Study on the Typological Chronology of Cantonese Palatial-Type (Diantang Shi) Timber Structures in Guangdong Province, China: An Interdisciplinary Approach of Building Archaeology

Abstract

The coexistence of three sub-ethnic architectural traditions, Cantonese, Hakka and Teochew, renders Guangdong Province a typical locality for cultural geographical study of Chinese building heritage. Focusing on timber structures as the key indicator of Chinese historical architecture, this paper conducts a typological–chronological study on Cantonese palatial-type (Diantang Shi) timber construction, a previously under-studied building type, aiming to establish for the first time its detailed evolutionary process. Through the interdisciplinary methodology of building archaeology, archaeological theory of material cultural evolution as well as archaeological methods of dating analysis are integrated, achieving more precision in architectural examination both geographically and historically. As a result, 20 cases are dated in the Ming and Qing dynasties with 12 structural elements rapidly evolving, substantiating periodization of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction into three evolutionary phases. Periodization further facilitates the identification of two dramatic structural variations in the second phase, revealing Hakka–Cantonese cultural transmission and political intervention as two different socio-cultural mechanisms underpinning architectural transformations. The typological–chronological study is thus transferred into socio-cultural discourse, presenting a new methodological paradigm for architectural heritage study to incorporate the diachronic scope into the static synchronic approach of cultural geographical scholarship.

1. Introduction

Timber structures, consisting of bracket sets (dougong) and column–beam frameworks (zhuliang), serve as the key to understanding ancient Chinese architecture as such structures were predominantly wooden. The importance of timber structures was addressed in Yingzao Fashi (State Building Standards, 1104 [1]), the earliest surviving Chinese building code issued by the imperial court of the Northern Song dynasty (960–1127), which elaborated the modular measurement of timber structures as central to the design of ancient Chinese construction [2]. Officially promulgated nationwide, Yingzao Fashi led to construction standardization across the vast Chinese territory, demonstrated by surviving timber structures from the subsequent Jin dynasty (1115–1234) in Northern China and Southern Song dynasty in Southern China (1127–1279) [3,4]. However, since the short-lived Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), Chinese central government never again achieved construction standardization nationally, allowing diverse timber construction styles to grow regionally through the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing dynasties [5], which provides the basis for localized architectural research.

The coexistence of Cantonese, Hakka, and Teochew timber construction traditions renders Guangdong Province a typical locality for the study of architectural cultural phenomena. Guangdong Province, located at the southernmost extremity of the Chinese mainland, forms a self-contained geographical unit bounded by the Nanling Mountains to its north, a natural barrier as well as a cultural watershed [6]. The relatively isolated cultural region, historically termed as “Lingnan” (“South of the Mountains”), was further divided into three ethno-linguistic zones occupied by three sub-ethnic groups of Han Chinese: Cantonese, Hakka and Teochew (Figure 1) [7]. While dialectic variation serves as the primary benchmark for distinguishing sub-ethnic groups, the extant historical buildings in Guangdong Province, largely timber structures from the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911), manifest a strong correlation with linguistic divergence, giving rise to three variant timber construction traditions accordingly.

Recent scholarly approaches to the Guangdong architectural cultural phenomenon have demonstrated an emphasis on synchronically spatial issues, particularly geographical distribution patterns and cultural diffusion mechanisms among three sub-ethnic timber construction traditions [8,9,10]. Diachronic evolution has received less academic attention, with only two publications engaging in macro-scale analysis: Xu and Zhou posit that Hakka and Teochew dwellings predated their Cantonese counterparts with the former resembling pottery architectural models found in central areas of China [9], while Zhang, Li and Cai draw conclusions from historical texts that the driving force of ancestral hall evolution in Lingnan can be ascribed to geopolitical factors [10].

Given the limited academic emphasis on diachronic inquiry into Guangdong’s architectural traditions, this paper applies the interdisciplinary methodology of building archaeology to the research of Cantonese palatial-type (diantang shi) timber structures, a previously under-studied building type, aiming to establish in detail its evolutionary process. Two discontinuities are identified in this process, suggesting architectural transformations led by sub-ethnic cultural transmission and political intervention, respectively. This study thereby presents a new paradigm for analyzing Guangdong’s architectural cultural phenomena on a diachronic ground, addressing methodological gaps in static synchronic scholarship. Since changing material cultural patterns imply changing rules of interpretation [11], we believe that the study of architecture should be settled by close observation and thorough documentation, concerning not only geographical distribution but also precise dating of each case; this could reveal more comprehensive spatio-temporal variations of architectural phenomena for further socio-cultural interpretation.

2. Literature Review

Building archaeology, an interdisciplinary field which applies archaeological methodology to architectural study, provides a scientific research tool to clarify a building’s construction history [12].

A brief review of building archaeology development would reveal two insights: first, the validation of typological–chronological study in European building archaeology scholarship; second, the imperative for its application in the study of ancient Chinese timber structures, specifically the Cantonese palatial type (diantang shi).

2.1. Development of Typological Chronology and Building Archaeology in Europe

Though academically termed “Bauforschung” in German from the 1920s [13], “Archéologie du Bâti” in French and “Archeologia dell’Architettura” in Italian from the 1990s [14], the research field of building archaeology is rooted in European antiquarianism as early as the 17th century. In the endeavor to reconstruct ancient history from physical evidence, architectural monuments were included in the spectrum of antiquarian inquiry [15]. The English antiquarian John Aubrey, generally accepted as the first to apply the typological–chronological method to architectural features, first established the chronology of English medieval architecture according to window styles in his Chronologia Architectonica (1670) [16,17,18]. His dating technique was based on two rules: the evolutionary process of styles revealed by their chronological sequence; and the comparative method for dating undated samples by analogy to dated ones.

The verification of the above-mentioned two rules by antiquarianism led to their wide acceptance as fundamental principles. Conditioned by this contemporary awareness, the methodology of comparative diagrams was developed by architects in their synthesis of architectural styles from different epochs and traditions, represented by the publications of Johann Bernhard Fisher von Erlach (1721), Julien-David Le Roy (1764 and 1770) and Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1799–1801) [19]. At the turn of the 19th century, comparative analysis based on stylistic evolution had enabled the narration of architectural development from all historical phases, which was particularly effective in dating medieval architecture when existing structures did not always correspond with literary records on reconstruction and modification [20,21].

During the 1810s–1830s, medieval architectural research in Britain and France almost simultaneously established the systematic typological–chronological method by the works of Tomas Rickman and Arcisse de Caumont, an architect and an archaeologist, respectively [22,23]. With a rigorous methodological framework, typological–chronological analysis dissected buildings into a system of distinctive elements—plans, masonry techniques, windows, vaults, ornaments, etc., and identified the chronological sequence of each element, providing an independent body of evidence paralleled with literary sources for architectural dating. Compared to general comparative approaches, typological–chronological analysis offered more systematic and nuanced inspection of individual structures, aiming to establish “the science of monuments” [24]. More detailed sub-phases were differentiated by meticulous discrimination of the stylistic variations of each element. In this process, alternation of structures and reuse of materials, though seemingly trivial, captured the observer’s attention as well, predicting the establishment of building archaeology by the end of the 20th century.

Building archaeology was formally recognized as an independent scholarly field focusing on construction history between the 1990s and 2000s [13,14]. Grounded in typological chronology, one of the major advancements of building archaeology is its further integration of archaeological survey and laboratory techniques, facilitating the extraction of richer construction evidence from building remains. Archaeological stratigraphic openings undertaken on architectural elevations reveal the relative construction sequence of each layer, while more advanced X-ray scanning produces similar results and is a non-destructive approach. Dating techniques conducted by scientific laboratories vary from dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating to archaeomagnetism and luminescence, each applicable for specific types of material [13,25]. All these related pieces of evidence contribute to a more detailed construction process for individual cases, the accumulation of which transfers “the history of a building to building history” [12].

As demonstrated by the brief historiography above, the narration of architectural history in Europe was constructed on the epistemology of evolution and the methodology of comparison, crystalized into typological–chronological analysis, which combined with the disciplines of antiquarianism and archaeology in the study of material culture. The newly established research field of building archaeology further enhanced the accuracy of architectural historical exploration through updated archaeological techniques. By delicate discrimination of all the traces of intervention, a building ceases to be an obscure entity and becomes a set of overlapping layers of construction processes, each of which warrants rigorous analysis of its date and related construction issues.

