龟兹国佛教遗存中的中心柱窟在塔克拉玛干沙漠北线数量之多已经远远超出其他地区同类石窟数量的总和,是这一地区佛教建筑的基本形制,我们称其为“龟兹类型”中心柱窟。以往研究认为,“龟兹类型”中心柱窟是印度支提窟向中原北方地区塔庙窟演化过程中的一环,然而,实际情况可能并非如此。借由建筑、装饰布局及题材内容三个不同角度,本文对典型的“龟兹类型”中心柱窟克孜尔第171窟,以及中原北方地区典型的塔庙窟云冈第1窟进行了比较,认为两种类型洞窟之间不存在直接的影响,“龟兹类型”中心柱窟也并非由印度支提窟影响而形成。三个地区各自发展出了不同的石窟建筑传统应归因于三地之间的宗教信仰、仪式实践和地方建筑传统的差异性。

Among the Buddhist remains in the ancient kingdom of Kucha is a peculiar kind of cave, known as the central pillar cave. Caves of this type are so numerous on the northern route of the Taklamakan that they outnumber the total of caves of the same type throughout the rest of the Buddhist world-clearly showing that this type of cave was a fundamental architecture of the region. Therefore, we name these caves “Kucha-type” central pillar caves. Previous studies have assumed that the Kucha-type central pillar cave was the missing link in the transmission of the Indian caityagṛha to the Northern-Central Chinese pagoda-type cave. In this paper, however, we argue that this was not the case. We compare Kizil Cave 171, a typical Kucha-type central pillar cave, to Yungang Cave 1, a typical pagoda-temple cave, from three different perspectives: architecture, layout of the décor, and iconographic program. We show that there was no direct influence between the two types and suggest that the Indian caityagṛha also had no bearing on the development of the Kucha-type central pillar cave. The paper instead proposes that the three areas developed three different architectural traditions of caves with an unexcavated core that did not directly influence one another. The lack of direct transmission can be attributed to the difference in religious belief and practices, as well as in local architectural traditions.