the ‘North
Palace’ type. Chang'an（長安）(presently,
Xi'an西安),
which became the model for ancient Japanese capitals such as Heiankyo (the present
Kyoto（京都）), has its
palace on the north side of the city. The origin of the ‘North
Palace’ type, the complete shape of which we see in Chang'an, dates back to the capital Pingcheng（平城） (398-493) of Bĕiwèi
(北魏, Northern
Wei). This type of plan became the model for Sanggyeong Yongcheonbu（上京龍泉府）, the capital of Balhae（渤海） (756-785/793-926), and two ancient Japanese capitals (Heijokyo（平城京), the present Nara（奈良）, and Heiankyo (平安京)). The author believes that this ‘North Palace’ type of
plan belongs to the tradition of nomads on the northern plateau of Mongol. Kaifeng（開封）, the capital city of the Song（宋） dynasty, followed the ‘Center
Palace’ design formulated by “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong
ji’; Nanjing(南京) and Beijing(北京) followed Kaifeng in succeeding periods, at
least in terms of the position of the palace. Dadu（大都）(Khanbaliq)
(the present Beijing) 2,built by Khubilai Khan (1260-94),
represents another variation, where the bell tower and drum tower were placed
at the center of the city.
This article clarifies the land division system
of the three ancient Chinese capital models— the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z), the Chang’an
Capital Model(C) and the Dà Yuán（大元）（Dadu）Capital Model (D).
1. Grid
Systems in the World
Throughout history, city form and urban
patterns have appeared to be amorphous, disordered and spontaneously generated;
yet architects/planners have often attempted to create the ideal city based on
their own theories. Through careful study, it is possible to infer the process
of urban formation, analyze the best spatial forms, and interpret the meanings
of urban forms that developed over the course of history.1) In this
study, the focus is on grid plans, as this makes it easier to understand the
principles of spatial structure. Historically, the grid (or gridiron or
chessboard) is the most common pattern for planned cities and is universal,
both geographically and chronologically. We can see many examples in the East
and the West, as well as in the past and at present. The grid itself is widely used
as a spatial indexing system when we divide space into a series of contiguous
cells. Among a wide variety of grid systems, architects/planners use square or rectangular grids frequently because they are the simplest in
works of urban planning.
For architects/planners, the unit
of measurement is their most fundamental concern since it is impossible to draw
a meaningful line without a dimensional system. In the contemporary world, we have
generally adopted the metric system. In earlier times, however, various
measurement systems were used, differing from region to region. It is
interesting to note that despite these regional differences, many of the basic
units of length during these earlier times were very similar throughout most of
the world. The reason is that it is (and was) common to use one of the parts of
the human body as a basic unit of length. For example, a foot (0.3048 m)
nearly equals a chi (尺) (0.3333 m)
in China and a shaku (尺) (0.3030 m)
in Japan, while a cubit (coudée, elle, cubitus) in ancient Sumer (0.5172 m)
equals that of Egypt (0.5235～0.5240 m), Rome (0.4440 m) and hasta
(dhanurgraha hasta (0.4800 m), sishu hasta
(0.4260 m)) in India and its neighboring region. 2)
|
Fig.1 Dimensional System in Bali to Decide the
Sizes of Posts and Beams, drawn by Shuji Funo |
In the course of my work, I interviewed a master of
carpenters, called ‘undagi’, on the Island of Bali (Indonesia) to better
understand the building process of traditional houses there. Undagi use the length of various body
parts (i.e., hands, fingers, and elbows) to determine the size of the building
elements (posts, beams, bricks, etc.). The distance between the articulations
of the finger is used to decide the size of the cross section of the posts and
beams, the length of the elbow, that is, a cubit, is used to decide the length
of short members like a diagonal beam, and body length and fathom are used to
decide the size of rooms and the expanse of the compound (Fig. 1). In Bali, the house
compound consists of several buildings, the positions of which inhabitants
decide following the cosmological order, while measuring the distance between
buildings by the length of the foot (Fig. 2).
Fig.2 Dimensional System in Bali to Decide the Layout of Buildings, drawn by Shuji Funo
The Origin
of the Grid System in Europe
The most famous grid city, and one
that is referenced on the first page of nearly every textbook on the history of
urban planning, is Miletus (Fig. 3), along with the name of the architect
Hippodamus (498-408 BCE). Based on the writings of Aristotle, Hippodamus of Miletus is considered
the ‘father’ of urban planning and the originator of the grid plan, commonly called the ‘Hippodamian plan’, although there were many grid plan cities
built before Hippodamus, and it is
widely known that he did not plan the city of Miletus. Planners in Miletus used ‘pes’
as the basic unit of length in dividing the land into individual lots. The area
of a street block, which consisted of six house lots, is 100 pes × 180 pes (six house lots, each of which is 50 pes × 60 pes). The pes used in Miletus is called an Ionian
foot (= 0.294 m); 1/4 pes is a palmus, and 1/4 palmus is a digitus.
3
It is
well known that the Roman Republic planned its colonies, that is, Roman towns,
very systematically, using the grid system. These cities were called ‘Roma
Quadrata’, which indicated a square shaped city divided into four districts by
a ‘cardo’ (vertical trunk road) and a ‘decumanusu’ (horizontal trunk
road), with a forum in the center and four gates in the middle of the four
sides. The Roman foot is also called a pes
and is used in urban planning. In the case of Ticinum
(present-day Pavia, Italy), 4 which was constructed in 89 BCE, the total
area of the city is 1,770 pedes ×
2,910 pedes, with housing lots of 240
pedes × 240 pedes—a unit of area called a heredium
(Fig. 4). One hundred heredia,
that is, 2,400 pedes（≒708 m）× 2,400 pedes is called a ‘centuria’.
Spanish colonial cities are
considered typical examples of cities that used the most integrated grid plan
system, though grid plan cities are seen everywhere, as mentioned above. The
principles of urban planning are prescribed in Indias Law (Ordenanzas de
Descubrimiento, Nuebva Poplación y Pacificación de las Indias, 1573, Phillip II)
and we can draw the ideal city plan as a diagram (Fig. 5) with which there is
little disagreement among academics. We know of the military engineer/governor José de Escandón y Helguera (1700–1770) who planned and constructed 25 cities with
more or less the same plans in the colony of Nuevo
Santander (now the State of Tamaulipas
in Mexico) following Phillip II’s Ordnance (1573).
Because of such excessive standardization, the plans of Spanish colonial cities appear boring. However, we should take note that not all the city plans necessarily followed
|
Fig.3
Reconstruction Site Plan of Miletus by Armin von Gerkan (”Die Stadtmauern”,
1935) Fig.4 Centuriatio: Land Division System in Ancient Rome, Ticinum (Pavia), Source: Tibiletti, G. (1978), “Storie locali dell’ Italia romana”, Pavia. |
 |
|
Fig.5
Ideal City Model based on Law of ‘Indias’, Source: Funo, Shuji & Jimenez Verdejo, Juan Ramon (2013).3) |
Cosmology and City Form in Asia
Turning our eyes to pre-modern Asia,
we can see that there were two types of capital cities in ancient times. The first mirrors
a cosmology that enshrines the seat of royal power or god at its pivot; the
second is not governed by such cosmology.
