【作者】 李久昌；

【导师】 朱士光；

【作者基本信息】 陕西师范大学 ， 历史地理学， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 本文以古代洛阳都城空间为核心,从“国家—空间—社会”的视角,对夏宋间的洛阳都城空间形成演变状况及其机制进行了论述。内容上没有采取面面俱到的方式,而是以历代王朝建立后所要解决的都城空间建设的四大基本共同问题(都城选址、政治中枢的建立、都城社会系统的控制、都城经济生活中心的建构)和中国古代都城空间模式三大结构单元(宫城、里坊、市场)为核心。在此基础上,对古代洛阳都城空间与中国古代都城空间模式之关系进行了讨论。 首先考察了古代洛阳的都城建置。在前辈学者古都定义的基础上,借鉴现代政治学相关研究成果,提出了衡量古都的具体标准以及西周实行多都多都并存并重制、偃师商城和唐东都洛阳都级动态变化等观点,在此基础上,重新考定了洛阳在古代的具体建都朝代与年代,得出了新的结论。 在确定了本文讨论中心“洛阳都城空间”的时间界域和特征后,对古代建都洛阳的原因,进行了相当全面的论述。对以往认识较为粗略的周公“天下之中”说的考察,明确提出了周公“天下之中”说是中国古代第一个较系统的建都理论,其内容包括地理、政治、经济和文化等4个方面的内容,它不仅构成了历朝建都洛阳的独特理路的基础和神圣性、合理性的依据,而且还发展引伸出“择中立宫”和“择宫之中轴线立朝”观念和制度,对后世王朝选址建都及都城空间结构形态规划布局产生了重大影响。 有关宫城的讨论,是本文着墨较多的部分,分两个方面展开。一是讨论宫城的历史过程及阶段特征,以说明古代都城的核心空间是怎样形成,又是在何种背景下进行重构的。二是讨论宫城的形成与阶段性变动对古代都城空间形态结构的影响。通过讨论,提出我国古代都城的最早形态是“非城郭形态”宫城,这也是我国古代城市的最早形态;“非城郭形态”和“城郭形态”是宫城的基本形态;宫城制度经历了多宫城制、双宫城制和单一宫城制3个发展阶段,其演变体现了古代都城核心空间建构与重构的基本过程,也反映了不同的政治变化;宫城既是都城空间发展的起点和原型空间,也是其它空间定位展开的原点和定位维度。 对里坊和市场的讨论,主要围绕发展形态和形态——功能展开,内中既有对里坊和市场微观结构的考证复原,也有对其发展形态的中观分析和把握。通过讨论,认为古代洛阳都城经历了三个发展阶段,西周洛邑里制形成、北魏洛阳城里坊制和隋唐洛阳城坊里制是其中的3个关节点;隋唐洛阳城里坊并非如传统认识更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation surveys the spatial formation and evolvement of the ancient capital of Luoyang, including its formation, development, peak and decline. The author attributes the process of the spatial formation and evolvement to a combination of such factors as politics, economics, history and geography— the capital as a spatial entirety.Focusing on the most essential four questions(selection of the capital site, establishment of the political nucleus, control over the capital’s social system, and construction of the capital’ s economic center) that have to be settled by every ruler in history, and on the three frames of the spatial mode in all ancient capitals(palace city, Li system as the social managing system and market), the author elaborates on the spatial formation and evolvement of Luoyang from the history geographical perspective, aiming to reveal the mechanism beneath the ruling power’s allocation of the capital space.The contents are as follows:Chapter One reviews Luoyang’s organizational system. On the basis of the previous researchers’ definition of the ancient capital and related researches’ findings in modern politics, the author proposes specific standards measuring and judging this ancient capital, and points out there had been a co-existence of many equally important capitals within it. After a research on the specific periods different dynasties founded their capitals in Luoyang, a new conclusion can be drawn that through out the ancient history, altogether 14 dynasties founded their capitals in Luoyang, such as Xia, Shang, Western Zhou, Eastern Zhou, Western Han, Eastern .Han, Wei, Western Jin, Northern Wei, Sui, Tang, Later Liang, Later Tang and Later Jin, and 12 dynasties established accompanying capitals there, such as Shang, Xinmang, Later Zhao, Northern Zhao, Sui, Tang, Later Liang, Later Jin, Later Han, Later Zhou, Song and Jin. The former lasted 1693 years; the latter, 498 years. The total is 2191 years. This sets a clear span for the studies of the space of Luoyang.Chapter Two analyzes the causes and processes the ancient dynasties founded their capitals in Luoyang. After an all-round careful study of the "center of the world" theory by Zhougong, the author considers it the first theory in ancient China on theplan of the selection of capital sites. Its geographical, political, economic and cultural notions resulted in many dynasties’ inclination to choosing Luoyang as capital. This theory gives positive evidence on the foundation, inviolability and rationality of the unique idea of choosing Luoyang as capital. The massive overwhelming and expanding power of this theory also influenced the space layout of the ancient capital, from which had evolved a system of choosing the central place to establish palaces, which had long been a guide line for ancient rulers to decide on the locations of the palace city, palaces, etc.. Most of the various later ideas on choosing a capital are the development and supplement to this theory.Chapter Three focuses on the formation of the ancient capital space. Through the inspection on palace city, the author argues that the earliest capital in China appeared in the form of palace cities, i.e., capitals were the earliest cities. At least during the pre-historical period, palace cities were in their infancy. With the establishment of Xia Dynasty, the formation of a country, palace city as the form of the earliest city was originally formed in Xia’s capital, Erlitou. Later, during the Shang and Zhou dynasties, as Shang city in Yanshi and palace cities in Zhou Dynasty formed the city-like palace cities, the basic formation of palace cities was established. As the establishment of the palace cities was in the process in which the rulers established and strengthened their reign, controlled and manipulated the whole country, as it was the result of effective control over the programming of the capital city, undoubtedly palace cities will be the carrier of ruling dynasties which greatly embodies the material structure of the capital’s political function. Therefore, the layout of its spatial formation reflects political changes. The palace city, the political nucleus of the ancient capital, is the starting point of its spatial development and the antitype space after Luoyang was chosen as the capital city.Chapter Four mainly discusses the influence of palace cities on the development of capital space. While constructing a capital, rulers always followed a principle that the palace city should be built first, i.e., all the other building constructions should be centered on the palace city. Specific political and cultural connotation was infused into the construction of palace cities, which occupied a central position in the organization of the capital space, which was the starting point from which other capitals’ locations were being oriented. The formation of the capital’s organizational system, and its middle axes are all directly related with the development of the capital cities.更多还原