台南府城長年被稱為歷史城市：歷任市長以「文化首都」、「古都」及「歷史名城」反覆定位，學者與文史工作者長期書寫，「台南學」近年成為一門學問。這些都不出自市民；市民與這座城的歷史建立了什麼關係，少有探究。一座城憑什麼算是「歷史城市」，本研究查閱的文獻未曾處理；Jokilehto (2007) 把它繫於在地社群的「認可」。本研究由此提問：「台南府城是歷史城市」這個主張，與市民之間還有多遠。
2025 年 5 月 9 日，臺灣府城城垣興工三百週年，古都保存再生文教基金會（以下簡稱古都基金會）發起「五九圍城」行動，邀市民沿約十二公里的城垣遺構路徑並肩列隊，以人顯現消失的城垣，是二十六年來首度以整座城為對象的行動。本研究以此為個案，結合文件分析與十七位參與者的深度訪談，依序回答：這個主張如何在二十六年的核心工作中累積成形，如何化為「五九圍城」的行動設計，古都基金會遞出的與市民接住的落差又在哪裡。研究者是這場行動的承辦人，以行動手冊、活動說明、簡報及工作紀錄等一手文件查證。
認可憑藉的，是當代人共有的「處境」與深淺有別的「能力」 (Gadamer, 1975; Rüsen, 1987, 1989)。本研究據此提出三個面向：「歷史的所在」問在哪裡遇得到歷史，「歷史與當代的關係」問怎麼把過去接到現在，「歷史存在的形式」問歷史以什麼形式留在日常。以此對照京都、會安及喬治敦三座世界遺產城市，讀出歷史留在還有人在做的事情上，差別在由誰做、範圍多大。
再以三個面向對照古都基金會遞出的與受訪者接住的台南府城。「歷史的所在」沒有落差：古都基金會把歷史放在市民每天過日子的地方，受訪者的入口也都在那裡。「歷史與當代的關係」也接得上：兩邊都拿過去做今天的事，只是各接各的一段。落差出現在「歷史存在的形式」：古都基金會的核心工作把歷史遞出為一棟老屋、一條街、一個行業，各自有人維繫；「五九圍城」遞出的則是整座城，唯一與它相同的那個範圍，維繫的是那場行動，不是受訪者自己。
本研究因此讀出這項條件的前提：認可需要一個人進得去、有事情可做的範圍。十七位受訪者的認可都成立，距離因此不在市民與歷史之間——那份關係在小範圍已經結實——而在小範圍與整座城之間。一座城成為歷史城市，靠的是有人在自己站得住的地方，做一件涵蓋整座城的事；「五九圍城」的結構正是如此。台南府城與「歷史城市」之間，靠的是有人在自己站得住的地方，做一件涵蓋整座城的事；相隔的不是認可，而是這件還沒有人接手的事。

Tainan has long been called a historic city: successive mayors have defined it as the "cultural capital," the "old capital," the "historic city"; scholars and local historians have written about it continuously, and "Tainan studies" has lately become a field of its own. None of this comes from the city's residents, and what relationship they hold with the history of this city has rarely been examined. On what grounds a city counts as a "historic city" is a question the literature reviewed here has never addressed; Jokilehto (2007) ties it to recognition by the community concerned. This study asks accordingly: how far is the claim "Tainan is a historic city" from the residents of this city?
On 9 May 2025, three hundred years after construction of the Tainan city wall began, the Foundation of Historic City Conservation and Regeneration (hereafter the Foundation) launched the "May 9th Encirclement of the City Wall," inviting residents to line up along the roughly twelve-kilometre route of the wall's surviving traces and make the vanished wall visible through people themselves — the first action in twenty-six years to take the whole city as its object. Taking this as its case, the study combines document analysis with in-depth interviews of seventeen participants, answering in order: how the claim accumulated across twenty-six years of the Foundation's core work, how it was turned into the design of the "May 9th Encirclement," and where the gap lies between what the Foundation held out and what residents took up. The researcher organised the action, and verifies against primary documents — the action handbook, event materials, briefings and working records.
Recognition rests on a condition common to everyone in the present and on capacities that differ in depth (Gadamer, 1975; Rüsen, 1987, 1989). Three aspects follow: "where history is" asks where one encounters history; "how history relates to the present" asks how the past is carried into one's present; "the form in which history remains" asks in what form history stays in daily life. Read through these aspects, Kyoto, Hoi An and George Town — three World Heritage cities — show that history stays where someone is still doing something with it, the differences lying in who does it and how far it extends.
