跨界視角下的遺產

文/丁光

國際思辨遺產研究協會（ACHS）第四屆文化遺產世界大會于2018年9月1—6日在位于中國杭州的浙江大學召開，會議以“跨界視角下的遺產”為主題。ACHS成立于2010年年初，目前擁有來自85個國家的近3000名會員。本次大會吸引了40多個國家的500多位學者，這是亞洲迄今為止規模最大的國際遺產大會。

哈佛大學教授邁克爾·赫茲菲爾德（Michael Herzfeld）發表了題為“思辨性遺產：思辨的文化重要性以及對遺產研究的啟示”的主旨演講。他對“批評”和“批判”進行了分析，他說“批判”及其同源詞，危機（來自希臘語Krisis，判斷）應該包括從歷史學與人類學的角度對批判的概念在不同的文化評價中給予充分的認可，缺乏批判會導致學術危機。目前的遺產研究模式不利于跨文化、跨國和跨學科的理解，并且阻礙了比較研究的批評性。他強調了思辨性遺產的必要性及其對遺產研究的啟示。

赫茲菲爾德教授認為我們應該介于實證主義和后現代主義之間的中間立場。實證主義認為現實世界是物質世界，它對認知世界的關注較少，而后現代主義則顛覆客觀的歷史意識。我們承認物質世界的存在和可知性，每次的觀察都增強了我們對世界的理解，但我們仍然留下了一些沒有關注或忽視的經驗，它需要我們繼續觀察，其他人類學家可以彌補我們忽視的內容并提出批判性的觀點。“批判性”中文的意思是“慎思明辨”，批判性不是負面的意思，它用來幫助我們發現自己思考的局限性。

布里斯托大學的Angela Piccini博士認為，以社區的視頻收藏和檔案為基礎的當代創意實踐和研究，催生了新的遺產見解。為港口城市的協作、思辨和烏托邦式經驗提供總體方法理論，為當代以社區為中心的城市規劃提供信息。視頻收藏在文化遺產的文獻記錄和正在進行的實踐中發揮著關鍵作用。

東京大學的Akira Matsuda就“19世紀以來日本對‘舊物’的欣賞”發表其觀點。由于其歷史遺產的特點，遺產保護首先由民族國家進行制度化。然而，如果我們把遺產定義為一種社會媒介，人們通過它認同過去，那么遺產就是一種適用于任何社會的人類條件，它既不屬于“優等名族”，也不是現代社會獨有。

瑞典林奈大學的Cornelius Holtorf教授一直在與瑞典核廢物部門合作，進行一系列項目，為減少后代健康風險。林奈大學還與幾家考古公司合作，進行考古遺產研究為社會作出貢獻。《聯合國2030年議程》、有17項可持續發展目標和歐盟的“地平線2020”計劃鼓勵所有學科的研究人員以新的方式思考學術研究與社會福利之間的相互聯系。

倫敦大學學院的Rodney Harrison教授認為，遺產不僅關乎過去，而且關乎我們的現在與未來。他主管的“遺產未來”項目與許多機構合作，其研究儲存了大量的“資源”和“資產”。他說，我們目前的做法和決定（關于語言、文化資源和自然資源）將是塑造未來的原始資源。我們今天做的每一個決定都將使未來成為可能。通過這種方式，遺產創造了未來。

英國卡迪夫大學的譚鐳就東亞木結構建筑遺產的可持續發展發表了演講。她說，由于當地部門缺乏定期維修和保護，這些木結構建筑的狀況將很快惡化。此外，這些遺產地在現代社會背景下，惠及當地社區，然而其潛力尚未得到充分討論和挖掘。目前的管理部門缺乏足夠的動力來考慮這些建筑的可持續性發展。

浙江農林大學的張煜考察了申遺對運河的意義和價值的評估，并將其與當地人對運河的理解進行了比較。她質疑申遺是否受“遺產權威話語”的影響，掌握著物質性和專業性特權。她認為，作為一個活生生的遺產地，遺產專家應該從多樣性和多元文化的方式去理解中國大運河。

浙江大學的劉朝輝教授致力于大運河上的船民與大運河之間的關系研究。他的民族志田野調查表明，大運河上的船民實際上被排除在當地遺產管理系統之外，甚至被排除在主流社會之外。他們不僅是活態遺產的重要標志，他們的生活方式、傳統知識和文化遺傳都是大運河非物質文化遺產的組成部分。該研究提出了如何將他們視為遺產保護的主要利益相關者，他們對于遺產保護以及運河的遺產價值意味著什么。

（作者單位：浙江大學外國語言文化與國際交流學院）

The 4th World Conference on Cultural Heritage of ACHS was held in Hangzhou, China, from September 1 to 6 2018, at Zhejiang University,with the theme of "Heritage from a Cross-border Perspective". ACHS was founded in early 2010 and currently has nearly 3,000 members from 85 countries. The conference attracted more than 500 scholars from more than 40 countries. It is the largest international heritage conference in Asia dedicated to the topic of heritage.

