Page 23 - JCAU-5-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Spatial morphology of cohesive village

3.2. Spatial form matches requirements of the evolutionary process of a known village could provide
management and production of the village insights into Leizhou’s cohesive villages, considering the
relationship established by the isomorphism (Skowronek
In ancient China, under the patriarchal clan system and
absolute monarchy, the self-sufficient agricultural economy et al., 2005; Tao et al., 2023; Tao et al., 2018).
became the root of economic development, but handicrafts The isomorphism between the Guangfu comb-style
failed to become the pillar industry to support urban village and the Leizhou cohesive village stems from two
development. Therefore, cities were economically reliant main causes:
on and could not survive independently of the countryside, First, the ancient Chinese used the unit of field, mu, as
forming a symbiosis with the “city ring gathering area,” the basis for measuring the spatial scale of land, residences,
which was village clusters. Cities of different levels needed palaces, and gardens. It is widely believed that the spatial
villages of the corresponding scale to provide them with the form of the Guangfu comb-style village was born out of the
means of subsistence. The distribution map shows that the Jingtian system (the square-fields system) and matured in
clustered villages gathered around the Leizhou historic city the Lijia system (system for tax payment). It is evident that
at the time (Figure 2), and the “management and supply” the spatial form of cohesive village, which is compatible
relationship between the two is obvious. At the same time, with management and production, is inevitably inseparable
the spatial pattern of the village was recovered through from the field division and land system at that time.
historical traces, and the population size of the village was
Second, the cohesive village has a “core” and “cohesiveness”
about 50 – 60 people, which was in line with the “Tuntian compared to the comb-type village. Ancestral halls in general
system (storing the farming system)” and “Lijia system are the main characters that act as the “core.” In a typical
(system for tax payment),” as large as a military hamlet and as Guangfu comb-style village in the present situation, ancestral
small as a migrant hamlet (Wang, 1959). The composition of halls are more often lined up at the front of the village. It is found
the population also corresponded to the policy immigrants that the comb-type villages in Guangdong have undergone
(migrant hamlet), military people (military hamlet), a development process from the “core” to the “front row.”
commercial people (commercial hamlet), and sinful people In the initial period of comb villages in Guangdong, the
(relegated hamlet). The above is sufficient to prove that the clans were not strong, and several small clans would live
spatial form of cohesive village matches the requirements of together in a village. They formed architectural groups
management and production (Anderson, 2020). around ancestral halls, adopting the core form of ancestral
4. Isomorphism with comb-type villages halls. After a long period of development, especially
after the legalization of the common people’s ancestral
There are many comb-type villages around the cohesive halls , the number of clan ancestral halls also increased
1
villages, and the spatial forms of both are almost the same, correspondingly, gradually forming a comb-type layout
except for the “cohesiveness.” Therefore, scholars believe
that the cohesive villages evolved from the local comb-type 1 The de facto legitimization of the common people’s
villages. One view is that it was a form of village planning ancestral halls began during the Jiajing period
carried over by immigrants from Putian, Fujian province; (1522–1566) with the “Great Rites Proposal” and the
subsequent “Benevolence Order.” Such as the 15
th
another view is that it was influenced by the comb-type year of Jiajing (1536), the Minister of Rites Xia Yan
villages of Guangfu during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) suggested on the “order of the subjects can sacrifice
when the Leizhou Peninsula ended up under the jurisdiction ancestors to establish the family temple” that “the
of Guangxi or Huguang province, instead of Guangdong, emperor promotes filial piety and tells all the people
strengthening the connection with Guangzhou, the central in the world that, as Cheng Zi said, sacrifices to
city of Guangdong, and the coastal ports. the ancestors of the first born people on the winter
solstice and to the ancestors above the high ancestors
From the visual comparison of the spatial forms of the below the first ancestors in the beginning of spring.
four, the local cohesive villages and comb-type villages in All worship two ancestors, but cannot build a temple
Leizhou do not fit in well with the spatial forms of villages beyond their duty... The emperor widely promoted
in Putian, Fujian, but there is isomorphism with the forms filial piety, the ministers did not suspect the state
of comb-type villages in Guangfu (Table 2). sacrificial rites, the folk can sincerely trace back to the
ancestors, at the same time they can make the family
Isomorphism is the use of a basic form while keeping its harmony, relatives and friends honest and sincere,
important characteristics unchanged, and assimilating or educate the people, so as to nurture good moral,
adapting to new elements to complete the re-creation. It is therefore bringing in certain benefits.”–The Memorial
both a process and an outcome. Thus, an understanding of of Guizhou Xia Wenmin Gong, vol. 21.

Volume 5 Issue 4 (2023) 5 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.1224