系統(tǒng)的測(cè)量顯示，先秦東亞大陸腹地考古遺址上的主導(dǎo)建筑軸線(xiàn)和圈圍段落總是與東亞大陸腹地的高等級(jí)神明之隩、設(shè)圍基址或者舊石器時(shí)代的特殊遺址相關(guān)。根據(jù)人類(lèi)環(huán)境體認(rèn)習(xí)慣，可以認(rèn)為，這一現(xiàn)象表明，先秦時(shí)期東亞大陸腹地存在利用建筑擺布和圈圍形態(tài)指示相應(yīng)遺址主張者空間淵源的文化傳統(tǒng)。這樣的傳統(tǒng)使得考古遺址上的營(yíng)造物，尤其是那些平面形狀難以描述的圈圍成為了解在東亞大陸腹地活動(dòng)的人群遷徙與互動(dòng)的標(biāo)識(shí)系統(tǒng)。
對(duì)一定數(shù)量人群的空間淵源的確認(rèn)，不僅大體上勾畫(huà)了先秦時(shí)期東亞大陸腹地主導(dǎo)人群遷徙、互動(dòng)的基本格局，而且讓人看到了：以著名的舊石器時(shí)代遺址，如北京房山周口店、山東沂水跋山、湖南道縣玉蟾巖為空間淵源的人群，在后世相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間里都是不可忽視的存在；距今 9000年左右，一個(gè)大體上覆蓋東亞大陸腹地的人群互動(dòng)圈已經(jīng)形成；華夏族的產(chǎn)生與國(guó)家的出現(xiàn)密切關(guān)聯(lián)；中心位于鄭州洛陽(yáng)一線(xiàn)的大型權(quán)力在中國(guó)的塑造上占據(jù)著特殊的地位；社會(huì)條件變化造成的族群空間資本貶值是與祖宗無(wú)關(guān)的至上神出現(xiàn)的前提；在祭祀活動(dòng)為國(guó)之大事的古代，與祖宗無(wú)關(guān)的至上神的確立，為漢族的出現(xiàn)奠定了基礎(chǔ)；雖然《周禮 ·考工記》主張的都城模型影響巨大，但傳統(tǒng)的以特殊地點(diǎn)為指向標(biāo)的的建筑朝向設(shè)定與圈圍安排規(guī)則仍然以法術(shù)形式在漢長(zhǎng)安乃至其后都城的設(shè)置上得以體現(xiàn)。
相關(guān)的基礎(chǔ)性發(fā)現(xiàn)與隨之而來(lái)的討論，既可以作為《塑造中國(guó)：東亞大陸腹地早期聚落組織與空間架構(gòu)》一書(shū)的支撐，也在相當(dāng)程度上證實(shí)了《史記》，尤其是《今本竹書(shū)紀(jì)年》的信史性質(zhì)。

Abstract
Systematic measurements have shown that the architectural axes of functionally dominant buildings and enclosures on archaeological sites in the core regions of the East Asian continent during the Pre-Qin period are consistently associated with high-ranking deities habitations, enclosures, or special Palaeolithic sites. Based on human environmental perception habits, it can be inferred that this phenomenon indicates the existence of a cultural tradition of utilizing building layouts and enclosure forms to signal the spatial origins of the proponents of a given site. Such traditions turned the constructions on archaeological sites, especially those enclosures with shapes difficult to describe, into a system of markers for understanding the migration and interaction of the populations active in the region.
The extensive verifications of spatial origins of the inhabitants corresponding to archaeological sites not only have roughly outlined the basic patterns of migration and interactions of the dominant inhabitants in the core regions of the East Asian continent during the Pre-Qin period, but also presented the following seven innovative findings.
1. Populations originating from renowned Paleolithic sitessuch as Zhoukoudian (Fangshan, Beijing), Bashan (Yishui, Shandong) and Yuchanyan (Daoxian, Hunan) remained a significant presence throughout much of later history.

2. Around 9,000 years ago, a spatial interaction network encompassing the hinterlands of the East Asian continent had already been formed.

3. The forming of Huaxia Ethnicity is closely linked to the formation of the state.
4. The large power centers located along the Zhengzhou-Luoyang axis played a critical role in shapingthe central state.
5. The devaluation of ethnic spatial capital caused by changes in social conditions was the premise for the emergence of supreme deities unrelated to ancestors.

6. In ancient times, when sacrificial rites were of national importance, the establishment of supreme deities unrelated to ancestors laid the foundation for the emergence of the Han ethnic group.

7. Although the capital city model proposed in Kaogongji (The Record of Artificers) had a significant influence, the traditional rules for architectural orientation and the arrangement of enclosures were still embodied in the form of magic, as seen in the layout of the Han capital city of Chang an and subsequent capital cities.

The connection between the architectural axes and enclosure elements at the Pre-Qin archaeological sites and thedeities habitationsand previous important enclosure sites not only serves as a fundamental support for the book Shaping China: Organizational and Spatial Structures of Early Settlements in the Hinterlands of East Asia, but also, to a considerable extent, confirms the historical authenticity of the Records of the Grand Historian, particularly the Bamboo Annals (the new version).