In
East, South and Southeast Asia there are planning ideologies and classical
literature prescribing the features of the capital cities that are the seat of
a ruling power. However, there are no definite documents embodying the ideal
concept of an Islamic city. 4) It should be especially noted that no
definite common relationship exists among the cities and neighborhoods of such
countries as the cities of Arabian countries and Indonesia, which has the
largest Islamic population in the world. This does not necessarily imply that
the Islamic city has no relation to its cosmology. Although there is no particular
Islamic thought that a city should represent its cosmology, Muslims believe
that the network of Islamic cities centered on Macca (Medina, Jerusalem) forms
the Islamic cosmos.
We can divide that part of Asia
where cosmology
guided the layout of the cities and city life into two regions:
India and its peripheral regions,
and China and its peripheral regions（Fig. 7）.
In India, there have been a number
of books written on the ideal city and its architecture, including Arthasastra and Manasara, which were written
in ancient times. 5) Arthasastra argues for the
prosperity of the nation. Its author, Kautilya, was the Prime Minister of the
famed Chandragupta I of the Maurya
dynasty during the 4th century BCE. His expositions on the ideal form of the
capital city are plainly stated, although his work might have been edited between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd
century CE. R. Shamasastry (1908)6) and R.P. Kangle (1960)7)
translated the ancient document into English. L.N. Rangarajan (1992)8)
later published a new edited translation. This work, the basis of the
reconstruction of the ancient city by P.V. Begde (1978),9) W. Kirk (1978),10) and T. Ohji
(1991),11) proposes an explanation based on the concept of the ‘Mandala’,
which is not only a symbol representing the universe, but is also the spatial
pattern of the configuration of the gods.
Manasara is one of the ‘Silpasastra’, which are books related to general science on the art of city planning, architecture, art and sculpture. Collectively these books constitute the Sanskrit literature on these fields. Manasara is the most complete work of ancient Indian literature on architecture among the ‘Silpasastra’, while other works include Mayamata, Casyapa, and Vayghanasa. In Manasara Silpasastra, ‘mana’ means measurement and ‘sara’ is the essence. Thus, ‘manasara’ is the essence of measurement. According to P.K. Acharya, Manasara was completed during the 6th and 7th centuries in South India. Among the many published research studies on Manasara, the works of P.K. Acharya are considered to be encyclopedic.12)
|
Fig.7 Core Areas and its Periphery of
Ancient Capital Cities in Asia, by Shuji Funo |
The
relationship of the prevailing cosmology and the formation of settlements
provide a broad framework in which to study the diversity of the cities that
results from temporal and spatial particularities. It is interesting that the
ideal form tends to be implemented more completely on the periphery rather than
in the center where the planning idea crystalized. For instance, we see the
ideal form of a Hindu city like Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom in Southeast Asia,
at the eastern end of the Hindu cultural sphere.
One
unique city among the Indian capital cities merits special mention. Cakranegara,
in Indonesia, was constructed as a colonial city of the Hindu-Bali kingdom and appears
to reflect the concepts of ideal Hindu city planning and the traditions of
Hindu society. Cakranegara, in Lombok,5) located east of the Island
of Bali, is a little-known grid-based
city on
which no academic papers had been written before the 2002 publication of a
study done by S. Funo (2002).13) The reconstruction plan is the original
work of the author. One of the most interesting
aspects of the city plan is that the street patterns resemble those of ancient
Japanese cities such as Kyoto. Since it has been established that Kyoto was
planned following the Chang'an Capital Model, the
resemblance of Kyoto to Cakranegara would appear to be among the more exciting
topics to be addressed in discussions of the history of Asian capital cities.
|
Fig.
8 Cakranegara 1942, Land Survey Department of the headquarter of
the Japanese cavalry force (1942, January) |
Focusing on the spatial formation of the city,
it is clear from the map drawn in 1942 (Fig. 8)8 by the Land Survey
Department of the Japanese military headquarters during the Japanese occupation
that Cakranegara exhibited a distinct grid pattern in the layout of its streets
at that time.
 Fig.9 Street System of Cakranegara, Funo, Shuji (2002)11) |
Cakranegara was planned with three hierarchic levels of streets (Fig. 9). The streets are categorized as marga sanga, marga dasa and marga according to their width, with marga sanga being the widest. 9 Sanga is the number 910 and dasa is the number 10. Marga sanga are the two streets that cross through the center of the city.11 These two streets are exactly oriented to the cardinal directions running vertically (north-south) and horizontally (east-west) and divide the city into four quarters. Marga dasa divide these quarters into urban blocks, while marga are the streets that run within the urban blocks.
The measured width of the marga sanga running east-west is ≒36.50 m, and that of the marga
sanga running north-south is ≒45.00 m. The width of individual marga
dasa among the twelve marga dasas
measured varies from 12.86 m to 21.60 m. Given the disparity in the individual
widths, the average value of 17.20 m is not of much significance. However, if
we consider those streets that show a clear grid structure as well as the
remains of old walls, we see that the three levels of the streets of
Cakranegara were planned with widths of approximately 8 m, 18 m and 36 m (and
45 m).
The planned execution of Cakranegara is most
evident from the dimensions of the pekarangan
(house plot).The average length of the plot along the east-west axis is
26.43 m, with individual dimensions ranging from a maximum of 30.44 m to a
minimum of 25.08 m. The average width along the north-south axis is 24.96 m,
with 27.03 m and 21.55 m the maximum and minimum widths, respectively. If we
take the most frequent dimensions and round them off in meters, the east-west plot
dimension is 26 m, while the north-south dimension is 25 m.
According to the elderly residents living in
the center of the city, the planning dimension of a pekarangan was 25 m by 25 m. The measurement instrument used was the
tomba, a rod approximately 2.5 m in
length. Ten tomba equal 25 m. A tagtagan is two tomba, or about 5 m. Further inquiries
revealed that a pekarangan was a square
plot with an area of six or eight are
(600 m2 or 800 m2). However, measurements show that the
plots were not exact squares as the elderly residents believed them to be. Nevertheless,
if the tomba was used as a measuring
rod, it would make sense that the plots were in fact square. At any rate, it is
certain that a standard fixed dimension was used to mark the housing plots. According
to the measurement data above, the area of the pekarangan averaged 26.43 m × 24.96 m (659.69 m2) or
approximately 25 m × 26 m (650 m2), which is generally in accordance
with what the elderly residents told us.
The urban block enclosed by the marga dasa is divided into four smaller
strips of blocks crossed longitudinally by margas.
