3.3.5 On Reconstruction
In international policy, reconstruction and authenticity is contradictory.However, authenticity refers to not only the original physical architecture, but also the available original historic information, date of construction, etc.Although it is not always possible to replace the original structure completely, reconstruction heritage is still significant in the processes ability to recover the function and original city fabric, lead to an increased understanding of traditional techniques and cultural atmosphere, especially after the trauma natural and man-made disasters.
In China, historic wood structure buildings were easily destroyed by war, fire and the ravages of weather and time.This led to a situation that till 1937, there were no known fully wood-constructed Tang Dynasty buildings was founded.Discovered by architectural historians Liang Sicheng and the other members of Ying Zao Xue She[78]in this year, the oldest fully wooden architecture is the Pagoda of Fogong Temple in Ying County, was reliably dated to the year 857.While the East Hall of Foguang Temple features only seven types of bracket arms in its construction, the 11th-century Pagoda of Fogong Temple featured a total of fifty-four.[79]“The East Hall of Fogong Temple features only seven types of bracket arms in its construction; the eleventh century Pagoda of Fogong Temple features a total of 54.”[80]
Therefore, the significance of ancient construction is not only the existence of a specific building in a certain period, but also the continuous renewal and circulation of specific architectural forms.China’s ancient construction will achieve its metabolism and continuation of development in the process of continuous reconstruction, which is one of the important ways for our knowledge of wooden frame structures to be handed down to future generations.Nevertheless, in ancient China, the process of reconstruction was considered a prudent activity.Nowadays, the regulations for reconstruction are still strict.Article 10 in Qufu Declaration states that when there is a need for reconstruction, “the specific analysis and evaluation should be carried out according to the environment, status, the role of the building group, the integrity and authenticity of the damaged architectural relics.The reconstruction of the damaged architectural relics should be approved by experts and the supervisor department of cultural relics.”[81]
Article 27 of the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China highlighted that “When the overall layout of building ensembles is still basically intact, restoration may be considered by reconstructing a small number of missing buildings as a means of conserving the overall integrity of the complex, but only when there is sufficient documentation and visual evidence.The physical architectural remains of the site such as footings must be protected and they must not be altered or damaged.The project may only go-ahead once plans have been reviewed by a panel of specialists and determined to be appropriate and all legal approvals have been obtained.The reconstructed structure must be able to be dismantled but its dismantling must not alter or damage the site’s remains such as footings.”[82]Article 43 also points out that “in special circumstances, as when a lost structure has great significance for an architectural ensemble, reconstruction may be considered provided there is sufficient visual evidence and textual documentation on the missing structure, and it is possible to accurately recreate the structure… Reconstruction must ensure that the site is not damaged, particularly any structural ruins.Reconstructed buildings must be clearly marked as such.”[83]Following these methods allow for our understanding and appreciation for the original nature of such projects to be transferred to future generations, in case the information currently available is subsequently lost to mankind.
In short, with the development of international heritage policies, the scope of heritage catalog and conservation concepts are developing.In this process, the international policies during 1877-1964 is the first stage, focusing on the protection of the physical heritage.1964-1979 is the second stage, began to consider the social function of heritage, educational systems and economic factors.The UNESCO conference of 1972 considered the conservation of the world’s cultural heritage and natural heritage.The role of community functions in the protection of the heritage was realized.The third phase of 1987-2005 was focusing on heritage and the overall planning of the environment, the management of the heritage, the intangible cultural heritage, public participation, integration with contemporary life, and sustainable development.Since 2005, under the process of urbanization and globalization, cultural landscape was proposed as the fourth phase of heritage protection, creating a new direction of heritage conservation.The international heritage protection document shows the integrity and continuity of heritage protection and emphasizes the importance of historical landscape and atmosphere.The introduction of the concept of historical urban landscape in the 2011 conference reflects that the world heritage protection has entered an unprecedented stage.
The emergence of international policies has played a major role in the development of heritage protection.However, this is not a rigid provision, but a flexible guideline.Because “all judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture.”[84]therefore “Value and authenticity of architectural heritage cannot be based on any fixed criteria because the respect due to all cultures also requires that its physical heritage be considered within the cultural context to which it belongs.”[85]Concerning the unique characteristics of different regions, the international heritage evaluation standard is also developing.Each country has a history of heritage protection, determining the value of the heritage and determining the means of protection based on its own geography, culture, technology, and heritage characteristics.They have accumulated a wealth of experience and embodied the diversity of world culture.