2.2. Adaptation of the Typological–Chronological Method to Ancient Chinese Timber Structure Research and the Development of Building Archaeology in China

Ancient Chinese architecture, characterized by timber structures, represents a distinctive system parallel to Western architecture. However, the research methodology of Chinese architectural history can be traced back to European scholarly tradition, as the founders of this academic field, Sicheng Liang and Huiyin Lin, received their architectural education overseas at the University of Pennsylvania (1924–1927), a “stronghold” of the European Beaux-Arts tradition from the 1900s to the 1920s [26]. Rigorously trained on Western architectural history, Liang acknowledged the contribution of this educational experience to his future career [27]. In his study on Italian Renaissance architecture during his final year at Penn, the methodology used to reveal structural development by comparing plans, façades and other architectural features mirrored the approach he would subsequently apply to Chinese architectural research, the evolutionary process of which was revealed by five architectural elements: façades, plans, bracket sets, cantilevered blocks of bracket set (shuatou) and architraves (lan’e and pupaifang) [28]. Moreover, the famous drawings which juxtapose examples of those five architectural elements in chronological order evoke the comparative diagrams fully exploited by one of the founders of the Beaux-Arts architectural education system, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand [19], serving as further evidence for the methodological connection between the early-stage Chinese architectural scholarship and its Western precedents. Through application of evolutionary principles and the comparative method, Liang and Lin, together with their colleagues in the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture (zhongguo yingzao xueshe), pioneered the typological–chronological study of Chinese ancient architecture in the 1930s–1940s, leading to the establishment of its evolutionary process for the first time.

The typological–chronological practice of the Society was systematized into a dating methodology by Yingtao Qi, whose method dominated academic practice during the 1960s–2000s. Remaining a fundamental in his dating methodology, comparative analysis was further theorized into the “dual comparisons” (“liangbi”) framework: the first took dated buildings and Yingzao fashi as reference points; the second relied on literary resources for undated cases [29]. Regarding the first comparison, in order to provide more detailed references, Qi extended the evolutionary sequences of five architectural elements established by the Society into more building components, employing similar comparative diagrams to depict their evolutionary processes. His methodology, as the first systematic theory on Chinese architecture dating, established the standard operational basis nationwide [4,30]. Nevertheless, Qi acknowledged two constraints in his approach: firstly, regional variations in Chinese architecture were supplanted by a unified evolutionary framework centered on imperial construction; secondly, a common phenomenon in ancient Chinese construction—replacement of building components—could only be identified through dynastic variation in styles, lacking systematic methods.

The formal institutionalization of building archaeology in China aimed at advancing the dating of ancient Chinese architecture. In contrast to the European model, where architectural history developed concurrently with antiquarianism and archaeology, the study of Chinese architectural history and archaeology developed independently until 1998, when the School of Archaeology and Museology in Peking University set up the specialized course of Heritage Architecture, culminating in the institutionalization of building archaeology as a new academic field [31]. Through applying archaeological methodology in the study of Chinese architectural heritage, Yitao Xu updated the dating analysis of Chinese architecture in two main aspects [32]. Firstly, regarding component replacement, Xu proposed “Original Components Analysis” as a systematic approach to discriminate the components of each construction phase. While elevation-based stratigraphical analysis only applies to Western masonry structures, “Original Components Analysis” provides a methodological innovation specifically tailored for Chinese timber structures. Secondly, the introduction of archaeological typology theory enables typological–chronological analysis of architectural features regionally, facilitating independent evolutionary narration aligned with cultural geographical patterns. Consequently, by establishing architectural typological–chronological sequences region by region, building archaeology overcomes the dynastic paradigm of ancient Chinese architecture, revealing a more dynamic spatio-temporal landscape based on architectural variations in diverse cultural localities.

Based on Xu’s methodology, building archaeology has developed into an independent scholarly field in China, characterized by dating analysis as its fundamental research tool. This approach has gained recognition among scholars from different research institutes, represented by Miao Zhou, Yang and Jie Leng, who applied the same methodology to architectural heritage in different areas, including central Shanxi Province [4], Guangdong Province [33], Sichuan Province [34], and Chongqing Municipality [35]. Meanwhile, the Heritage Architecture research team in Peking University continued regional study under the guidance of Xu, which has already covered cultural geographical zones in Shanxi Province [3], Sichuan Province [36], Henan Province [37], Hebei Province [38] and Beijing [39], leaving vast areas to be further investigated.

Despite the absence of intellectual exchange at its formative stage in 1998, building archaeology scholarship in China shared with its European counterpart the same academic foundation: through applying archaeological methodology in the study of architectural heritage, the construction process of a historical building can be scientifically dated. The research consensus was further confirmed by the International Forum on Sino-European Building Archaeology in 2016, marking the convergence of Chinese and European scholarly fields of building archaeology [40].

2.3. Typological Chronology Research into Timber Structures in Guangdong Province

Among the three timber construction traditions in Guangdong Province, the Cantonese tradition developed around the city of Guangzhou, the provincial capital since the Qin dynasty (211–207 BCE) (Figure 1). This privileged cultural center made Cantonese construction more developed than the other two traditions, providing a proper starting point for the study of the architectural landscape in Guangdong Province.

Since Jianjun Cheng pioneered the classification of palatial-type (diantang shi) and hall-type (tingtang shi) [30] buildings, this typological framework has shaped subsequent scholarly investigations into Cantonese timber construction, including chronological study. The palatial-type timber structure is characterized by a hip-gable roof (xieshan wuding), employing both official-style bracket sets (guanshi dougong) and inserted half-brackets (chagong), which represents a higher construction standard in government-sponsored buildings such as Confucian temples and religious complexes (Figure 2). In contrast, the hall-type timber structure features a flush-gable roof (yingshan wuding) and inserted half-brackets, providing an economical solution for vernacular constructions, such as ancestral halls and residences (Figure 2).

Compared with the palatial-type, hall-type timber constructions have aroused more scholarly attention, attributed to their quantitative dominance and cultural continuity. Building archaeology methodology has been employed in the dating of Cantonese ancestral halls [33,41]. The evolutionary sequences of structural elements have been comprehensively established, substantiating the periodization of six developing phases, parallel with decisive political events during the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911).

Although the chronological research of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures was initiated as the foundation for the study of Guangdong’s architectural history, its subsequent progress has lagged behind in recent years. Two palatial-type buildings were dated back to the Northern Song dynasty in the early stages of this academic field [42,43]. The research method followed the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture, with Yingzao Fashi serving as the prototype for dating. The subsequent accumulation of field survey findings facilitated the establishment of the evolutionary processes of Cantonese palatial-type timber elements, including plan, elevation, roof gable (shanqiang), column, column base (zhuchu), column–beam framework (zhuliang), beam style, bracket set, bending tie-beam (shuishu), cantilevered eave (chuyan), column–beam joint, and camel’s-hump-shaped brace (tuofeng) [30,44]. However, the methodology of building archaeology is never employed, resulting in a lack of discrimination of construction processes in individual cases and confinement to the dynastic framework.

Given this imbalance in chronological research into Cantonese timber constructions, this paper conducts typological–chronological analysis on palatial-type structures, aiming to map their detailed evolution as an integrated part of Chinese building archaeology research. Sponsored by local government, palatial-type timber structures not only influenced the development of the hall-type technically and culturally, but were more accurately recorded in historical texts; therefore, their evolutionary process is central for understanding the architectural traditions of Guandong Province.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials

This paper identifies 47 individual palatial-type timber remains of the Cantonese architectural tradition in Guangdong Province based on the Third National Cultural Relics Census data released in 2013 [45,46,47]. The Cantonese palatial-type timber structures, all hip-gable roofed (xieshan wuding), are characterized by two distinct structures. One structure, termed the strut–beam system (tailiang shi), employs lotus-pod-shaped struts (heyedun) and inter-purlin bracket sets (gejia dougong) to support purlins, while bending tie-beams (shuishu) are integrated between stepped beams and purlins (Figure 3). The other, termed the short-column-beam system (chaliang shi), features short columns (guazhu) rising on beams to support purlins (Figure 3).

The geographical distribution of 47 Cantonese palatial-type timber structures reveals a pattern concentrated along the Pearl River Delta–West River corridor, with peripheral extensions into the cities of Huizhou and Shaoguan, challenging the conventional ethno-linguistic zones of Cantonese, Hakka and Teochew in two aspects (Figure 4). Firstly, the Gaoyang sub-zone of the Cantonese group occupies a transitional position where Cantonese and Teochew traditions converged architecturally, necessitating the exclusion of this sub-zone from the study of Cantonese palatial-type buildings [30]. Secondly, three palatial-type timber structures in the cities of Shaoguan and Huizhou, though geographically located within the Hakka ethno-linguistic zones, exhibit definitive Cantonese timber structure styles. As major cities directly connected to Guangzhou via imperial post routes [48], these cases not only demonstrate the spatial boundaries of the Cantonese architectural tradition but also present critical evidence to depict the cultural transmission phenomena between Cantonese and Hakka architectural traditions.

