Why Were Chang'an and Beijing so Different? Author(s): Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 339-357 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990206 Accessed: 07-04-2016 18:13 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. Society of Architectural Historians, University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians This content downloaded from 78.108.103.216 on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:13:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Why Were Chang'an and Beijing So Different? NANCY SHATZMAN STEINHARDT University of Pennsylvania Historians of premodern Chinese urbanism have long assumed that After stating the hypothesis of three lineages of Chinese imperial the origins of the Chinese imperial city plan stem from a passage in city building, the paper illustrates and briefly comments on the key the Kaogong Ji (Record of Trades) section of the classical text Rit- examples of each city type through history.