跨界视角下的遗产

文/丁光

国际思辨遗产研究协会（ACHS）第四届文化遗产世界大会于2018年9月1—6日在位于中国杭州的浙江大学召开，会议以“跨界视角下的遗产”为主题。ACHS成立于2010年年初，目前拥有来自85个国家的近3000名会员。本次大会吸引了40多个国家的500多位学者，这是亚洲迄今为止规模最大的国际遗产大会。

哈佛大学教授迈克尔·赫兹菲尔德（Michael Herzfeld）发表了题为“思辨性遗产：思辨的文化重要性以及对遗产研究的启示”的主旨演讲。他对“批评”和“批判”进行了分析，他说“批判”及其同源词，危机（来自希腊语Krisis，判断）应该包括从历史学与人类学的角度对批判的概念在不同的文化评价中给予充分的认可，缺乏批判会导致学术危机。目前的遗产研究模式不利于跨文化、跨国和跨学科的理解，并且阻碍了比较研究的批评性。他强调了思辨性遗产的必要性及其对遗产研究的启示。

赫兹菲尔德教授认为我们应该介于实证主义和后现代主义之间的中间立场。实证主义认为现实世界是物质世界，它对认知世界的关注较少，而后现代主义则颠覆客观的历史意识。我们承认物质世界的存在和可知性，每次的观察都增强了我们对世界的理解，但我们仍然留下了一些没有关注或忽视的经验，它需要我们继续观察，其他人类学家可以弥补我们忽视的内容并提出批判性的观点。“批判性”中文的意思是“慎思明辨”，批判性不是负面的意思，它用来帮助我们发现自己思考的局限性。

布里斯托大学的Angela Piccini博士认为，以社区的视频收藏和档案为基础的当代创意实践和研究，催生了新的遗产见解。为港口城市的协作、思辨和乌托邦式经验提供总体方法理论，为当代以社区为中心的城市规划提供信息。视频收藏在文化遗产的文献记录和正在进行的实践中发挥着关键作用。

东京大学的Akira Matsuda就“19世纪以来日本对‘旧物’的欣赏”发表其观点。由于其历史遗产的特点，遗产保护首先由民族国家进行制度化。然而，如果我们把遗产定义为一种社会媒介，人们通过它认同过去，那么遗产就是一种适用于任何社会的人类条件，它既不属于“优等名族”，也不是现代社会独有。

瑞典林奈大学的Cornelius Holtorf教授一直在与瑞典核废物部门合作，进行一系列项目，为减少后代健康风险。林奈大学还与几家考古公司合作，进行考古遗产研究为社会作出贡献。《联合国2030年议程》、有17项可持续发展目标和欧盟的“地平线2020”计划鼓励所有学科的研究人员以新的方式思考学术研究与社会福利之间的相互联系。

伦敦大学学院的Rodney Harrison教授认为，遗产不仅关乎过去，而且关乎我们的现在与未来。他主管的“遗产未来”项目与许多机构合作，其研究储存了大量的“资源”和“资产”。他说，我们目前的做法和决定（关于语言、文化资源和自然资源）将是塑造未来的原始资源。我们今天做的每一个决定都将使未来成为可能。通过这种方式，遗产创造了未来。

英国卡迪夫大学的谭镭就东亚木结构建筑遗产的可持续发展发表了演讲。她说，由于当地部门缺乏定期维修和保护，这些木结构建筑的状况将很快恶化。此外，这些遗产地在现代社会背景下，惠及当地社区，然而其潜力尚未得到充分讨论和挖掘。目前的管理部门缺乏足够的动力来考虑这些建筑的可持续性发展。

浙江农林大学的张煜考察了申遗对运河的意义和价值的评估，并将其与当地人对运河的理解进行了比较。她质疑申遗是否受“遗产权威话语”的影响，掌握着物质性和专业性特权。她认为，作为一个活生生的遗产地，遗产专家应该从多样性和多元文化的方式去理解中国大运河。

浙江大学的刘朝辉教授致力于大运河上的船民与大运河之间的关系研究。他的民族志田野调查表明，大运河上的船民实际上被排除在当地遗产管理系统之外，甚至被排除在主流社会之外。他们不仅是活态遗产的重要标志，他们的生活方式、传统知识和文化遗传都是大运河非物质文化遗产的组成部分。该研究提出了如何将他们视为遗产保护的主要利益相关者，他们对于遗产保护以及运河的遗产价值意味着什么。

（作者单位：浙江大学外国语言文化与国际交流学院）

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?