3.2. Methods

Typological–chronological analysis is applied to establish the evolutionary process of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures in Guangdong Province, as a means for further socio-cultural analysis.

Based on this interdisciplinary methodology of building archaeology, the typological–chronological study of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures comprises six research steps, among which multiple archaeological perceptions and techniques are integrated (Figure 5).

3.2.1. On-Site Investigation

Comprehensive field investigations were conducted on 47 existing Cantonese palatial-type timber structures in Guangdong Province during 2024–2025. In contrast to cursory field survey, field investigation of building archaeology emphasizes thorough recording of all the historical sources on site, both architectural and textual. Architectural sources cover environmental setting, group layout, individual structures and architectural components, with an emphasis on comprehensive documentation of each component. Textual sources consist of epigraphs and steles, with the former often subtly distributed on the surface of architectural components, demanding extra-scrupulous observation. For thorough recording of all this information, multiple facilities were employed: portable camera for general photography, UAV for aerial photography and 3D laser scanning for precise measurement. Moreover, interviews with administrative officers provided the restoration archives of each building, some with detailed conservation reports and drawings.

3.2.2. Original Components Analysis

Based on architectural sources recorded on site, Original Components Analysis was subsequently conducted to discriminate different construction phases by using the building itself as the main evidence. Unlike masonry construction, Chinese timber structures feature detachable mortise-tenon joints which enable component replacement without producing consistent stratigraphic layers. This fundamental structural difference invalidates the application of elevation stratigraphic investigation developed in European building archaeology. In response, Yitao Xu proposed Original Components Analysis to identify the replaced components by three methods, each exploiting the typical characteristics of Chinese timber construction [32]. According to the modular manufacturing principle of Chinese timber construction, all original components of the same type are identical [49], enabling the identification of replaced components through stylistic deviations. The second approach relies on mortise-tenon joints of Chinese timber structures. Since unaltered components retain their original mortise-tenon joints, such joint remnants enable the identification of original components, while mismatched interlocks indicate later alternations. Deviations of timber surfaces offers the third way to discriminate replaced components, as those components, with different wood species and aging processes, often display divergent surface coloration and texture from the original ones. However, exact replication of original components in style, joint and wood species will render these three visual identifications invalid. Dendrochronology and radiocarbon analysis then provide effective laboratory techniques for dating timber components, but remain costly for widespread use [50]. The discrimination of components replaced in successive phases led to the establishment of the construction process for 47 Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.

3.2.3. Written Sources Examination

Besides the on-site textual sources of epigraphs and steles, historical texts including provincial annals and monastic chronicles document extensive Cantonese palatial-type timber structures sponsored by local governments; their correspondence with architectural evidence provides absolute dating information. Philological research was conducted on all the historical written sources of 47 Cantonese palatial-type timber structures. The recorded construction activities were compiled to create a construction chronicle. Regarding these written sources, the evolutionary principle of architectural styles is more reliable, enabling the identification of cases where stylistic characteristics significantly contradict the chronological records. Such cases, where absolute construction dates are uncertain, were thus excluded from the sample pool for the establishment of typological–chronological sequences.

3.2.4. Systematic Establishment of the Typological–Chronological Sequence of Structural Elements

Systematic categorization and diachronic ordering of dated components support the establishment of typological–chronological sequences of structural elements. Among all the components of Chinese ancient timber structures, roof tiles (wazuo) and non-structural carpentry (xiaomuzuo) such as partition walls and furniture underwent frequent replacement, while original construction components survive mainly in structural woodwork (damuzuo) and their supporting stone column bases [29]. Therefore, structural carpentry, consisting of bracket sets (dougong) and column–beam frameworks (zhuliang), together with stone column bases, are further categorized into structural elements, providing long-term historical sources necessary for typological–chronological analysis. Dated samples of each structural element were diachronically ordered, creating a system of independent chronological sequences. Systematic observation of these sequences revealed different evolutionary paces, among which rapidly-evolving elements served as acute indicators for tracing the development of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures, and were thus selected for subsequent periodization analysis.

3.2.5. Evolution Periodization by Synthesis of Typological–Chronological Sequences

Periodization analysis provides an overview of the detailed evolutionary process of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures. By synthesizing all the typological–chronological sequences of rapidly-evolving structural elements, concurrent variations are revealed to mark thresholds in architectural evolutionary processes, defining principal periodization boundaries. Intra-period variations provide secondary evolutionary stages. Given regional dynamics and the fragmentary nature of extant dated samples, variations of different structural elements are not strictly synchronous, leading inevitably to subjective judgement on the precise periodization boundary. However, as the boundaries remain anchored to observed variations, the periodization analysis captures the predominant trends of general evolutionary processes.

3.2.6. Socio-Cultural Analysis of Evolutionary Discontinuities

Through periodization analysis, exceptional evolutionary patterns emerge for further socio-cultural investigation. According to archaeological theory on the nature of stylistic variations, “assertive style” or “isochrestic variation” are terms which define the general phenomenon that unconscious employment or conscious imitation of existing practices results in cultural uniformity of an area [11]. The continuous repetition of existing patterns led to gradual variations of styles in the long run. In contrast, abrupt discontinuities imply the transmission of new cultural factors, the origins of which can be traced to uncover critical junctures in socio-cultural processes. The cultural analysis of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures is conducted on the grounds of this theoretical framework. Such inquiry transfers architectural typological–chronological study into socio-cultural discourse, achieving a fundamental shift in material culture research from human artifacts to human practices.

4. Results

Through six steps of the interdisciplinary methodology of building archaeology, this paper achieves three main results:

• Out of 47 existing cases, 20 Cantonese palatial-type timber structures are identified, providing dating coordinates vital for the establishment of typological chronology.
• Three bracket set elements and nine column–beam framework elements are drawn from 20 dated cases as rapidly-evolving indicators to establish typological–chronological sequences of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.
• Based on typological–chronological sequences, three principal evolutionary phases are discerned, each comprising two internal development stages.

The following sections elaborate on these results in detail.

4.1. Dated Cantonese Palatial-Type Timber Structures

4.1.1. Twenty Dated Cantonese Palatial-Type Timber Structures

Through Original Components Analysis and examination of written sources, 20 Cantonese palatial-type timber structures are identified with three requisites for the establishment of typological chronology.

Firstly, these cases underwent minor restoration with most of the structural components remaining original. As a result, Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Deqing County of Zhaoqing, one of the significant Cantonese palatial-type timber structures previously dated to the Northern Song dynasty [43], was excluded from the dated sample pool, as its bracket sets of the transverse framework under the lower eave as well as the complete framework of the upper eave underwent successive alterations, the precise dates of which remain disputed.

Secondly, the dates of their construction phases were clearly recorded in provincial annals, monastic chronicles or on-site inscriptions. Consequently, while a number of structures exhibit components from different construction phases, demonstrating the characteristic alterations of Chinese timber construction, these cases are not selected for further analysis due to absence of clear dating resources. A critical case is the Main Hall of the Mei’an Temple in Zhaoqing, which was dated to Zhidao 2 (996) as the earliest surviving timber structure in Guangdong Province [42]. However, its dating relied solely on a Ming dynasty stele erected nearly 600 years after its stated construction, which contradicts another Ming stele attributing its construction to the Five Dynasties period (907–979). Discrepancy in literary sources, intermingled with multiple renovations both historic and contemporary [51], necessitates its exclusion from the dated sample pool.

Thirdly, the styles of their original structural components, when ordered according to their recorded dates, conform to the continuous evolution principle of material culture.

Based on these three criteria, 20 cases of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures are dated in the Ming–Qing period (1368–1911), comprising six buildings from the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) and 14 from the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), thus framing the research period of this paper (

Table 1. Summary of 20 dated Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.