Each strip of block is then divided in a back-to-back manner giving 10 housing
plots on either side, or 20 plots in the strip block. If we take the measure of
a tomba as 2.5 m, the width of the
plot in the north-south direction is 10 tomba,
or 25 m. Further, the length of the block enclosed by the marga dasa would be 10 times the width of the housing plot, or 250
m. The meaning of dasa in Sasak is 10,
and it seems that the meaning is derived from this standard of 10 used in the
measurement employed in planning the divisions of the urban blocks. The width
of the block along the east-west axis is the plot length 26 m × 2 × 4 + the
width of the marga, 8 m × 3 = 232 m.
If we add to this length the width of the marga
dasa, which is 18 m, the width of the urban block measured from center to
center of the marga dasa becomes 250
m. Thus, it can be considered that the planned dimension of the urban block is
a square of 250 m × 250 m. In this module, the north-south dimension is the
inner clear dimension of the block, while the east-west is a center-to-center
measurement. In any event, it is clear that architects/planners used a modular
system of 10 × 10 and 100 × 100, with the tomba
as the basic unit of measurement, in planning the housing plot and the urban
block.
Observation
of street patterns and analysis of planning dimensions indicate that the block
enclosed by the marga dasa is the
unit of a residential neighborhood. Another basis for this assumption is that
the marga dasa defines the boundary
of the present spatial unit, the karang.12
According
to the elderly residents, the basic neighborhood unit is made up of two groups
of 10 dwelling plots, each lining either side of the marga running north-south and facing each other. This cluster of 20
plots arranged along the two sides of the marga
comprises the basic unit known as a marga.
Two marga make up a unit called a kriang. In Bali, kriang is the title of the chief of a community unit, or ‘banjar’. Further, two kriang comprise 80 dwelling plots, and
make up a neighborhood district known as a karang.
An interesting fact here is that this street block formation resembles that of
Heiankyo (presently, Kyoto), which was established following the Ancient Chinese
Capital Model (C).
2 “Zhōu lǐ”
Capital Model - Archetype of the Chinese Ideal
City
“Zhōu lǐ”, which describes the ideal administrative
system of kingdoms, is commonly
said to have been written by Dan, Duke Wen of Zhou (周公旦), who
was a member of the royal family of the Zhou
(周) dynasty. It is also said that Emperors of
subsequent dynasties tried to follow “Zhōu lǐ”. Many scholars have reconstructed the ideal
capital city plans according to “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong ji’. However, because the book’s sentences relating
to city planning, street pattern, block formation, and so on are relatively
short (less than 7,000 Chinese characters), a number of different diagrams have
been drawn over time. Complicating matters is the fact that there are
inconsistencies in the contents of the text.
‘Kaogong ji’ jiang ren ying guo
“Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong ji’ contains three paragraphs referring to ‘shu
jing’ (匠人master builder or planner/architect) but the most important paragraph is
the Si shu jing zhu ji zheng (匠人営国) paragraph; the paragraph most frequently referred to includes the
features described below. Here the author cites essential parts of the relevant
text, while omitting others for detailed analysis. Li (里) is a unit of length
and ki（軌）is the width of carriages,
i.e., the breadth between wheels, which is estimated to be about eight feet.
匠人営国Jiang
ren ying guo: Master builder who constructs the city.
方九里fang
jiu li: 9 li × 9 li square.
旁三門pang
san men: Sides with three gates.
国中九経九緯Guo
zhong jiu jing jiu wei: Nine vertical streets and
nine horizontal streets within the city.
経塗九軌jing tu
jiu gui: The width of the vertical axes is 9 ki (wheels).
左祖右社Zuo zu
you she: Ancestral shrine (Mausoleum) to the left, divine
worship (Soil & Grain
platform) to the right.
面朝後（后）市13qian
chao hou shi: Imperial Court in front (of Imperial Palace), markets at the back.
市朝一夫14shi
chao yi fu: Size of palace and market 1 li × 1 li.
Contradictions inherent in ‘Kaogong ji’
|
Fig.10 Reconstruction Diagram of “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model, Sān lǐ tú |
Many
rulers and their architects/planners15 attempted to construct
the ideal city from the description of ‘Kaogong ji’ as a means of expressing their legitimacy. Confucian
scholars proposed plans in a number of different manners, perhaps the most representative
one being Sān lǐ tú (三礼図), which was drawn
during the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE) (Fig. 10).The first thing we notice in the
diagram is that one street has three lanes. This might be an attempt to interpret
the idea of integrating ‘three gates on one side and nine lanes’ with ‘nine vertical
streets and nine horizontal streets within the city’ mentioned in the text. The
author, however, considers this interpretation to be rather unnatural.
The basic problem is the inconsistency between ‘Square：9 li ×9 li’ and ‘Sides with three gates’. If we follow the primary rule of ‘sides with three gates’, the entire city is divided into 4 × 4 ＝16 blocks. However, it is more reasonable that the area is divided into 9 × 9 = 81 blocks based on the ‘ 1 li × li’ unit area, as the size of a square li （equal to 300 bu × 300 bu）is a basic unit of area in the ancient system of land division called ‘jǐngtián zhì （井田制）’.
The basic problem is the inconsistency between ‘Square：9 li ×9 li’ and ‘Sides with three gates’. If we follow the primary rule of ‘sides with three gates’, the entire city is divided into 4 × 4 ＝16 blocks. However, it is more reasonable that the area is divided into 9 × 9 = 81 blocks based on the ‘ 1 li × li’ unit area, as the size of a square li （equal to 300 bu × 300 bu）is a basic unit of area in the ancient system of land division called ‘jǐngtián zhì （井田制）’.
Fig.12 “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model A, He Ye Ju (1985)12)
If we suppose that the city has nine vertical streets and nine horizontal streets, excluding the two streets (ring roads) running along the city wall (that is, if the two ring roads are not counted among the nine), then the city area is actually divided into 10×10 = 100 blocks. If we include the number of ring roads (i.e., two) in the nine, then the entire city is divided into 8 × 8 = 64 blocks. Thus, if we follow the 9 li × 9 li division, the city has eight vertical streets and eight horizontal streets, excluding the ring roads, or 10 vertical streets and 10 horizontal streets, if we include the ring roads.
Fig.13 “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model B, Wang
Shi Ren (2000)13) |
Fig.14 “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model C, Zheng Ring (2010)14)
In the
latter case (9 × 9 division), it
is not possible to lay out the gates at regular intervals. It is necessary to
divide one side into four equal segments in order to lay out gates at the same
interval. The crucial question, then, is which feature should we take as the first
priority, the 8 × 8 ＝64 division or the 9 × 9 = 81 division?
To solve this inconsistency, a 12 × 12 division model based
on a common multiple of four is convenient. We know the architects/planners who
designed Amarapura and Mandalay in Myanmar in the mid-19th century used
a fundamental grid with 12 × 12 cells (Fig. 11). It may be that they were also worried
about inconsistency among the features and found the same solution.