China possesses a huge amount of architectural heritage sites with unique characteristics.The craftmanship of restoration architectural heritage practices by Chinese artisans has also gone through thousands of years of development which cannot be easily denied and abandoned.These special architectural types as well as their traditional construction techniques and conservation concepts are a precious tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the world, which presents cultural diversity through their survival.When China’s conservation methods encounter international heritage policies, consideration of how to adapt to international principles, maintain local characteristics, and form its own policies and legislations that are in line with local conditions are an important issue.
Chinese conservation policy has experienced several stages, which form the exploratory stage, fundamental stage, and open-communication stage through to the maturity stage which forms a conservation ideology with Chinese characteristics, combining traditional concepts under the guidance of international policies.The mature architectural heritage conservation policies in China have developed to legally guarantee the status of traditional restoration techniques and ideas.In this process, the understanding of the scope of cultural heritage preservation is constantly expanding, and the degree of protection is constantly deepening.The type of architectural heritage, the value standards and the conservation methods also present a diversified trend.
However, in this process, the protection policies of Chinese architectural heritage protection are still facing many problems in the hierarchical management system, heritage usage and public participation, and so forth.Although it is not possible to treat all heritage sites equally, different treatment by heritage hierarchical management has led to a large number of less significant historical building groups being demolished.How to protect these heritage sites that are not included on key cultural relics list is a big issue.Additionally, the struggle between heritage preservation and economic development is intensifying, which leads to the greater fragility of heritage sites.Furthermore, most ordinary people have not considered architectural heritage protection.They believe that architectural heritage sites are only tourist attractions which provide venues for recreation.Therefore, strengthening relevant legislation, handling the relationship between heritage and urbanization, heritage and economy, heritage and public, cultivating the public awareness of heritage preservation, and establishing a healthy public participation mechanism are ongoing important issues for the heritage policies of China.
Figure 3-7.Elegant Chinese Traditional Residence
【注释】
[1]Jukka Jokilehto, A history of Architectural Conservation, The University of York, England, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, 1986, p34.
[2]John Delafons, Politics and Preservation, 1997, p12.
[3]Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Foundations of Architecture,1990, p195.
[4]John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1989, p194.
[5]UK Parliament, https://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/landscape/overview/historicsi tes/
[6]Sixth International Congress of Architects, 1904.
[7]UNESCO, Nairobi Recommendation, 1976.
[8]ICOMOS, Washington Charter, 1987.
[9]ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994.
[10]UNESCO, The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003.
[11]ICOMOS, The Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas, 2005.
[12]UNESCO, Recommendation on The Historical Urban Landscapes, 2011.
[13]European Union, https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en.
[14]Council of Europe, 2001.
[15]European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2018.
[16]Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, https://www.mountvernon.org/preservation/mount-vernon-ladiesassociation/
[17]Historic New England, https://www.historicnewengland.org/aboutus/mission-leadership/
[18]Historic Preservation Laws - At A Glance, http://www.wvculture.org/shpo/preslaws.html
[19]USA, National historic preservation Act, 2006.
[20]ICOMOS, 2008.
[21]Larsen, K.E., Architectural Preservation in Japan, 1994, p31.
[22]Coaldrake, William Howard, Architecture and Authority in Japan, 2002, p248.
[23]Ibid., p249.
[24]Agency for Cultural Affairs, Cultural Properties for Future Generations: Outline of the Cultural Administration of Japan, 2010.
[25]Enders, Siegfried R.C.T.; Gutschow, Niels, Hozon: Architectural and Urban Conservation in Japan, 1998, p15.
[26]Agency for Cultural Affairs, Cultural Properties for Future Generations: Outline of the Cultural Administration of Japan, 2010.
[27]Japan Heritage, Agency of Cultural Affairs, http://www.bunka.go.jp/english/policy/cultural_properties/ japan_heritage/.
[28]Liang Sicheng, A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture: A Study of the Development of its Structural System and the Evolution of its Types, ed.by Wilma Fairbank, 1984.
[29]Tailiang type抬梁式, also known as the overlapping beam type, is to frame the beam on the column and lift the beam on the beam.It is widely used in large buildings such as palaces, temples and monasteries.It is often used by the royal complex and is the representative of the traditional wooden frame architecture.
[30]Chuandou type穿斗式is to string the columns together by Chuan Fangs to form a house frame.The purlin is directly shelved on the column head.Along the purlin direction, the Dou Fangs connect the columns to form the roof truss.