Dynasty	No.	Name	Construction Date	Location	Roof	Plan	Bracket Set Type	Main Structure Type
Ming	1	Dacheng Hall, Confucian Temple of Zhaoqing	Xuande 6–8 [52] (1431–1433)	Duanzhou District, Zhaoqing	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	official-style (Both Eaves)	strut–beam
	2	Main Hall, Daliang Temple	Chenghua 13 1 (1477)	Fengkai County, Zhaoqing	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Three-Bay in Width, Four-Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket	strut–beam
	3	Qielan Hall, Guangxiao Temple	Hongzhi 7 2 (1494)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Three-Bay in Width, Three-Bay in Depth	official-style	strut–beam
	4	Rear Hall, Wuxian Temple	Jiajing 16 3 (1537)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Three-Bay in Width, Three-Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket (Lower Eave) official-style (Upper Eave)	strut–beam
	5	Dacheng Hall, Confucian Temple of Shaoguan	Wanli 30 [53] (1602)	Zhenjiang District, Shaoguan	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Three-Bay in Depth	official-style (Both Eaves)	short-column-beam
	6	Dacheng Hall, Confucian Temple of Guishan	Wanli 41–43 [54] (1613–1615)	Huicheng District, Huizhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	official-style (Both Eaves)	short-column-beam
Qing	7	Mahavira Hall, Guangxiao Temple	Shunzhi 6–11 [55] (1649–1654)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Seven-Bay in Width, Six-Bay in Depth	official-style (Lower Eave) inserted half-bracket (Upper Eave)	strut–beam
	8	Main Hall, Haopan Mosque	Shunzhi 11 [56] (1654)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket (Both Eaves)	strut–beam
	9	Main Hall, Big Buddha Temple	Kangxi 2–3 [56] (1663–1664)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Seven-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	official-style	strut–beam
	10	Main Hall, Haichuang Temple	Kangxi 5 [56] (1666)	Haizhu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Seven-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket (Lower Eave) official-style (Upper Eave)	short-column-beam
	11	Devaraja Hall, Haichuang Temple 4	Kangxi 11 [57] (1672)	Haizhu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket	strut–beam
	12	Gate Hall, Confucian Temple of Guishan	Kangxi 20–24 [54] (1681–1685)	Huicheng District, Huizhou	Flush-gable 5, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Two-Bay in Depth	official-style (Front Eave) inserted half-bracket (Back Eave)	strut–beam with short-column-beam
	13	Sixth Patriarch Hall, Guangxiao Temple	Kangxi 31 [56] (1692)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Four-Bay in Depth	official-style	strut–beam
	14	Kanyue Hall, Huaisheng Mosque	Kangxi 34 [56] (1695)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	One-Bay in Width, One-Bay in Depth	official-style (Both Eaves)	strut–beam
	15	Short-Column-Beam System of Upper Eave of Dacheng Hall 6, Confucian Temple of Xinhui	Qianlong 13 (1748)	Jiangmen City, Xinhui	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width	—	short-column-beam
	16	Bell Tower, Wuxian Temple	Qianlong 53 7 (1788)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Three-Bay in Width, Three -Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket (Both Eaves)	short-column-beam
	17	Dacheng Hall, Confucian Temple of Luoding	Daoguang 21–25 [58] (1841–1845)	Luoding City, Yunfu	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	official-style (Both Eaves)	strut–beam with shelf-shaped beam system
	18	Dacheng Hall 8, Confucian Temple of Guangzhou	Tongzhi 1 [59] (1862)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Three -Bay in Depth	official-style	strut–beam
	19	Shelf-Shaped Beam System of Upper Eave and Structure of Lower Eave of Dacheng Hall, Confucian Temple of Xinhui	Xianfeng 11-Tongzhi 3 (1861–1864)	Jiangmen City, Xinhui	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Seven-Bay in Width, Five-Bay in Depth	official-style (Lower Eave) inserted half-bracket (Upper Eave)	shelf-shaped beam system
	20	Sanyuan Hall, Suanyuan Temple	Tongzhi 7 [60] (1868)	Yuexiu District, Guangzhou	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Single-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five -Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket	short-column-beam
	21	Main Hall, Longmu Temple of Yuecheng	Guangxu 31 9 (1905)	Deqing County, Zhaoqing	Hip-Gable, Single-Story with Double-Eave	Five-Bay in Width, Five -Bay in Depth	inserted half-bracket (Both Eaves)	strut–beam

¹ Dated by epigraph under the tie-beam beneath ridge purlin. ² Dated by epigraph under the western sever-purlin beam. ³ Dated by epigraph under the ridge purlin. ⁴ Rebuilt in 1993–1994. The original structure is fortunately documented in the drawings measured in 1955 [61]. ⁵ Gate Hall of Confucian Temple of Guishan is the only sample with flush-gable roof. As one of the main buildings on the main axis of the government-sponsored complex, this building employs a comprehensive system of palatial-type timber structure, rendering it a proper sample for this paper. ⁶ The extant structure of Dacheng Hall of Confucian Temple in Xinhui comprises components from two construction phases. For details, see the following section. ⁷ Dated by epigraph under the ridge purlin. ⁸ Confucian Temple of Guangzhou was demolished. The basic information and drawings of its original structure were published by Jianjun Chen [30]. ⁹ Dated by epigraph under the ridge purlin and on the exterior columns and door frame.

). These cases comprise seven Confucian Temple halls, six Buddhist halls, four Daoist halls, two Mosque halls and one urban public building, exhibiting all categories of government-sponsored palatial-type construction characteristic of high-standard hip-gable roof (xieshan wuding). The diverse building categories demonstrate the adaptability of palatial-type timber structure to accommodate different religious and public functions. Among them, 13 structures are located in the Pearl River Delta sub-zone, the core of the Cantonese ethno-linguistic zone, with 12 centering in the city of Guangzhou. Four structures are distributed along the West River sub-zone of the Cantonese area. Moreover, three structures from the Hakka-dominated cities of Huizhou and Shaoguan are incorporated to mark the diffusion boundary of the Cantonese architectural tradition (Figure 4).

4.1.2. Case Study of Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Xinhui, Jiangmen: Two Construction Phases

Among 20 dated cases, Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Xinhui stands out for the coexistence of two construction phases; as a case study, it demonstrates the methodology of Original Components Analysis which is critical in building archaeology research.

The Confucian Temple in Xinhui is situated in the northeastern sector of the historical city of Xinhui, with Dacheng Hall as the only surviving historical building of the complex. The extant structure of Dacheng Hall is single-story with double eaves, hip-gable roofed. The plan features seven bays in width and five bays in depth, with the peripheral bays functioning as an outdoor veranda. The bracket sets of the lower eave employ the official style, while the upper eave is supported by cantilevered beams without bracket set (Figure 6).

The exposed interior framework reveals clear alteration traces in the upper eave structure: an upper level with shelf-shaped beam system (bogu shi) grafted onto a lower level of short-column-beam system (chaliang shi). Firstly, the top end of each short column exhibits remnants of a circular mortise-tenon joint, suggesting that in its original composition it carried a round purlin (Figure 7). Secondly, the exterior columns of the upper eave consist of two grafted segments, with the upper integrated in the shelf-shaped beam system cantilevering outwards to support the upper eave (Figure 7). These two groups of traces collectively indicate that the lower-level short-column-beam system used to carry a roof with single eave in the original construction phase, while the upper-level shelf-shaped beam system was grafted on later to add the double eave as the second construction phase.

The findings drawn from Original Components Analysis are confirmed by the historical literature. According to the Annals of Xinhui County printed during the Daoguang Reign (1820–1850) and Tongzhi Reign (1861–1875) [62,63], the roof of Dacheng Hall depicted in “Diagram of the Confucian Temple (xuegongtu)” was altered from single eave to double ones (Figure 8). This change aligns with the documented restoration from Xianfeng 11 to Tongzhi 3 (1861–1864), assigning the second construction phase to this period. The original construction phase dates to Qianlong 13 (1748), a period in line with the beam styles at the lower level.

Moreover, historical records of plan dimensions combined with Original Components Analysis demonstrated the reconstruction of the lower eave structure in the second construction phase. Five bays in width, as documented in Annals during the Daoguang Reign [62], contradicts the extant seven-bay plan with different measurements [30], attesting to the layout alteration. However, as the extant last bays share identical styles and coherent joints with the other bays (Figure 9), a simultaneous reconstruction of all bays of the lower eave structure can be inferred. The date of this reconstruction, being later than the Daoguang Reign, corresponds with the second construction phase of Dacheng Hall in 1861–1864.

In conclusion, two construction phases of Dacheng Hall are identified by Original Components Analysis combined with examination of written sources: the first phase achieved a single-eave structure in 1748, with its short-column-beam system still surviving; the second phase added a double eave in 1861–1864, with the extant lower eave structure and grafted shelf-shaped beam system both belonging to this phase.

4.2. System of Indicator Structural Elements

Through chronological ordering of all the structural elements, three elements of bracket sets and nine elements of column–beam frameworks are identified as exhibiting rapid evolutionary features. Since the variation paces of each element differ, the synthesis of their typological chronology enables a sharper depiction of the evolutionary process of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.