Chinese
scholars interested in ancient urban planning continue to propose
reconstruction models based on “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong
ji’. The most noteworthy among recent efforts is
the ‘Model A’ proposed by He Ye Ju（賀業鉅）
(1985),14) which restores a detailed plan of the blocks (Fig. 12).
He Ye Ju adopts the 9 × 9 = 81 division system as his basic grid. In this case, it is impossible to allocate all the gates on the grid line at the same interval. As seems proper, the main gate is located at the center of each side; He Ye Ju then places the other two gates at the middle points between the center and the end of the side. He considers his model to be consistent with the nine vertical streets and nine horizontal streets system that includes the wall streets. The problem is that his model generates a new block type of 300 bu × 450 bu in addition to the unit block (300 bu × 300 bu), although two types of blocks may be acceptable since Chang'an actually has five different types of blocks. In his reconstruction of a detailed block plan, He Ye Ju references other historical documents besides “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong ji’.
 Fig.15 “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model F  |
“Zhōu lǐ”
Capital Model
One can thus conclude that reconstruction
plans differ depending on what elements or rules are regarded as most important,
as reviewed in the theories described above. I raise here one more model (Model F) (Fig. 15) that shows no apparent inconsistency with “Zhōu lǐ”.
Model F essentially follows the architects/planners of Amarapura and Mandalay
and represents a compromise between Models A, B, and C. Its essential
characteristics can be summarized as follows:
a.
Model F follows ‘square 9 li (方九里）’
and a 1 li (300 bu × 300 bu) grid.
b. Model F follows
‘sides with three gates (旁三門)’as
well as Model B, which is based
on a nine square (3 × 3＝9) plan, with one of the gates placed at the center of the block.
c. Model F follows ‘nine vertical streets and nine
horizontal streets within the city (国中九経九緯)’ without the wall streets. Each block (1/9) has three vertical
streets and three horizontal streets. The streets running by the sides of the
central block are included among the nine streets.
d. Each block is divided into 16 = 4 × 4 bo; that is, the block consists of four bo (450 bu × 450 bu) divided into four sub blocks.
e. A bo (450 bu × 450 bu) is divided into a 10 × 10 grid; that
is, one bo square block consists of
100 (10 × 10) lots making each lot 45 bu
× 45 bu.
f. Model F follows Model
B in that it has the mausoleum on the left hand side and the soil & grain platform
on the right (左祖右社).
Likewise, the Imperial Court is in front of the emperor’s palace and the market
behind it (面朝後市).
g. Model F follows Model
A with respect to the spatial formation of the palace.
The Bo（坊）model
is proposed here, which is useful for comparing Model F with the Chang’an
Capital model and the Dadu Capital model. Mu
(畝
100 mu = 100 bu (歩)
× 100 bu) has been used as a unit of
area measure in China from ancient times. Under the ancient well-field system(井田制),
900 mu equals a square li (300 bu); however, 450 bu × 450
bu is used as a unit of bo in ‘Model F’（Fig.
15）.
The premises are as follows:
h. An area of 100 bu × 100 bu = 100 mu is used as a
unit of area.
i. The width of a street 9 ki (wheel) wide is 72 shakus (feet) and that of a wall street
is 7 ki = 56 shakus, following 1 ki ＝ 8 shakus. It is assumed that
56 shakus ＝ 9.33 bu + the thickness of
the wall equals 12 bu.
j. A bo is divided into 4 and 16 sub areas by crossroads, the width of each
being 12 bu. A square unit will be
213 bu × 213 bu or 105 bu × 105 bu.
k. A square of 105 bu × 105 bu might be divided in several ways. If we assume the width of the crossroad
is 5 bu, the area of a sub district
will be 50 bu × 50 bu ＝25 mu, and total area will be just 100 mu. The total area of a bo consists
of 16 sub districts that will be 400 mu ×
4 = 1,600 mu.
The detailed
division and land division system described above demonstrate that the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model F follows a consistent system and logic, so I believe
that no additional discussion of the “Zhōu li” Capital Model will be needed. “Zhōu lǐ”
Capital Model F will be re-named as the Chinese
Capital Model（Z） as an archetype later in this paper.
3 Chang'an
Capital Model
Chang'an, the capital of the Suí (隋) and Táng (唐) dynasties, whose
population of roughly one million was comparable to that of Bagdad at its zenith
in the 7th century, is quite famous. However, while we know much about
its history and space formation, there are still many riddles left to solve.
Chang'an is unique in the history of city
planning. The genius Yǔ wén Kǎi (宇文凱)（555-612 CE） planned the city as the
ideal land of Buddha as ordered by the Emperor Wen(文帝). How he decided the
size and space formation of the capital is our concern here, and we have
already several reconstruction plans based on archaeological surveys. The one (Chang’an Capital Model A)
reconstructed by the Japanese scholar Takeo Hiraoka（平岡武夫）(1956)17) appears
to be generally accepted by Chinese scholars, but it is not considered to be
the final one. I will propose what I consider the most feasible plan next.
The measurements given by the
authority of archaeological surveys in China records the size of Chang'an as follows: the east-west width = 9,721
m（6,617.43
bu ＝ 3,3087.1 syaku) ; the north-south width = 8,651.7
m (5,885.51 bu ＝29,447.6 shaku）. Fu Xi Nian (傳熹年)（2001）18) shows
the measure of parts and the proportional relationships between the segments of
the two sides (Fig. 17).
The
Basic Grid－A Primary Division
The
reconstruction plan of Fu Xi Nian16)
shows firstly that the width of the districts next to the Imperial Palace on both
sides is the same (B) and that the length of the southern district below the
Imperial Palace is one and half times the width (B). The first clue is the size
of the Imperial Palace. One old document mentioned the width (east-west)（A）as 5 li 115 bu (1,915 bu) and the
length (south-north)(B) as 3 li 140 bu (2,210 bu). The actual measurements are A = 2,820.3 m = 1918.6 bu and B = 3,335.7 m ＝2,269.2 bu. Furthermore, the south-north length
of the Inner Palace is 1,492.1 m ＝1,015.0 bu. The numerical values differ with the
measuring points. One reason for this is likely derived from the margin of
error in construction, but whether the planner used a single grid system or a double
grid system, and what unit of measurement the planners/architects used, are
essential elements.
We should at least distinguish the size of a block and the width of the streets separately. Actual measurements are rather uneven, so we can only guess that Yǔ Wén Kǎi decided firstly on the sizes of the larger proportions of the city—the sizes of the Imperial palace, markets, major streets and so on—following a single grid system.
|
Fig.17 Chang’an An actual measurement
and proportion, Fu xi nian（2001）16) |
It can be confirmed that Yǔ Wén Kǎi uses simple numbers like 1,000
bu, 2,000 bu，750 bu , 500 bu and 250 bu（Fig. 18）. The reasoning above is very simple and convincing,
but the problem is that the total south-north length is shorter than the actual
measurement. The calculated measure is 2,250 bu ＋3,375 bu ＝5,625 bu, which is 164.52 bu shorter than the measured value of 5889.52 bu.
