摘要
一、扶胥港所在的黄埔深水湾具有一定抗御风浪和飓风的条件,《黄埔港计划》和《黄埔港史》都指出古代扶胥港与民国时期建的黄埔港自然条件基本相同,并以之相互参照研究。所谓"海船不易在此停泊较长时间"的论断违背事实。二、从扶胥镇的商业税收入之多,可断其为重要商业中心。从其多海舶停泊,可断其商业之发达与海外贸易密切相关。章望之《重修南海庙碑》也证明其为外贸港口。宋代官员曾噩已指出海舶完全可以在扶胥镇合法停泊。"宋代海船不能在此停泊贸易"之说违背史实。三、《元大德南海志残本》证明当时南海西庙一带商业区虽在西城墙外,仍被当时人称其在西城南隅,廖颙、方信孺的记载实质上指的是同一座神庙。"南海西庙迁移"之说不能成立。
I.The Huangpu Deepwater Bay,where the Fuxu Port locates is,to some extent,good enough to keep out the stormy wave and hurricanes.Both Plan of Huangpu Port and History of Huangpu Port indicate that the ancient Fuxu Port is almost the same as Huangpu port that was built during the Republican Era in terms of natural conditions and the writers had done comparative research on these two ports.The view that 'It is not suitable for ships to have a long-term parking' is against the fact.II.Judging from the amount of commercial revenues of the Fuxu Township,it must have been a vital trade centre.Judging from the number of ships parked there,its commercial prosperity must be closely related to foreign trade.Zhang Wangzhi also supports the view that Fuxu Post was a Foreign Trading post in his Rebuilding Monument for South Seas Temple.The government official of Song dynasty Zeng E pointed out that 'it is leagal for the sea boat to park in the port'.There is no ground to support the argument that 'it is impossible for sea boat to park in Fuxu Port for trading in Song Dynasty' III.The Mutilated Chorography of Nanhai in the year of Dade of Yuan Dynasty has proven that even though at that time the commercial area around the West Temple of the South Seas was outside of the west city wall,but people still regared it as southwestern corner of the western side of the city.Therefore,both writers Liao Yu and Fang Xinru referred to the same temple.As a result,the argument that 'The West Temple of the South Sea was moved' cannot be established.
出处
《海交史研究》
2009年第2期75-88,共14页
Journal of Maritime History Studies