4.2.1. Three Indicator Elements of the Bracket Set

The official-style bracket sets were exclusively employed in palatial-type timber structures rather than hall-type in the Cantonese architectural tradition, representing a higher construction standard. Three structural compositions evolve consistently:

• Arrangement of Intercolumnar Bracket Sets (pingshenke) on Front Façade

The typological–chronological sequence of arrangement of intercolumnar bracket sets is shown in Figure 10. Type I, featuring two sets of brackets in the central bay and one set on either side, was consistently employed from the earliest case through the latest, representing the predominant style of arrangement of intercolumnar bracket sets. Type II, with four sets in the central bay and none on either side, appeared exclusively during the Jiajing reign (1521–1567) as an outlier. Lasting from the Shunzhi Reign (1644–1661) to the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722), Type III exemplifies a transitional phase to increase the number of intercolumnar bracket sets while reducing their spacing, a trend towards more exquisite façades which emerged during the early period of the Qing dynasty.

• Order of Bracket Arms (gong) and Joists (fang) on the Façade Axis (zhengxinfeng)

The order of bracket arms and joists exhibits five varied styles (Figure 11), with double layers of bracket arms at the bottom (Type I) as the predominant type which evolves in three stages. Type I-1, with another set of double bracket arms atop, is confined to the earliest period of the Xuande Reign (1425–1435). Approximately during the Hongzhi Reign (1487–1505), Type I-1 evolved into Type I-2, featuring a single bracket arm on top of double ones, which remained prevalent till the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). In the later stage of Type I-2, the new style of Type I-3, with only one set of double bracket arms, emerged during the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) and predominated afterwards until the end of the Qing dynasty. The other two styles only had limited presence after the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) as outliers.

• Relationship between Purlin (zhengxinheng) and Joist (zhengxinfang) on the Façade Axis

The evolution of the relationship between purlin and joist clearly demonstrates two stages (Figure 12). Purlins carried by joists on the façade axis as Type I was applied from the earliest case until the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722) as a marker for the early evolutionary stage. Meanwhile, purlins on the façade axis evolved from Type I-1 as a joist on the bracket arm into Type I-2 as an independent component at the beginning of the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). The late stage of evolution was initiated by Type II with the purlin detaching from the underlying joist from the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) and eventually becoming standardized as the predominant style after the middle period of the Qing dynasty.

4.2.2. Nine Indicator Elements of Column–Beam Framework

The column–beam framework of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures comprises three basic types: strut–beam system (tailiang shi), short-column-beam system (chaliang shi) and shelf-shaped beam system (bogu shi). While developing in sequences, the structural elements of these three types evolved independently. Among them, nine elements evolve consistently and rapidly:

• Main Structural Type between Innermost Columns (jinzhu)

For the main structure between the innermost columns, the application of three column–beam framework types took form gradually in three stages (Figure 13). Type I of the strut–beam system (tailiang shi) represents the predominant style during the whole evolutionary process. From the Wanli Reign (1573–1620), Type II of the short-column-beam system (chaliang shi) was suddenly employed as the main structure and rapidly established itself as another prevailing style, among which a mixture of short-column-beam system and strut–beam system (Type II-2) marked a transitional style during the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). Type III of the shelf-shaped beam system (bogu shi) first emerged during the Xianfeng Reign (1851–1861), with a precursor of Type III-1, a mixture of the shelf-shaped beam system and strut–beam system, emerging during the Daoguang Reign (1820–1850).

• Style of Short Column (guazhu) in Short-Column-Beam System

Four stages are exhibited in the development of the short column (guazhu), as depicted in Figure 14. The universal adoption of Type I in the early period of the Ming dynasty, featuring a straight column with round cap-block (ludou) carved on top, confirms it as the early-stage prototype until the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). The Wanli Reign (1573–1620) witnessed the appearance of Type-II with absence of a cap-block, the cross-section of which evolved from gradual taper (Type II-1) into obvious entasis (Type II-2) and finally uniform straightness (Type II-3), marking three sub-stages initiated in the Wanli Reign (1573–1620), Qianlong Reign (1735–1796) and Daoguang Reign (1820–1850), respectively.

• Section (liangshen) of Inserted Beam in Short-Column-Beam System

The short-column-beam system is further categorized into two distinct structural systems according to the tectonics of the inserted beam (Figure 15).

Type I, termed the penetrating-tenon style (chuansun zao), is characterized by a diminished beam end sized to penetrate through a mortise on the shaft of the short column. When the mortise was repositioned on top of the short column in the falling-tenon style (luosun zao, Type II), the beam could be installed top-down onto the column, maintaining a uniform section at its end.

The beam section of the penetrating-tenon style (Type I) evolved through three styles. Type I-1 featuring a straight beam with rectangular section (bianzuo zhiliang) and coexisted with Type I-2 with a crescent-shaped beam (yueliang) in the early period of the Ming dynasty, with the former resurrected after the Qianlong Reign (1735–1796) and the latter persisting continuously until the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). Type I-3 with convex section (yuanzuo zhiliang) appeared only briefly during the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) and Qianlong Reign (1735–1796). Type II immediately established itself as the predominant style after its first emergence in the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) until the end of the Qing dynasty.

• End (liangtou) of Inserted Beam in Short-Column-Beam System

The end of the inserted beam in the short-column-beam system is one of the most rapidly evolving elements, progressing through seven varied styles (Figure 16). Type I, diagonally cut at the upper angle, was only applied in the earliest case of the Ming dynasty. Subsequently, the beam end evolved into a vertical cut (Type II) from the Chenghua Reign (1464–1487) to the Jiajing Reign (1521–1567) and later into a petaloid cut at both angles (Type III) during the Wanli Reign (1573–1620). The prevalence of Type IV with a half bracket arm almost completely overlaps with Type V with a floral scroll from the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) to the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). As simplified variants of Type V, Type VI omitted the floral scroll ornament and took shape during the Qianlong Reign (1735–1796). An S-shaped beam end (Type VII) and further simplified geometric patterns (Type VIII) evolved subsequently as characteristic late styles.

• Style of Innermost Column (jinzhu)

The innermost column with round cap-block (ludou) carved on top, though often cited as a diagnostic feature of the Cantonese architectural tradition, was only employed from the Chenghua Reign (1464–1487) to the Shunzhi Reign (1644–1661) rather than being an enduring phenomenon (Figure 17). Besides this widely-recognized style (Type II), Type I without a carved cap-block was applied in two evolutionary stages: Type I-1 carrying an independent rectangular cap-block appeared earlier than Type II from the Xuande Reign (1425–1435) to the Jiajing Reign (1521–1567); removal of the cap-block (Type I-2), starting from the Wanli Reign (1573–1620), represents the predominant style long after the disappearance of Type II until the end of the Qing dynasty.

• Relationship between Innermost Column, Beam and Purlin

Type II purlins directly carried by the innermost columns constitute the predominant style with long-term prevalence after its occurrence during the Chenghua Reign (1464–1487) (Figure 18). In the process, Type I with intermediate components between purlin and innermost columns briefly emerged with three variants: Type I-1, applying inter-purlin bracket sets (gejia dougong) on top of the innermost columns, represents a short-term early style during the Xuande Reign (1425–1435), while Type I-2 with strips (timu) and Type I-3 with beam end carrying the purlin appeared successively during the Shunzhi Reign (1644–1661) and Kangxi Reign (1661–1722), marking a transient structural innovation.

• Application of Straight Beam (zhiliang) in Strut–Beam System

Application of the straight beam (zhiliang) in the strut–beam system followed an evolutionary process of rise and fall (Figure 19). With the prevalence of crescent-shaped beams (yueliang) of a higher construction standard, Type I presented the initial evolutionary stage in the early period of the Ming dynasty. As its application gradually increased, straight beams first appeared as Type II-1 in transverse tie-beams perpendicular to gable walls (paliang) as well as Type II-2 in the longest principal beams (datuo) during the Jiajing Reign (1521–1567), with the former only briefly applied until the Wanli Reign (1573–1620) and the latter persisting as a predominant style until almost the end of the Qing dynasty. The heyday of the straight beam came during the Shunzhi Reign (1644–1661) and Kangxi Reign (1661–1722) when its employment expanded from the lower eave or veranda (Type II-3) into every beam between the innermost columns (Type II-4) and even the entire framework (Type III). Paradoxically, Type I with the complete exclusion of straight beams was resurrected in the same period as an opposite extreme. After its peak stage, the straight beam reverted to limited application as Type II-2 and Type II-3 in the middle and late period of the Qing dynasty.

• Application of Bending Tie-Beam (shuishu)

Application of the bending tie-beam exhibited distinct evolutionary processes in the strut–beam system and the short-column-beam system (Figure 20).