The
second clue comes from the following sequence of construction steps as
clarified by Japanese historian Tatsuhiko Seo (2001),19) who based
his conclusions on old documents. The description is widely accepted by the
academic society of Chinese history.
a. First, the position
of the Inner Palace and central axis was decided.
b. Second, the walled
forbidden garden and Imperial Court were constructed.
c.
Third, six trunk streets (六道) that connect the gates
were constructed. Three vertical trunk streets run on the central axis and on
both sides of the Imperial Palace. Three horizontal trunk streets run through the
center of the Imperial Palace, along the southern side of the Imperial Court
and through the center of southern outer block.
d.
Fourth, nine vertical streets and 12 east-west streets (六道), including six trunk
streets, were constructed.
e. Finally, the outer
walls were constructed.
To
sum up, the basic principles of the reconstruction described above are as
follows:
i.
Very simple multiples of bu such as
1,000 bu, 2,000 (2 × 1,000) bu, 500 (1/2 × 1,000) bu, 250 (1/4 × 1,000) bu, and 750 (3/4 × 1,000) bu are used as the unit of measure.
The size of the palace（2000 bu × 1000 bu）and the location was
decided first (a), then the Imperial Court (2000 bu × 1250 bu) was
constructed (b). The unit of measurement is 250 bu.
ii. The city consists of two sectors, the north block, including the Imperial Palace, and the south block, which includes the east and west markets (b). The size of the upper part of the bo street blocks next to the palace and Imperial Court is a planned square (1250 bu × 1250 bu).
|
Fig.18
Basic Grid for planning Chang’an, Funo,
Shuji (2015)19) |
Fig.19 The Amended Plan of Chang’an according to Archeological data, Wang Hui (2008)18)
iii. Six trunk streets divide the city into 12 (16 - 4) different districts (c). Three horizontal trunk streets and three vertical trunk streets divide the capital into 16 districts, but the palace and Imperial Court occupy four districts. The districts are divided into five bo street blocks, as the same bo size is symmetrically allocated. The street blocks (bo) are 5, 500 bu × 750 bu（A），625 bu × 750 bu（B），375 bu × 750 bu（C），375 bu × 550 bu（D）, and 375 bu × 450 bu（E）.
Fig.20 Chang’an Capital Model B; Chang’an Capital Model A revised by Shuji Funo, Funo, Shuji (2015)19)
|
Street System and Street Width
There is also a reconstruction plan proposed by Wang Hui（王暉）（2008）20) based on Fu Xi Nian（2001）(Fig. 18).21) It is a revision of the plan established by Takeo Hiraoka’s generally accepted Plan of Chang’an (Chang’an Capital Model A). Wang Hui presumes that the 47 bu width of the vertical streets is unnatural. However, the south-north length in the revised plan is shorter than the actual survey plan. Therefore, Wang Hui made an additional amendment to his revised plan (Fig. 19). Nevertheless, it is clear that his plan is different from the original plan. The widths of the streets vary because he tries to fit the data to that of the archaeological survey. If I were to revise the reconstruction plan proposed by Wang Hui, I would assume the width of an east-west street to be 50 bu (rather than 40 bu), except for the trunk street (100 bu). In this way, we can arrive at a very systematical reconstruction plan (Chang’an Capital Model B) (Fig. 20).
|
Fig.21 Chang’an
Capital Model F, Shuji Funo, Funo, Shuji (2015)19) |
We thus reject the Chang’an Capital Model B and propose a far more consistent
reconstruction plan (Chang’an Capital Model F)（Fig. 21）with the following
properties:
a. The breadth of the trunk
street is 100 bu.
|
Fig.23 5
Types of Bo: Block Division System, Funo, Shuji (2015)19) |
c. The size of the bo adjoining the Inner Palace is 450 bu × 700 bu and that of the bo adjoining the
Imperial Court is 550 bu × 700 bu.
d. The width of all south-north streets is set at a
measure that is a half the width of the trunk street, which is 50
bu. The east-west lengths of the large blocks just
below the Imperial Court are divided into four bo: 100 bu＋475 bu＋50 bu＋375 bu＋100 bu＋375 bu＋50 bu＋475 bu＋100 bu.
e.
The breadth of the east-west minor streets below the Imperial Palace is 25 bu.
The bo just south of the Imperial
Court will be 350 bu × 475 bu and 350 bu × 375 bu. Bo located southeast
and southwest will be 350 bu × 700 bu.
The only ambiguous element in this Chang’an Capital Model F is the distance between the Imperial Court
and the bo area; that is, the width
of the main horizontal street. If the width of the main street is precisely 100
bu，it is necessary to move
the line from the basic line (α ＝37.5 bu，β ＝75 bu). However, gap γ is still left at the south end（γ ＝ 97.5 bu ＋50 bu）。
Land
Division of Bo
(Street Block)
The
division of bo into sub blocks and
house lots can be demonstrated with an example. Consider a bo of size 375 bu × 750 bu. This is generally the most common bo. We can easily hypothesize that the
unit of area is based on a unit of 1 li
(360 bu) × 1 li (360 bu) = 1 fu (夫). Considering the width
of a street and the size of the basic grid to be 375 bu × 750 bu, the area of
a bo might be 1 li (360 bu) south-north ×
2 li (720 bu) east-west. If we hypothesize that the widths of streets are 30 bu (south-north) and 15 bu (east-west), the size of a bo, the 375 bu × 750 bu is clearly
reasonable.
The area of a bo
unit is a square of 360 bu × 360 bu; 1 mu = 240 square bu. It is supposed that the pattern of bo
division varied, but according to old documents, a 4 × 4 ＝16 division and a 4 × 3＝12 division by crossroads were often
used. The shape of a house lot, the size of which is 1 mu = 240 square bu, is
also assumed to vary—for example, 4 bu ×
60 bu, 8 bu × 30 bu, 12 bu × 20 bu, 15 bu × 16 bu, and so on. The most square- like
shape of 15 bu × 16 bu division might have been used most
commonly.
The bo adjacent to the Imperial Palace consisted of four and 16 sub street
blocks, while the bo below the
Imperial Palace consisted of two and six sub blocks.
It is now possible to show the most feasible bo model (Fig. 22). Taking the thickness of the bo
wall into account, a bo (360 bu × 360 bu) is reduced to 340 bu × 340bu, which is divided into four sections by
crossroads (width = 10 bu) and 16
sub-blocks (80 bu × 80 bu). One-sixteenth of a bo ＝25 mu（5 × 5），1/4 bo ＝100 mu，so a bo ＝400 mu. The smallest unit bo (360 bu × 360 bu) consists of four street
blocks (100 mu). The basic unit of area
measure is based on the 1 mu = 240 bu × 1bu system. Other types of bo can be divided in the same way. Fig. 23 shows all five types
of bo.