The same three aspects then set what the Foundation held out against what the interviewees took up. On "where history is" there is no gap: the Foundation places history where residents live their days, and the interviewees' points of entry are all there too. "How history relates to the present" connects as well: both sides put the past to present use, each to its own stretch of it. The gap appears in "the form in which history remains." The Foundation's core work held history out as a single old house, a street, a trade, each sustained by someone; the "May 9th Encirclement" held out the whole city, and the one extent that matches it is sustained by that action rather than by the interviewees themselves.
This study therefore reads a precondition into that condition: recognition needs an extent a person can enter and act within. Recognition holds for all seventeen interviewees; the distance lies not between residents and history — that relationship is already solid at small extents — but between the small extent and the whole city. A city becomes a historic city when people, each in the place where they stand, do something that covers the whole city; that is precisely the structure of the "May 9th Encirclement." What stands between Tainan and the "historic city" is not recognition, but this thing no one has yet taken up.

Avieli, N. (2015). The rise and fall (?) of Hội An, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Vietnam. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 30(1), 35–71.
Bakri, A. F., Robinson, M., Samadi, Z., & Jørgensen, H. (2021). The role of 'sense of place' in the revitalisation of heritage street: George Town, Penang, Malaysia. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 6(18), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v6i18.3080
Brumann, C. (2009). Outside the glass case: The social life of urban heritage in Kyoto. American Ethnologist, 36(2), 276–299.
Faracik, R. (2014). Which cities are historic? An attempt to define the phenomenon in the context of tourism development opportunities. In Z. Radics & J. Pénzes (Eds.), Enhancing competitiveness of V4 historic cities to develop tourism: Spatial-economic cohesion and competitiveness in the context of tourism (pp. 131–145). Debrecen, Hungary: Didakt Kft.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). The problem of historical consciousness. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 5(1), 8–52.
Getty Conservation Institute. (2009). Historic urban environment: Conservation challenges and priorities for action—Experts meeting, March 12–14, 2009 (Meeting report). Getty Conservation Institute.
Government of Japan. (1993). Nomination of the Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) for inclusion in the World Heritage List [Nomination file No. 688]. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/688/documents/
Government of Malaysia. (2008). Historic cities of the Straits of Malacca: Melaka and George Town [Nomination dossier No. 1223bis]. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1223/documents/
Hoang, T. D. T., Brown, G., & Kim, A. K. J. (2020). Measuring resident place attachment in a World Cultural Heritage tourism context: The case of Hoi An (Vietnam). Current Issues in Tourism, 23(16), 2059–2075. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1751091
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1987). Charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas (Washington Charter).
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1994). World Heritage List: Kyoto (No. 688) [Advisory body evaluation]. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/688/documents/
International Council on Monuments and Sites, Brazilian Committee (ICOMOS Brazil). (1987). Basic principles for the preservation and revitalization of historic centers. Paper presented at the First Brazilian Seminar about the Preservation and Revitalization of Historic Centers, Itaipava, Brazil.
Jokilehto, J. (2007). International charters on urban conservation: Some thoughts on the principles expressed in current international doctrine. City & Time, 3(3), 23–42.
Musa, M., & Kuah, L. F. (2016). Initiating an oral history project in a multicultural UNESCO World Heritage Site of George Town, Penang, Malaysia: Challenges and outcomes. Kajian Malaysia, 34(2), 123–143.
Rüsen, J. (1987). The didactics of history in West Germany: Towards a new self-awareness of historical studies. History and Theory, 26(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505063
Rüsen, J. (1989). The development of narrative competence in historical learning — An ontogenetic hypothesis concerning moral consciousness. History and Memory, 1(2), 35–59.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1976). Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas. In Records of the General Conference, nineteenth session, Nairobi, 26 October–30 November 1976: Vol. 1. Resolutions (Annex I, pp. 20–28). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114038.locale=en
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre. (1999). Hoi An Ancient Town [Nomination documentation No. 948]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/948/documents/
古都基金會. (2005). 台南建城 280 週年紀念大展開幕記者會新聞稿 [未出版之新聞稿].
古都基金會. (2022). 成為台灣島內最讓人安居樂業的新文化古都 [古都保存再生文教基金會未出版之內部文件].