The strut–beam system underwent three evolutionary stages: the early stage of partial application of bending tie-beams (Type I-1) as shown in the earliest case; the predominant style of universal integration of bending tie-beams (Type I-2) initiating from the Chenghua Reign (1464–1487), which was punctuated by a transitional stage of complete exclusion of bending tie-beams (Type I-3) during the Shunzhi Reign (1644–1661) and the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722).

In contrast, the short-column-beam system, generally omitting bending tie-beams (Type II-2), applied bending tie-beams (Type II-1) from the Xuande Reign (1425–1435) until the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722) during its early stage of evolution.

• Style of Bending Tie-Beam (shuishu)

The bending tie-beam (shuishu) consists of three basic types: Type I is the flat tie-beam (bianshu), Type II is the convex tie-beam (feishu) and Type III is the short tie-beam (chayi), each rapidly evolving in distinct sequences (Figure 21).

The Type I flat tie-beam featured floral scrolls (Type I-1) in the early period of the Ming dynasty and evolved into more sophisticated botanical carvings (Type I-2) and animal reliefs (Type I-3) during the Wanli Reign (1573–1620). The predominant late style, featuring a fish turning around (Type I-4), first appeared in Cantonese buildings during the Kangxi Reign (1661–1722). The increasing complexity of flat tie-beams continued with irregular shapes (Type I-5) created after the Daoguang Reign (1820–1850).

The Type II convex tie-beam and Type III short tie-beam similarly underwent an evolutionary process of increasing sophistication. Type II-1 with uniform section appeared during the Hongzhi Reign (1487–1505) and represents a primitive style in its early stage. The segment configuration of Type II-2 emerged almost simultaneously and persisted until the Jiajing Reign (1521–1567). Type II-3 with forked tail and botanical carvings marked the utmost sophistication of the convex tie-beam at the end of the Qing dynasty. Similarly, the evolution of the short tie-beam followed a progressive sequence from an early style of floral scrolls (Type III-1) into openwork floral carvings (Type III-2) and a complexity of irregular shapes (Type III-3) in its final stage of evolution.

4.3. Periodization of Cantonese Palatial-Type Timber Structures

By synthesis of typological–chronological sequences of the twelve elements above, the evolutionary process of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures can be periodized into three principal phases, each exhibiting dual-stage development (Figure 22):

• First Phase: Xuande Reign to mid-Wanli Reign (ca.1430–early 17th century), with an initial stage of ca.1430–ca.1490 and a terminal stage of ca.1490–early 17th century, the latter representing the mature phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction.
• Second Phase: mid-Wanli Reign to mid-Kangxi Reign (early 17th century–ca.1690) as the revolutionary phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction, with an initial stage of early 17th century–ca.1650 and a terminal stage of ca.1650–ca.1690, representing innovative phases of the short-column-beam system (chaliang shi) and strut–beam system (tailiang shi), respectively.
• Third Phase: mid-Kangxi Reign to the end of the Qing dynasty (ca.1690–early 20th century) as the final standardization phase, with an initial stage of ca.1690–late 18th century and a terminal stage of late 18th century–early 20th century.

4.3.1. First Phase: Xuande Reign to Mid-Wanli Reign (ca. 1430–Early 17th Century)

The dated cases in the first phase, though few in number, demonstrate uniformity across all twelve structural elements, suggesting a high degree of continuity in the early evolutionary phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.

This phase is characterized by three typical styles: firstly, for the main structure between innermost columns, the strut–beam system (tailiang shi, Type I) maintained predominance; secondly, for the short-column-beam system (chaliang shi, Type II), which was applied as a subordinate structural type, penetrating-tenon style (chuansun zao, Type I) was universally employed with a straight short column (guazhu) with a carved round cap-block (ludou) on top (Type I) and bending tie-beams (shuishu, Type II-1), demonstrating the similarity between the contemporary strut–beam system and the short-column-beam system; thirdly, in terms of the relationship between purlin (zhengxinheng) and joist (zhengxinfang) on the façade axis, purlins of each case were all integrated into the bracket sets as a joist carried by the bracket arm (Type I-1).

Other structural elements evolved between the Chenghua Reign (1464–1487) and the Hongzhi Reign (1487–1505), necessitating the subdivision of this phase into two stages:

• Initial Stage: Xuande Reign to Chenghua Reign (ca.1430–ca.1490)

Three typical styles defined the initial stage of the first phase: the section (liangshen) of the inserted beam in the short-column-beam system featured a rectangular shape (bianzuo zhiliang, Type I-1); the application of the straight beam (zhiliang) in the strut–beam system was completely replaced by the crescent-shaped beam (yueliang, Type I); the bending tie-beam is characterized by the flat type with floral scrolls (Type I-1).

A representative example of this stage is Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Zhaoqing (Figure 23). Besides the three typical styles mentioned above, this case exhibits a series of early-stage features, including diagonally cut beam ends in a short-column-beam system (Type I), partial application of bending tie-beams in a strut–beam system (Type I-1), rectangular cap-blocks carried on the innermost columns (Type I-1), inter-purlin bracket sets (gejia dougong) intermediated between purlin and innermost columns (Type I-1), two sets of double bracket arms stacked on the façade axis (Type I-1), all together defining the characteristics of early Ming timber structures.

• Terminal Stage: Hongzhi Reign to Mid-Wanli Reign (ca.1490–early 17th century)

The terminal stage of the first phase is distinguished from the initial stage by three variants: the section (liangshen) of the inserted beam in the short-column-beam system evolved into a crescent-shape (yueliang, Type I-2); the straight beam (zhiliang) began to integrate into the strut–beam system (Type II-1 and Type II-2); the convex tie-beam with uniform section (Type II-1) and segment configuration (Type II-2) prevailed instead of the flat type (Type I).

The Rear Hall of the Wuxian Temple in Guangzhou is a representative example of this stage (Figure 24). As shown in this case, certain diagnostic features of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures took form in this stage, including purlins directly carried by the innermost columns (Type II) and universal integration of bending tie-beams (Type I-2), which persisted until the end of the Qing dynasty, characterizing this stage of the mid-Ming period as the mature phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures.

4.3.2. Second Phase: Mid-Wanli Reign to Mid-Kangxi Reign (Early 17th Century–ca.1690)

This phase is considered the revolutionary phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction, witnessing dramatic structural transformations.

With the replacement of the strut–beam system (tailiang shi) by the short-column-beam system (chaliang shi) as the main structure, this phase is further identified by the transformation from the penetrating-tenon style (chuansun zao) into the falling-tenon style (luosun zao) in the short-column-beam system, which in turn led to systematic variations of five critical structural elements: firstly, the style of short column (guazhu) in the short-column-beam system abandoned the cap-block, leaving merely a flat top (Type II); secondly, the section (liangshen) of the inserted beam in the short-column-beam system maintained uniformity (Type II) as characteristic of the falling-tenon style; thirdly, application of the bending tie-beam (shuishu) ceased (Type II-2) as another characteristic of the falling-tenon style; fourthly, the relationship between purlin (zhengxinheng) and joist (zhengxinfang) on the façade axis began to detach (Type II); fifthly, the order of bracket arms (gong) and joists (fang) on the façade axis simplified into one set of double bracket arms (Type I-3), further facilitating the detachment of the purlin from the bracket sets.

Together with this revolution in the short-column-beam system, the structural transformation of the strut–beam system followed subsequently during the dynastic transition from Ming to Qing, dividing this phase into two stages:

• Initial Stage: Mid-Wanli Reign to Mid-Shunzhi Reign (early 17th century–ca.1650)

The initial stage of the second phase can be distinguished by two structural elements: the beam end (liangtou) in the short-column-beam system featured a petaloid cut at both angles (Type III); the bending tie-beam (shuishu) incorporated a flat type with botanical carvings (Type I-2) and animal reliefs (Type I-3) as well as a short type with floral scrolls (Type III-1).

As two representative examples of this stage, Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan exemplifies the earliest extant case to employ the short-column-beam system with falling-tenon style as the main structure (Figure 25), while the Main Hall of the Haopan Mosque in Guangzhou maintains the mature strut–beam system in the terminal stage of the first phase, with purlins directly carried by the innermost columns (Type II) and universal integration of bending tie-beams (Type I-2) (Figure 26).

• Terminal Stage: Mid-Shunzhi Reign to Mid-Kangxi Reign (ca.1650–ca.1690)

The dynastic transition from Ming to Qing witnessed a heyday of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction, during which the diffusion of the newly prevalent falling-tenon style brought about multiple variations in the strut–beam system, achieving an innovative stage of this structural type.