Later
in this paper, the Chang’an Capital Model F will be re-named the
Chinese Capital Model（C）, as
Variant I.
4 Dà Yuán（Dadu） Capital Model
Dadu or Khanbaliq16) (present-day Beijing, the capital of China) was originally built as the capital of Dà Yuán (Yehe Yuan) Ulus (Yuan dynasty), the Mongol Empire founded by Kublai Khan. In 1264, Kublai Khan ordered his chief architect/planner, Liu Bingzhong (劉秉忠), to design the city. Liu’s student, Guo Shoujing（郭守敬）, Muslim Ikhtiyar al-din（他黒迭児）, and many talented others participated in constructing Dadu. The main Imperial Palace was built from 1274 onwards. Following the establishment of the Yuan dynasty in 1271, Kublai Khan proclaimed the city as his capital under the name Dadu, although construction was not completed until 1293.
|
Fig.24a Plan of Dadu in Yuan Dynasty, Fig. 24b Plan of Beijing in Ming Dynasty Source: Fu Xi Nian （2001）16) |
People in general believe that the design of Dadu followed several of the rules laid down in “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong ji’, such as "nine vertical and horizontal axes", "palaces in front, markets at the back", "ancestral worship to the left, and divine worship to the right." This belief is challenged below.
|
Fig.25 Basic Grid of Dadu, Funo, Shuji (2015)19) |
Planning
Principles—Basic Grid
Fu Xi Nian（2001）16) analyzed the measurement data reported by the archaeological
survey authorities and proposed his hypothesis regarding the planning of Dadu（Fig. 24a,b）. He suggests that Dadu was planned using the size of the palace
as a reference. He insists that the east-west length of Dadu city (6,672 m)
equals 9 × A (A = the east-west length of palace), that the south-north length =
5× B (B = the south-north length of the palace), and that 5 × B ＝ 4 × C, where C = the distance between
gates. This kind of proportional relationship gives us hints to reveal the
modular coordination.
The actual measure of horizontal length is 6,673.419 m, which converts to
18 li (4,320 bu; 1 li = 240 bu). 17 A = 480 bu. Vertical length varies from 7,521.80 m～7,651.17 m, which converts to 19.83～20.18 li. Therefore,
we can suppose that the planned measure is 20 li (20 li × 240 bu ＝4,800 bu) and
easily establish that a very simple grid system based on a square of size 480 bu × 480 bu was used (Fig. 25).
In
addition, we find that the drum tower is located at the center of the capital, reflecting
the idea that it was very important for the ruler to control the time system. The
bell tower was also located on the vertical axis at the center. The distance
between the two towers is 193.76 m ＝125.82 bu. Moreover,
all the gates are on the grid line and the intervals between gates are the same
5:5:5:5 li
for the east and west walls, 4:5:5:4 li
for the south wall, and 6:6:6 li for the
north wall. Therefore, there is no doubt regarding the simplicity of the plan in
its use of the 480 bu grid system.
In reality, the vertical axis of the center was
moved 129 m＝83.77 bu westward from the central axis of the palace because the ground was
so soft that the east wall had to be moved inward. The drum tower and bell tower
were moved to the present place, on the central axis of the palace, during the Ming
dynasty.
Old documents state that the ‘width of the large streets is 24 bu and that of the small streets is 12 bu’, the ‘breadth of a hutong (lane) is six bu’, and that ‘the largest area of house lots is limited to less than eight mu’. Since 1 mu ＝240 square bu ＝240 bu × 1 bu = 240 × 1.58 m（1.54 m）× 1.58 m（1.54 m）＝ 599.14（569.18）m2, then 8 mu = 4,793.09（4,553.47）m2.
|
Fig.26 Street System of Dadu, Funo, Shuji (2015)19) |
As the width of a hutong is six bu, the south-north length of a house block will be 44 bu (69.52 (67.76) m). Though the length of 44 bu may initially appear meaningless, a crucial hint to solve the numerical system emerges when ones notes that the east-west length of a Eight mu is the upper limit of land, so an area of 8 mu was divided into smaller lots. In fact, land of this size was usually divided into 8 or 10 lots. If it is divided into 10 lots, a housing block will consist of 100 (10 × 10) house lots. This establishes that the space formation of street blocks is based on a simple land division system (Fig. 27).
Fig.27 Block System of Dadu, Funo, Shuji (2015)19) |
hutong
is about 440 bu (695.2（677.6）m).
If 8 mu（4,553.47
m2）is
divided by 44 bu (67.76 m), the
result is 67.20 m，which
nearly equals 44（67.20
÷ 1.54 ＝
43.64）bu.
Furthermore, the square root of 8 mu ＝
240 bu × 8 ＝1,920
bu is 43.82 bu, and 44 bu × 44 bu = 8 mu, which is the unit of land for distribution. The area of a house
block is 44 bu × 44 bu = 80 mu, or 10 land lots (44 bu
× 44 bu) (Fig. 26).
The
Idea of the Plan of Dadu
Where
did the idea of the Dadu capital plan come from? What kinds of planning
principles did the architects/planners follow? The previous summer, they had also
planned and constructed Xanadu (Shangdu （上都）), though a discussion of the idea and
method of their urban planning is left for another paper.
I consider the Dadu plan to be the third
model (Chinese Capital Model D), different from both the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model
(Chinese Capital Model (Z)) and the Chang’an Capital Model (Chinese Capital
Model (C)). Below is an attempt to compare the Dadu Capital Model (D) with the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital
Model (Z):
a.
‘Square 9 li × 9 li’: D does not follow Z:
The horizontal length is 18 li and
vertical length is 20 li (1 li = 240 bu). However, a simple numerical system is followed.
b.
‘Sides with three gates’：D basically follows Z, the
but north side lacks one gate.
c.
‘Nine vertical and horizontal axes within the city’: D basically follows Z, but
it is difficult to determine whether this idea was in the planners’ minds. A simple
480 bu × 480 bu grid was adopted.
d.
‘The width of vertical axes is nine ki
(wheels) wide’: It is difficult to judge whether D follows Z, but 40 bu for large streets and 6 bu for hutong were decided first.
e. ‘Ancestral worship
(Mausoleum) to the left, divine worship (Soil & Grain platform) to the
right’: D clearly follows Z. It seems to follow “Zhōu lǐ”
and ‘Kaogong ji’ faithfully; that is, in the east and the west the layout is different
from the layout in front of palace, as in Nanjing and Beijing during the Ming
dynasty.
vi)
‘Imperial Court at front, markets at back’: The court is in front of the emperor’s
palace and the market is behind it’: D follows Z.
f.
‘Size of palace and market is 100bu × 100bu’: It is not clear whether D follows Z.
It can be said that the Dadu
plan basically follows “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong
ji’. However, the
Dadu Capital Model (D)
is different from the “Zhōu
lǐ” Capital Model (Z) and the Chang’an Capital Model (C) in that in the
center of Dadu is the drum tower rather than the palace; the palace here is in
the southern part of the capital.