Keynote speaker professor Michael Herzfeld from Harvard University made a speech on “Critique as Heritage: The Cultural Significance of Dispute and Its Implications for Heritage Research”. He illustrated the difference between “criticism” and “critique”. He remarks “Critique” and its cognate, “crisis” （from the Greek krisis） - should include a historically and anthropologically robust recognition of the various cultural evaluations of the concept of critique itself. An absence of critique leads to a crisis of the intellect. The current method of heritage research does not favor cross-cultural, international, and interdisciplinary understanding and impedes the critical work of comparison. He emphasized the importance of critique and its enlightenment on heritage research.

Professor Herzfeld states the militant middle ground of our attitude is that we should go between positivism and postmodernism. Positivism holds the real world is the material world, it pays less attention to the cognitive world, while postmodernism subverts the objective historical consciousness. We agree that there is a material world and it’s knowable.We enhance our understanding of the world every time through our observations, but we still leave some notions neglected and need to carry on our observation. Other anthropologists can supply a gap of what we have neglected and raise critical ideas. Thus Critique is not negative, we can improve the intellect by absorbing critique andfind the limitation of our thoughts. “Critique” means “Re fl ect Carefully, Discriminate Clearly”in Chinese. Criticism is not a negative meaning. It is used to help usfind the limitations of our thinking.

Dr. Angela Piccini from the University of Bristol suggests that contemporary, creative practice and research that works with community-focused video collections and archives generate new heritage insights and can be used as a critical methodological assemblage for collaborative, speculative and utopian experience of the port city to inform contemporary, community-focused urban planning.Video collections play a key role in the documentation and ongoing performance of cultural heritage.

Akira Matsuda from the University of Tokyo made a speech on “The appreciation of ‘Old Things’ in Japan Since the 19th Century”. Heritage protection first is institutionalized by the nation-state because of this historical legacy. Yet, if we define heritage as a social medium through which people identify with the past, heritage is a human condition that applies to any society, neither exclusive to “the dominant group” nor to modern society.

Professor Cornelius Holtorf from Linnaeus University, Sweden has been doing the projects with the Swedish nuclear waste sector with the aim of reducing serious health risks for future generations. Linnaeus University is also in collaboration with several archaeological companies to work in society where archaeological heritage processes can make a contribution.The United Nations Agenda 2030 with 17 broad Sustainable Development Goals and the European Union's Horizon 2020 program encourage researchers in all disciplines to think about the interconnections between academic research and societal benefits in new ways.

Professor Rodney Harrison from University College London holds that heritage is primarily not about the past, but instead is about our relationship with the present and the future. His project “Heritage Futures” has involved with a number of partner organizations whose heritage conservation practices create and store what have become known as 'resources' and 'assets'. He says current practices and our decisions （on languages, cultural resources and natural resources） would be the raw resources modeling the future. Every decision we have made today will make the future possible. In this way, heritage makes the future.

Lui Tam from Cardiff University, UK made a speech on the topic of sustainable conservation of timber architectural heritage in East Asia.She said without a maintenance framework and regular caretaking by the users, in many cases, these timber buildings would start to deteriorate much sooner. Moreover, the potential of these heritage sites to benefit the local community through their conservation and adaptation within the context of the contemporary society is far from sufficiently discussed and explored. There is not enough motivation from the current management authorities to consider the long-term sustainability of these sites.

Yu Zhang from Zhejiang Agricultural and Forestry University examined the meanings and values given to the canal in the nomination dossier and compared them with local people's understandings of the canal.She explored whether the nomination dossier had been influenced by the ''Authorized Heritage Discourse'' that privileges materiality and expertise. She suggests that as a living heritage site, the Grand Canal of China needs to be understood in more diverse and more cultural ways.

Professor Zhaohui Liu from Zhejiang University has been studying contemporary boatmen on the Grand Canal and their relationship with it. His ethnographic field work reveals that the boatmen are actually excluded in contemporary heritage management system and even from the mainstream society. As they are not only a vital token of living heritage, but also their lifestyle and traditional knowledge and cultural survivals are the constituting parts of Intangible cultural heritage of the Great Canal. The study poses the question, how to treat them as primary stakeholders in the heritage conservation? What do they mean for the heritage conservation as well as the heritage values of the canal?