The variations characteristic of this stage manifested in four structural elements: firstly, the prevalent straight beam (zhiliang) in the falling-tenon style reached its peak by application in the strut–beam system from lower eave or veranda (Type II-3) to beams between innermost columns (Type II-4) and even the entire framework (Type III); secondly, application of the bending tie-beam (shuishu) decreased into complete exclusion (Type II-2) from the strut–beam system as in the short-column-beam system; thirdly, the relationship of the innermost columns and purlins was intermediated by structural components of inter-purlin bracket sets (gejia dougong, Type I-1), strips (timu, Type I-2) and beams (Type I-3) instead of purlins being directly carried by the innermost columns (Type II); fourthly, intercolumnar bracket sets (pingshenke) reached their peak in the two-set arrangement expanding from the central bay into either sides (Type III-1), and further in five bays at the center (Type III-2).

All these innovative variations can be found in the representative example of the Main Hall of the Big Buddha Temple in Guangzhou (Figure 27).

4.3.3. Third Phase: Mid-Kangxi Reign to End of the Qing Dynasty (ca.1690–Early 20th Century)

This phase, after a fading of dynamic creativity, is characterized by strut–beam systems standardizing into established styles: innermost columns with merely a flat top (Type I-2), purlin directly carried by innermost columns (Type II), universal integration of bending tie-beams (Type I-2), detachment of purlin from underlying joist (Type II) and one set of double bracket arms (Type I-3) on the façade axis.

On the other hand, the short-column-beam system and shelf-shaped beam system (bogu shi) continued evolving in two stages:

• Initial Stage: Mid-Kangxi Reign to Late-Qianlong Reign (ca.1690–late 18th century)

The initial stage of the third phase is characterized by the prevalence of the short-column-beam system, which exclusively featured the outline of floral scrolls (Type VI). Moreover, by integration of the falling-tenon style and penetrating-tenon style, both styles developed a new element of convex sections for straight beams (yuanzuo zhiliang, Type I-3), the only difference between them being in the section of the beam end, which is uniform for the former and diminished for the latter.

The Bell Tower of the Wuxian Temple in Guangzhou, a representative example of this stage, exhibits the newly developed penetrating-tenon style with convex section for the straight beams (Figure 28).

• Terminal Stage: Late Qianlong Reign to End of the Qing Dynasty (late 18th century–early 20th century)

The terminal stage of the third phase is characterized by the application of the shelf-shaped beam system, with additional features including beam ends of S-shape (Type VII) and with geometric patterns (Type VIII) in the short-column-beam system, sophisticated bending tie-beam styles of irregular-shape flat type (Type I-4) and short type (Type III-3), as well as convex type with forked tail and botanical carvings (Type II-3).

The representative example of the Main Hall of the Longmu Temple in Yuecheng integrated the strut–beam system characteristic of this stage with a shelf-shaped beam system applied in the transverse framework of the gable wall under the lower eave (Figure 29).

5. Discussion

As depicted above, the second phase of Cantonese palatial-type timber structure evolution witnessed innovations in the short-column-beam system (chaliangshi) and strut–beam system (tailiangshi) successively. These innovations in turn triggered a chain reaction of other structural elements, culminating in fundamental reconfigurations that marked two developmental discontinuities. As pivotal moments in Cantonese palatial-type construction during the Ming and Qing dynasties, their stylistic origins, as analyzed in the following section, serve to decode critical socio-cultural factors underpinning architectural phenomena in Guangdong Province.

5.1. Assumption of the Cultural Origin of Short-Column-Beam System Transformation in Late Ming Dynasty

The falling-tenon style (luosun zao), a typical tectonic style of the short-column-beam system emerging at the beginning of the second phase in the late Ming dynasty, represents a fundamental divergence from the previously predominant penetrating-tenon style (chasun zao) in three aspects. Firstly, the most critical innovation of the falling-tenon style lies in the mortise-tenon joints. Through relocation of the mortise from the shaft to the top of the short column, the basic concept of beam insertion reformed from horizontal penetration into vertical installation (Figure 30). This tectonic revolution not only optimized cross-sectional loss of beam but also achieved a more compressed joint interlock. Secondly, innovation in mortise-tenon joints subsequently triggered a chain reaction of transformation, crystalized into a thorough renewal of the column–beam framework (Figure 31): incompatibility of the round cap-block (ludou) with a tenon on top of a short column resulted in the exclusion of the former; beam ends with uniform section no longer applied to bending tie-beams (shuishu) easily, and were thus abandoned. Thirdly, alienation of bracket sets from the column–beam framework was further exacerbated by dimensional discrepancy between bracket set components, and beams expanded. As a result, purlins on the façade axis (zhengxinheng) began to detach from the underlying joints (zhengxinfang), while the layers of underlying bracket arms reduced accordingly to accommodate the detachment of the purlin.

Based on dated remains, this transformation of the falling-tenon style was achieved within barely two decades. Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan is the earliest extant case of falling-tenon style constructed in Wanli 30 (1602) (Figure 25) [53]. Another early example, the Grand Ancestral Hall of Wei Clan in Lijiao of Guangzhou (Figure 32), is a hall-type construction with two uncertain dating resources—1615 or 1594–1629 [33,64]—both slightly later than Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan. In contrast, the terminus ante quem for the previously prevailing penetrating-tenon construction can be dated by Chongzheng Hall of the Chenbaisha Shrine in Jiangmen, another hall-type construction completed during Wanli 11–12 (1583–1584) (Figure 32). In short, the nineteen-year span of Wanli 11–30 witnessed a dramatic reconfiguration of main structures in Cantonese palatial-type timber construction from the strut–beam system to the short-column-beam system of the falling-tenon style.

Given the rapid turnover of main structural styles, the evolution of Cantonese palatial-type timber constructions underwent an abrupt discontinuity rather than a gradation, suggesting potential impact from non-Cantonese architectural traditions. A systematic comparison of Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan with later remains of Hakka construction in northern Guangdong reveals affinities between the earliest extant case of the falling-tenon style with Hakka architectural tradition, leading to the assumption of cultural transmission of the falling-tenon style from Hakka to the Cantonese zone. Firstly, official-style bracket sets detaching from the falling-tenon style framework in Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan suggests two independent systems, with official-style bracket sets originating as a native Cantonese cultural factor and thus falling-tenon style frameworks belonging to an exogenous architectural tradition. Secondly, transverse tie-beams perpendicular to gable walls (Paliang) in Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan exhibit convex curvature, resembling the crescent-shaped beams prevalent in Hakka construction in northern Guangdong (Figure 33) [65]. Thirdly, exterior columns of the upper eave are supported by underlying beams in Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan, serving as another homogeneous feature between the falling-tenon style and Hakka architectural tradition (Figure 34).

As the earliest extant case of falling-tenon style, Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan occupies a critical juncture between the Cantonese and Hakka zones. Such spatial and stylistic evidence, though the sole example, gives support to the assumption that the falling-tenon style initially developed in northern Guangdong as a native Hakka tradition with its prevalence in Cantonese palatial-type timber construction being a result of cultural transmission. From this point of view, discontinuous transformation from the penetrating-tenon style into the falling-tenon style thus provides a historical waypoint of sub-ethnic cultural transmission in the spatio-temporal map of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction.

5.2. Analysis of the Political Intervention of Strut–Beam System Transformation in Early Qing Dynasty

Following the transformation of the short-column-beam system, the strut–beam system underwent a parallel reconfiguration at the terminal stage of the second phase in the early Qing dynasty. Within a span of fifty years (Shunzhi 7 to Kangxi 30 (1650–1692)), a collection of structural elements transformed into distinct and even contrasting styles from well-established features, marking a decisive break from the strut–beam system which matured at the terminal stage of the first phase. The transformation was initiated by the Mahavira Hall of the Guangxiao Temple in Guangzhou during its reconstruction in Shunzhi 6–11 (1649–1654) [55], with increasing intercolumnar bracket sets, abandonment of the bending tie-beam, expanding application of straight beams (zhiliang) and purlins detaching from innermost columns, all occurring for the first time in the evolutionary process of the strut–beam system (Figure 35). The movement culminated in the Main Hall of the Big Buddha Temple in Guangzhou, constructed during Kangxi 2–3 (1663–1664) [56], when a two-set arrangement of intercolumnar bracket sets expanded to the central five bays, straight beams were applied to the complete framework, and the purlin was carried by the longest principal beam instead of the innermost columns (Figure 27). By this time, critical structural elements had taken forms completely inverted from the preceding styles.