Beijing
The last Yuan emperor fled north to
Xanadu while the Ming razed the palaces of their capital to the ground. The capital of the Ming dynasty was then laid
at Nanjing, which was constructed following the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z). Later, the third emperor of the Ming dynasty moved
his capital north to the ruins at Dadu. He contracted the northern area of the
Mongol city and added a new and separately walled district in the south. The initial
plan was to enclose the capital threefold, but the plan was never completed for
financial reasons. As a result, Beijing remains the most suitable exemplar of a
Chinese capital following the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z).
Summary
Although it can be extremely
difficult to understand and interpret logically how urban tissues are formed,
architects/planners do, in fact, make plans to construct buildings and cities according
to persuasive theories. One of the most important matters for architects/planners
is the unit of measurement.
This article seeks to leave for the
record the following observations, principles and theories:
1. Various measurement systems have been used
in different regions of the world; however, basic units of length are very
similar all over the world, as the length of some part of the human body has commonly
been used to define the fundamental unit of length.
2. Grid systems are universal both
geographically and chronologically. We can see many examples in the East and
the West, in the past and at present.
3. On the other hand, cosmological
order is considered to be one of the principle factors for urban planning in the
pre-modern world. There are essentially two types of cities: The
first mirrors a cosmology that enshrines the seat of royal power at its pivot;
the second is not governed by such cosmology. We
can divide Asia into two regions— one where the cosmology guided the building of these cities
and city life, as in India and its
peripheral regions; the other is China and its peripheral regions. It is basic theory
that we find the ideal form or older form in the periphery rather than in the
center where the planning idea crystalized.
Cakranegara, in Lombok, is a very interesting Hindu city whose planning
principles were clarified by the author for the first time in earlier
publications.
4. As
for Chinese Capital Models, this paper examines three models (Z, C, D): the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital
Model (Z: Architype), the Chang'an
Capital Model (C: Variant I), and the Dadu Capital Model (D: Variant II), all
of which are original.
The author believes that “Zhōu lǐ” was written
during the period from the late Western Han dynasty (前漢)(206
BCE-8 CE) to the early Eastern Han dynasty（後漢）(25-220 CE）and that the “Zhōu lǐ”
Capital Model (Z), with palace in the center, was authorized along with the
establishment of the Confucian state. Although the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z) continued
to be the ideal for successive emperors, a model completely following “Zhōu lǐ” ‘Kaogong ji’ was
never realized for various reasons. Some Japanese scholars assert that Great
Fujiwara Kyo（藤原京）in
ancient Japan followed the “Zhōu lǐ” Capital Model (Z). The Chang'an
Capital Model (C), with palace in the north and a north-south axis, was formalized
by Xianbei Tuoba, a nomadic
tribe, during the periods from the Three Kingdoms (Wei魏、Wu呉、Shu蜀) (220–280 CE) to Sui and
Tang(206 BCE～8 CE), in
place of the “Zhōu
lǐ” Capital Model (Z), as Variant I. The Yamato
Imperial Court imported the Chang'an
Capital Model (C). The Dà
Yuán (Dadu) Capital Model (D), with bell tower in the center, was
constructed by Mongols in the 13th century as Variant II. The Min
dynasty established by the Han transformed Dadu into Beijing according to the Zhōu lǐ” Capital
Model (Z).
This paper clarifies the Bo (Street Block) Model of the three
Chinese Capital Models based on an analysis of the measurement system. Although
the author uses only very elementary mathematics related to modular
coordinations, he would like to believe that his proposals throw one pebble in
the pond of historical riddles to be solved. My book, “Dà Yuán City,” translated
into Chinese, is on schedule for publication in China. It is my hope that my theories
will be widely accepted, especially in China, in the near future.
Acknowledgements
The
studies on which this paper is based were conducted in collaboration with many
young researchers whose names are too numerous be listed here. I am grateful to
all of my collaborators, especially
to Professor Mohan Moorti Pant, who is coauthor of “Stupa and Swastika”(Kyoto
University Press and Singapore National University Press, 2007).
End
Note
1
The
Rites of
Zhou, originally known as "Officers of Zhou" (周官;
Zhouguan), is actually a work on bureaucracy and organizational theory.
It was renamed by Liu Xinto to differentiate it from a chapter in the Book of
History by the same name. Such
purely administrative texts are usually referred to as Legalist, but the text's
governmental model is one of co-governance, with the ruler's family holding in
hand a particularly aristocratic-bureaucratic state, as opposed to the
absolutist administration of Han Fei. To replace a lost work, it was included
along with the Book of Rites and Book of Etiquette and Ceremony– becoming one
of three ancient ritual texts (the "Three Rites") listed among the
classics of Confucianism.
2
I
published a book titled “Dà Yuán City: The Idea and Spatial Structure of
Chinese Capital Cities” in 201519), discussing the subjects in
detail. This article
summarizes the essence of the book.
3
In ancient Greece, various units of
length were used: pes is 0.327～0.328 m in c.5c. BCE 0.295～0.297 m after Solon, 0.312 m in the
northwest of Greece, 0.296 m in Attica, 0.326～0.328 m in Doris, and 0.350 m in Samos.
4
F.Blume, K.Lachmann and A. Rudorf (1848, 1852),
“Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesse,” I, II.
5
Lombok
Island is attractive in several ways. The well-known Wallace Line, which runs
between Bali and Lombok Island, marks the boundary of the Australian and Asian
biogeographic areas. Bali has the marine climate of the east Pacific, while
Lombok belongs to the Australian climatic zone. Lombok is also interesting in
terms of religion. Most Balinese are Hindu, although more than 80 per cent of
the population in Indonesia is Muslim. Islam is the predominant religion on
Lombok, but Balinese Hinduism has had a strong influence in the western part of
the island. The peaceful coexistence of Hindu and Muslim people on this small
island is worthy of investigation.
6
In the esoteric Indian concept of the
psychic energy of the human body, energy is concentrated on, and channeled from,
the nodes located at certain stations of Susumna nadi— the spinal cord of the
body. These nodes are known as cakra.
7
Nagara-Kertagama is an ancient chronicle of the14th
century Javanese kingdom of Majapahit, which was written on coconut leaves. It
is preserved in the Leiden University Library. It is significant that J.
Brandes, a linguist, discovered the chronicle in the palace of Cakranegara on Nov.
18, 1894. Th. G. Pigeaud, (1960) translated and explained this work in five volumes.
8
This map was produced by the Land Survey
Department of the headquarter of the Japanese cavalry force (January 1942). The
map is based on the work done by Holland. There are six sheets of map that
cover the area from Ampenan to Cakranagara.
9
Information from Ide Bagus Alit, a senior
(Pengusap) of Cakranegara. Marga
means ‘street’ and is a Sanskrit word. Marga
is used for street and is a community unit in cities like Jaipur in India.