古都基金會. (2024a). 府城建城300年啟動兌悅門茶席邀請函 [行動文宣].
古都基金會. (2024b). 府城300周年紀念活動、倒數200天、一起體驗 府城x樂事 [行動文宣].
古都基金會. (2024c). 府城建成三百五路進城 [行動文宣].
古都基金會. (2025a). 一府建城 iF300 系列活動發佈會 民間倡議、公私協力 [3 月 7 日系列活動發佈會未出版之簡報].
古都基金會. (2025b). 臺南「一府建城 iF300」系列活動發佈會圓滿落幕：串聯社群共創歷史與未來 [3 月 7 日系列活動發佈會未出版之新聞稿].
古都基金會. (2025c). 一府建城 iF300系列活動：《五九圍城》號召萬人圍城，共慶府城建城300年 [5 月 9 日「五九圍城」行動未出版之新聞稿].
古都基金會. (2025d). iF300 五九圍城圍城地圖與活動指南 [行動文宣].
吳秉聲, 蔡侑樺, 顏世樺, 胡俊喆, 邱睦容, 張育甄. (2018). 臺灣府城城垣及城門整合升格國定古蹟調查研究計畫. 臺南市文化資產管理處.
吳秉聲, 顏世樺, 蔡侑樺, 鄭安佑, 洪子甯, 朱弘煜, 胡顥蓁, 林承佑, 吳卓勳. (2023). 國定古蹟臺灣府城城門及城垣殘蹟整體營造先期規劃. 臺南市文化資產管理處.
梁雯晶. (2020). 老屋欣力：常民生活場域的文藝復興. 台北市: 詹氏書局.
修瑞瑩. (2013, 1 月 19 日). 二度就業賣首作品古厝也重生. 聯合報, B2.
張玉璜 (主編). (2007a). 市仔. 路克米, 7. 台南市: 古都基金會.
張玉璜 (主編). (2007b). 水果時代. 路克米, 10. 台南市: 古都基金會.
張玉璜 (主編). (2008a). 老屋欣力 老屋再生・活力無限. 路克米, 14. 台南市: 古都基金會.
張玉璜 (主編). (2008b). 老屋欣力 特輯. 路克米, 15. 台南市: 古都基金會.
張玉璜. (2012a). 老屋欣力—樂活城鄉的「常民生活場域的文藝復興運動」. 臺灣建築學會會刊雜誌, 65, 52–59.
張玉璜 (主編). (2012b). 媠媠逗府檳. 路克米, 25. 台南市: 古都基金會.
張玉璜. (2014). 老屋欣力—民間自發的「常民生活場域文藝復興運動」之發展歷程與未來挑戰. 臺灣建築學會會刊雜誌, 76, 46–51.
黃偉哲. (2025). 黑琵翱翔天際萌芽古都文化 [市長序]. 載於臺南市政府文化局. 臺南文化獎 13th [未出版刊物].
詹伯望, 范勝雄, 陳凱劭. (2005). 三五風華造府城——紀念台南建城 280 週年特展圖錄. 台南市: 台南市文化資產保護協會.
臺南市政府文化局. (2017). 臺南市府城歷史街區計畫書. 臺南市府城歷史街區計畫 [未出版計畫書].
臺南市政府文化局. (2020). 臺南市府城歷史街區（緩衝區）計畫書. 臺南市府城歷史街區（緩衝區）計畫 [未出版計畫書].
臺南市政府文化局. (2025). 臺南文化獎 13th. [未出版刊物].
鄭安佑. (2024). 「一府．IF」倡議及活動總說 [古都保存再生文教基金會未出版之內部文件].
謝仕淵. (2025) 共同成就古都榮光持續深化臺南文化內涵 [局長序]. 載於臺南市政府文化局. 臺南文化獎 13th [未出版刊物].
顏世樺 (主編). (2015). 老屋欣力宣言. 路克米, 31, 2015 老屋欣力特輯. 台南市: 古都基金會.
顏世樺 (主編). (2024). 老屋黃頁：老屋修繕行業名單. 台南市: 古都基金會.
顏世樺. (2025a). 古都密碼 25 280 300 [古都保存再生文教基金會未出版之內部文件].
顏世樺 (主編). (2025b). 路克米 20・古都小報集結號. 台南市: 古都基金會.