A pivotal figure comes to light when investigating the extant cases applying the transformed strut–beam system. Kexi Shang, the Qing military commander who conquered Guangdong Province, acted as the primary patron for all these constructions. In one critical commemorative stele, “building anew” (“zuoxin”) was particularly underlined as impetus for the reconstruction, a political renewal to accommodate the dynastic transition [55]. By deploying new styles in the reconstruction campaign of Buddhist temples, the new conqueror strategically created a dual power structure: political installations to legitimize the new regime through religious impact, and ultimately, personal monuments materialized by architectural renovation to symbolize individual identity. The transformed strut–beam system, identified by Kexi Shang’s patronage, disseminated his authority into the Hakka zone in northern Guangdong when the Nanhua Temple in Shaoguan was compelled to rebuild [66]. Similarly, this structural system came to an abrupt end two decades after his death, with the Sixth Patriarch Hall of the Guangxiao Temple in Guangzhou being the last dated extant case in Kangxi 31 (1692) [56], which confirmed its creation driven by personal authority that led to the identification of the “Shang Style”.

Given the novel appearance of the “Shang Style”, its stylistic origin inevitably attracted the attention of contemporary writers, who attributed Kexi Shang’s architectural campaign to the imitation of temples in the imperial capital of Beijing [67]. This historical narration has been cited as proof of Shang’s loyalty to the central government [66]. However, a systematic comparison of the transformed strut–beam system, Cantonese palatial-type structures, and official-style constructions in Beijing reveals that the stylistic origins of the “Shang Style”, though seemingly innovative, actually lay in established features of local palatial-type construction. The newly prevailing falling-tenon style provided one major reference for the subsequent transformation of the strut–beam system, with the latter applying identical styles of straight beam, column–beam joint and application of bending tie-beam (Figure 36). Another stylistic origin of the “Shang Style” can be traced back to Cantonese palatial-type structures built in the early Ming dynasty, with similar inter-purlin bracket sets (gejia dougong) intermediating between purlin and innermost columns (Figure 37). Increasing intercolumnar bracket sets on the front façade, the only similarity between the “Shang Style” and imperial constructions of the Qing dynasty, were actually always limited to the two-set arrangement, a diagnostic characteristic of the Northern Song standards rather than the Qing counterpart.

Analysis of the stylistic origins demonstrates that the strut–beam system transformation in the early Qing dynasty was achieved by application of native structural elements previously developed in Cantonese palatial-type timber constructions. The direct transmission between the Cantonese architectural tradition and imperial building standards, as assumed by the historical record, never took place during the Qing dynasty due to the vast geographical distance from Guangdong Province to its northern capital. Consequently, without either evolution or transmission of new styles, the architectural creation created by Kexi Shang’s patronage, termed the “Shang Style” by this paper, had to recycle existing structural elements, the manipulation of which strongly suggested an underlying ideological purpose. Through extensive reconstruction of Buddhist temples with the newly-created “Shang Style”, the conqueror consolidated both the new regime and his personal authority, rendering the transient reconfiguration of the strut–beam system as evidence for political intervention underpinning Cantonese palatial-type construction at the moment of dynastic transition.

5.3. Future Research Directions

Transformations of the short-column-beam system and strut–beam system, dramatically contrasting with established styles, broke the gradual evolution of Cantonese palatial-type construction in the Ming and Qing dynasties, and their stylistic origins reveal two cultural mechanisms: sub-ethnic cultural transmission and political intervention. These two mechanisms functioned as crucial impetus for Cantonese architectural practice. With typological chronology of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures as a starting point, three key research questions necessitate further academic enquiries in particular:

• Comparative Study between Palatial-Type and Hall-Type Typological Chronologies within the Cantonese Architectural Tradition

Hall-type timber construction has been categorized with more established typological chronology, leading to its isolation from palatial-type construction. Further comparative study would unravel the potential synchronization of their evolutionary processes, as a result of technical and cultural impacts of government-sponsored construction on vernacular practice, suggesting a new paradigm to merge palatial-type and hall-type into one analytical group.

• Typological–Chronological Study of Hakka Timber Constructions in Northern Guangdong Province

While Hakka architectural tradition in northern Guangdong Province is assumed by this paper as the stylistic origin of the falling-tenon style, there is only one piece of evidence: Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Shaoguan, which provides the earliest extant case in palatial-type structures. A thorough typological–chronological study of the Hakka sub-zone in northern Guangdong, encompassing both palatial-type and hall-type, would establish more detailed evolutionary sequences of the Hakka architectural tradition, with the hope of discovering more evidence to demonstrate the cultural transmission route from Hakka to Cantonese zones.

• Socio-Cultural Study on the Impetus for Three Evolutionary Phases of Cantonese Palatial-Type Timber Structures

Other critical junctures in Cantonese palatial-type evolution have not been included in the investigation of socio-cultural mechanisms by this paper, besides analysis on political intervention of the strut–beam system’s transformation in the early Qing dynasty. A comprehensive examination of political, economic, demographic and other factors regarding other evolutionary phases of Cantonese palatial-type evolution would reveal a more comprehensive socio-cultural context to deeply understand the dynamics of Cantonese architectural practice.

5.4. Limitations

The typological–chronological analysis of this paper is established based upon the timber structure styles of dated cases, consequently inheriting two limitations in the research conclusion that must be specifically addressed.

The first constraint lies in the limited coverage of the historical period. Since the establishment of evolutionary sequences relies on precise dating resources, the conclusion of this paper is confined to the Ming and Qing dynasties. Two significant pre-Ming cases of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures, the Main Hall of the Mei’an Temple in Zhaoqing and Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Temple in Deqing County of Zhaoqing, have to be excluded due to uncertain dating information and multiple alterations, creating a historical gap before the Ming dynasty, which remains a persistent challenge in the architectural research of Guangdong Province.

The second limitation stems from the exclusive focus on timber structural elements, leaving other architectural features unexamined, such as architectural complex layout. The deteriorated condition of surviving Cantonese palatial-type building complexes prevents detailed typological–chronological analysis of their complete layout, leaving certain significant socio-cultural mechanisms unexplored. One critical historical event, which demonstrates the impact of political intervention upon architectural evolution, would be the national construction of Jingyi Pavilion mandated by the Ming emperor Jiajing (1526), profoundly altering the layout of the Confucian Temple in Guangdong Province [68,69]. Comprehensive analysis of such complex layout variation and embedded socio-cultural issues must await more extensive archaeological excavations in the future.

6. Conclusions

This paper pioneers typological–chronological study of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures, a typical architectural type previously under-studied among the three sub-ethnic architectural traditions in Guangdong Province. Through the interdisciplinary methodology of building archaeology, 20 cases of Cantonese palatial-type timber structures are dated to the Ming and Qing dynasties, which cluster around the central Cantonese zone with peripheral extension into Hakka cities, mapping the geography of the Cantonese architectural tradition according to its structural characteristics rather than ethno-linguistics. Based on the chronological sequence of 20 dated cases, 12 rapidly evolving structural elements, with three in bracket sets and nine in the column–beam framework, are identified as acute indicators, the synthesis of which substantiate the periodization of Cantonese palatial-type evolution into three phases, each including an initial and a terminal development stage.

Periodization further facilitates the identification of two discontinuities in the evolution process of Cantonese palatial-type timber construction. The second evolutionary phase witnessed two dramatic structural transformations which rapidly overturned well-established styles, suggesting unusual socio-cultural impetus. Analysis of their stylistic origins reveals two different socio-cultural mechanisms: transformation of the short-column-beam system in the late Ming dynasty is assumed to assimilate the Hakka architectural tradition in northern Guangdong, while transformation of the strut–beam system in the early Qing dynasty was manipulated by the Qing conqueror Kexi Shang as a political instrument. In conclusion, such investigation transfers architectural typological–chronological study into socio-cultural discourse, achieving the fundamental shift in material culture research from human artifacts to human practices.

Building archaeology, the interdisciplinary field which applies archaeological methodology to architectural study, promotes synergies between both disciplines. For architectural scholarship, the introduction of archaeological dating theory and methods has enhanced the precision of historical building dating, providing necessary diachronic perspectives for architectural cultural geographical study. For the archaeological field, historical architectural research has not only expanded its disciplinary scope, validating typological–chronological analysis for built heritage, but also contributed to its methodological innovation through new techniques such as Original Components Analysis.

Through interdisciplinary synergies between archaeology and architecture, this paper presents a new paradigm to incorporate the diachronic scope into the static synchronic approach of cultural geographical study of Guangdong architecture. A similar approach is widely applicable across all timber structure types in Guangdong Province, encompassing hall-type constructions and dwellings such as Tulou and Weilong House, the dating of which is more challenging due to a lack of official written resources. Further archaeological investigation into all these timber construction types would establish a more detailed spatio-temporal framework of Guangdong architectural traditions, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of its dynamic landscape.