10
In Bali, there exists a concept known as nawa sanga regarding spatial
orientation, which is a system of four cardinal and four intermediate
directions with a center.
11
The street running north-south is called Jalan Sri Jasanudin; that running east-west
is called Jalan Selaparang. Cakranegara is situated at latitude 8 degrees south
of the equator, and the setting of the sun was observed with the course of the sun
along the path of the east-west street during the time of our field survey in
the month of September.
12 Personal
statements from elderly residents and relevant literature indicate that a karang was a community unit related to
the ritual ceremonies of Cakranegara.
13
As for this phrase, we have two other
interpretations: one is political affairs in the morning and market matters in
the afternoon; the other means the Emperor is in charge of political affairs
and the Empress is in charge of market matters.
14
Fu夫
is another unit of area and equals 300 bu ×
300 bu.
15
Architects/planners
in ancient China were bureaucrats specialized in architectural design who belonged
to the building board under the emperor.
16
The
name Khanbaliq comes from the Mongolian and Uyghur words khan and
balik ("town," "permanent settlement"), so it
translates to "City of the Khan".
17 No ruler
used in the Yuan dynasty has been excavated thus far; scholars think rulers
from the Sòng dynasty were used. However, rulers varied region by region and
according to the times. I use basically chi
(尺) ＝ 316
mm in this paper, but many Chinese scholars use 308 mm, so I take 308 mm into
account in checking the measurement. 1 bu
＝1.58（1.54）m，1 li ＝240 bu ＝ 379.2（369.6）m.
References
1)
Kostof, S.（1991）The City
Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through History. Thames and Hudson, London.
2) Funo,
S. and Pant, M.M. (2007) Stupa and Swastika. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto
& Singapore National University Press, Singapore.
3) Funo, S. and Jimenez Verdejo, J.R. (2013) The
Grid City The Origin, Formation & Transformation of Spanish Colonial
Cities. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto (in Japanese, 布野修司・ヒメネス・ベルデホ，ホアン・ラモン（2013）グリッド都市－スペイン植民都市の起源，形成，変容，転生，京都大学学術出版会).
4) Funo,
Shuji and Yamane, Shu (2008) Mughal Cities Spatial Transformation of Islam
Cities. Kyoto University Press（in Japanese 布野修司＋山根周（2008）『ムガル都市--イスラーム都市の空間変容』京都大学学術出版会）.
5) Funo, Shuji (2006), “The City
as Mandala Spatial Formation and Transformation of Hindu Cities”, Kyoto
University Press (in Japanese 布野修司（2006）『曼荼羅都市 ヒンドゥー都市の空間理念とその変容』京都大学学術出版会).
6)
Shamasastry, R. (1908) Arthasastra of Kautilya. University of Mysor, Oriental
Library Publications, 1916. The Japanese translation titled Utilitarianism: The Kingship in Ancient
India was published by Uemura, K. (1984) (“Jitsuriron(実利論)” (Japanese
translation of Arthashastra), Tokyo, Iwanami Bunko, 1984).
7)
Kangle, R.P. (1960) The Kautaliya Arthasastra. University of Bombay.
8)
Rangarajan L.N. (1992) The Arthashastr.New Delhi, Penguin Books, India.
9) Begde, P.V. (1978) Ancient and
medieval town planning in India. Sagar Publications, New Delhi.
10) Kirk W. (1978) Town and
Country Planning in Ancient India According to Kautilya’s Arthasastra. Scottish
Geographical Magazine, No. 94, 67-75.
11) Ohji,
T. (1990) The ‘Ideal’ Hindu city of ancient India a described in the
Arthasastra and the urban planning of Jaipur. East Asian Cultural Studies, ⅩⅩⅨ, Nos.1-4.
12) Acharya,
P.K. (1934, 1984) Architecture of Manasara Vol. I-V”, New Delhi, Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers (First edition 1934).
13) Funo, S. (2002) The Spatial
Formation of Cakranegara，Lombok’. In Peter J.M. Nas (ed.) Indonesian Town
Revisited，Muenster/Berlin，Lit
Verlag.
14) He, Y.J.（1985）Study of Kaogong ji City Planning. China Architecture
and Building Press (in Chinese, 賀業鉅（1985）『考工記営国制度研究』中国建築工業出版社).
15) Wang,
S.R. (2000)
Wang Shi
Ren’s Theses of Architectural History. China Architecture and Building Press (in Chinese, 王世仁（2000）『王世仁建築歴史理論文集』中国建築工業出版社).
16) Zhang, R. (2010) Study on
Transformation of Chengdu from Pre-Qing to Wu-dai period. China Architecture and Building Press (in
Chinese, 張蓉（2010）『先秦至五代成都古城形態変遷研究』中国建築工業出版社).
17) Hiraoka, T. (1956) Chang’an
and Luoyang in Tang Dynasty”, Kyoto University (in Japanese, 平岡武夫（1956）『唐代の長安と洛陽』（『唐代研究のしおり』第7）京都大学人文科学研究所).
18) Fu, X.N.（2001） History of Chinese Architecture. China Architecture and Building
Press (in Chinese, 傳熹年（2001）『中国古代建築史』中国建築工業出版社).
19) Seo, T. (2001) Urban Planning
of Chang’an”, Kodansha (in Japanese, 妹尾達彦（2001）『長安の都市計画』).
20) Wang, H.
(2008) Comparative Consideration on Japanese Ancient Capitals and Chang’an in Sui and Tang Dynasty. China Architecture
and Building Press (in Chinese, 王暉（2008）「日本古代都城城坊制度的演変及与隋唐長安里坊制的初歩比較」）.
21) Funo,
S. (2015), “Dà Yuán City: The Idea and Spatial Structure of Chinese Capital
Cities”, Kyoto University Press (in Japanese 布野修司 (2015) 『大元都市－中国都城の理念と空間構造－，京都大学学術出版会).
Profile
Born in 1949, Shuji Funo graduated from Tokyo University in 1972. Following graduation, he became an Assistant Professor at the University. He then moved to Toyo University and began field studies on human settlements and housing issues in Southeast Asia under president and urban sociologist Eiichi Isomura (1903-1997). In 1991, he was invited to join the faulty of Kyoto University to extend his field of study to India and East Asia. He has been deeply involved in the urban and housing problems of Asia for the past forty years. In 1991, he received an award from the AIJ (Architectural Institute of Japan) for his Ph.D. dissertation titled, "Transitional process of kampungs and the evaluation of the kampung improvement program in Indonesia." He has published numerous books on urban tissues in Asia and has received multiple prizes for his publications, including “The Modern World System and Colonial Cities”(CPIJ: The City Planning Institute of Japan, 2006); “The Formation of Urban Modern Landscape in Korea”(2013); and “The Grid City: The Origin, Formation & Transformation of Spanish Colonial Cities” (2015) (AIJ).