[31]Sunmao榫卯is the main structural mode of wood structure, furniture and other instruments in ancient China.It is a combination of convex and concave parts on the two components.The convex part is called Sun, and the concave part is called Mao.
[32]Dougong斗拱is a unique structure of Chinese traditional architecture.It is the transition between the columns and the roof of a larger building.Its function is to bear the upper expenditure of the eaves.The arch-shaped load-bearing structure stretched out layer by layer is called Gong, and the square block between the arches is called Dou.Dougong is often used in important or commemorative buildings.
[33]Kohrman, Matthew, Book review, Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China, 1998, p236.
[34]Sihe Courtyard四合院is a traditional courtyard mode in northern China, formed with four sides of the one-floor buildings.The layout of Siheyuan is characterized by the symmetrical arrangement of north-south longitudinal axis and an enclosed courtyard.
[35]Tianjing Courtyard天井院is a traditional courtyard mode in southern China.It was evolved from Siheyuan.Most of the houses are built for two to three floors, forming a narrow courtyard in the middle.
[36]Li, Yih-yuan, Chinese Geomancy and Ancestor Worship: A Further Discussion, 1979.
[37]Richard Weston, Utzon: inspiration, vision, architecture, 2002.(https://www.daowen.com)
[38]Knapp, Ronald, Chinese Houses: The Architectural Heritage of a Nation, 2006.
[39]Kohrman, Matthew, Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China, 1998, p236.
[40]Chinese character文物建筑
[41]Guangya Zhu, China's architectural heritage conservation movement, 2012, p10.
[42]Zuozhen Liu, The Case of Repatriating China’s Cultural Objects, Springer Nature, 2016, p42.
[43]Ibid., p42-43.
[44]Construction Method, Chinese name 营造法式
[45]Society for Research in Chinese Architecture, Chinese name营造学社
[46]Chinese name 清式营造则例
[47]Chinese name 营造学社汇刊
[48]Lin Zhu, A History of the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture, 2008.
[49]Zuozhen Liu, The Case of Repatriating China’s Cultural Objects, Springer Nature, 2016, p43.
[50]Zuozhen Liu, The Case of Repatriating China’s Cultural Objects, Springer Nature, 2016, p43.
[51]Beiping is the former name of Beijing city.
[52]Zheng Jun, Comparison of Heritage Conservation Philosophies in China and Other Countries: International Principles and Local Practices of Cultural Heritage Conservation Conference Proceedings, 2014, p52.
[53]Zheng Jun, Comparison of Heritage Conservation Philosophies in China and Other Countries: International Principles and Local Practices of Cultural Heritage Conservation Conference Proceedings, 2014, p52-53.
[54]UNESCO, Suzhou Declaration on International Co-operation for the Safeguarding and Development of Historic Cities, 1998.
[55]Zhewen Lou, et al, Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[56]ICOMOS, Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, 2003.
[57]Chinese character 有, Being
[58]Chinese character 无, Not-being
[59]Zhewen Lou, et al., Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[60]ICOMOS China, Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015, p60.
[61]Ibid., p69.
[62]ICOMOS, Charter for Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, 2003.
[63]Zhewen Lou, et al., Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[64]Ibid.
[65]ICOMOS China, Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015, p66.
[66]ICOMOS, Charter Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, 2003.
[67]Ibid.
[68]Zhewen Lou, et al., Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[69]Ibid.
[70]Ibid.
[71]ICOMOS, Beijing Document on the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings in East Asia, 2007.
[72]ICOMOS China, the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015.
[73]ICOMOS, Principles for the Preservation and Conservation/Restoration of Wall Paintings, 2003.
[74]ICOMOS, Beijing Document on the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings in East Asia, 2007.
[75]Zhewen Luo, et al., Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[76]ICOMOS, Beijing Document on the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings in East Asia, 2007.
[77]ICOMOS China, the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015.
[78]Society for Research in Chinese Architecture
[79]Steinhardt, The Tang Architectural Icon and the Politics of Chinese Architectural History, 2004, p228.
[80]Ibid., p13.
[81]Zhewen Luo, et al., Qufu Declaration: Consensus on the theory and practice of architectural relics conservation with Chinese characteristics, 2005.
[82]ICOMOS China, the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015, p86.
[83]ICOMOS China, the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, 2015.
[84]ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994.
[85]ICOMOS, Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, 2003.