西汉帝陵

　　When Pope Nicholas V,pontiff ill Rome up to 1455,decided to build a new St Peter's basilica,he also decided to demolish the largest early Christian church in the world,built as the will of Emperor Con-stantine I in the fourth century.The basilica was made up of 5 naves decorated with works of art that had been added over the thousand years of its life.
　　All this happened five centuries ago in the heart of the western world before the Americas had even yet been discovered by the west.The basilica was the most important place of worship both religiously and cul-turally.Today such a state of affairs would scarcely be thinkable,but this was not the case during the Italian Renaissance nor was it unthinkable for Bramante or Michelangelo who were appointed by Julius Ⅱto carry on the work undertaken by Nicholas V for the new St Peters.Our approach to our cultural heritage has chan-ged.Clearly the basilica we see today was based on tenets that have changed or,to use the language of our times,have evolved.
　　A society's cultural approach expressed is rooted in the reality of its historical time.Such reality is in a state of continuous flux and necessarily always evolving.
　　In the same century in which Pope Nicholas was so committed to his enterprise,Beijing had once again become China's capital in accordance with the wishes of the rising Ming dynasty's Emperor Yongle.The city was being rebuilt,starting with the Forbidden City,which was completed around 1420 and built ac-cording to strict traditional Chinese architectural principles that employed wood as the primary building ma-terial.
　　Evidently the Chinese approach was based on criteria quite different from those that informed the Italian Renaissance.Their approach even now still differs from that employed in the west.
　　Clearly we cannot apply a scale of values accepted by or applicable to all as regards cultural principles,which relate to different underlying worldviews.
　　There are a great many elements that exert their influences on these different approaches and of these,the actual choice of materials assumes a particular relevance.In architecture,for example,the use of wood leads to a number of consequences quite different from those associated with the use of stone.It follows also that conservation methods are subject to changing forces.The use of very long-long lasting materials like stone leads us tend towards a historical perspective in relation to the structure that will bear witness to its pass-age,while the use of a deteriorating material means frequent maintenance will be necessary as a constant over time.
　　The conservation methods themselves in other words also become‘historicized’together with the struc-ture itself.The craftsman able to hand down techniques unchanged to the next generation assumes a particular importance in the Chinese instance.In the west,on the other hand,the most distinguished of craftsman is he able and willing to try out new ways of using materials that call be adapted to use with the long-term con-struction materials that were employed in the past.
　　The reference to Saint Peter's and the Forbidden City highlights how China's heritage conservation ap-proach has followed a path very different from that set in motion by Bramante and Michelangelo and which evolved into such movements as mannerism and to baroque and so forth with the passage of time.
　　When we collaborate with the oriental world on the restoration of monuments or the presentation to the public of a heritage that is so different from our own,it is easy to discuss matters of cooperation on the scien-tific and technical levels due to the great advances that have been made in this area in the west,but it is per-haps not so easy to find a methodological common ground on how to contextualize this.More than anything else conservation means understanding historical situations that have developed over time.It means having respect for a different historical matrix and then engaging in constructive and reciprocal dialogue.It is im-portant therefore to avoid the presumption of seeking to impose foreign criteria lying outside the experience of that culture.As we speak together we must be aware that we will also be enriched by this experience even if we find ourselves in difficulty where our own fundamental concepts are challenged.I refer in particular to the various restoration theories that have been developed at different times in the western world.
　　When Michele Cordaro went to China in 1995 to establish a restoration centre in Xi'an based on his ex-perience gained in the west,and founded on the theories of Brandi,he had to give ground in the face of a new and for him shocking aspect that confronted him.Specifically the problem regarded the fact that our conception of what is false or what is a mere copy is one quite s extraneous to Chinese culture.
　　As very well described by Alexander Stille in his“The Future of the Past.How the Information Age Threatens to Destroy our Cultural heritage”,after visiting the celebrated the archaeological sites of the Litong terracotta army,Cordaro was taken by his Chinese colleagues to a craftsmen's area that came into being on the site and which produced perfect and copies of the ancient warriors made to look old.The Chinese were very proud of the work,saying: “look,we can still make them using the same techniques!”
　　Such an approach resulted in considerable friction between western art historians and their Chinese col-leagues,especially on the occasion of exhibitions when European and American curators found out that the specimens send by China were only in part excavated from archaeological digs while the rest were spanking new copies!
　　This was not the manifestation of an attempt to trick their western counterparts but simply the expression of the cultural attitudes referred to above.It is certainly a much less obsessive approach than ours when seen through their eyes.This is just the first of a number of aspects we from the west have to consider and deal with,aware that we also have much to learn from working side by side with our colleagues steeped in the Chinese culture.
　　For us in the west,the past cohabits with the present,while in the orient and in China in particular,the past is an integral part of the present.[1]
　　Special consideration must moreover be given to the fact that twentieth century Chinese cultural policy,coming to a head with the cultural revolution of the seventies,placed all emphasis on the present to the extent that the past became exclusively instrumental to the revolutionary present,which thus had carte blanche to undo it and delete anything falling outside the new vision of china.
　　To come to terms with this view requires some serious reflexion on attitudes quite different one from the other.This means not only having to reflect on the status of an original with that of a copy,but also having to compare attitudes to the past,compare ideas of art and its preservation and also the conservation of monu-ments.Western ideas of the value of a copy “vis a vis” that of the original have to be set aside for the moment or it will be difficult even to start real dialogue.
　　Another mental challenge we have to meet,and one requiring a similar effort on our part,is the reali-zation that the Chinese profoundly regard their culture to be the maximum expression of that of the world itself.Such a unilateral vision conflicts with our own relativism and reluctance to embrace absolute certa-inties.Dialogue and collaboration can take place on condition that there is some success in introducing a de-gree of relativism into their absolute certainties.
　　It can be seen that this is not only true for culture in its current strict sense.If we look to Chinese cuisine for simpler and more immediate example,we can see that in this area too Chinese certainties reign supreme.They are convinced that theirs is the best cuisine that exists.It is therefore virtually impossible to get a Chin-ese person who has spent a lifetime in his own country to understand that it is possible to dine excellently even without having 30 dishes on hand.
　　Stille pauses in the previously cited book to consider the amount of time associated in convivial meet-ings with illustrious guests to toasts and so on that do little but contribute to a muddying of the waters as reg-ards the items on the actual agenda.In reality all of this social interaction serves to bring the parties together so that future talks will move on to other and more complex subjects.To return to the culinary example,we thus first have to get clear in our minds that Chinese noodles are in their eyes the grand finale of a sumptuous banquet while here in Italy,their equivalent make a first course and in many northern parts they are no more than a side dish.A comparative consideration cannot examine only the quality of their best condiment,but must take into account its significance in an overall context.Is one position superior to the other?No.Each is the expression of its own tradition.A direct comparison cannot be made where the approaches are different,as when we try to understand the true significance of the convivial meeting.As we learn to appreciate turtle soup accompanied by 10 vegetable dishes we also start to build that mutual trust necessary for them to be able to appreciate a lasagna meal accompanied“only”by two other dishes in all.
　　To return to the matter of cultural dialogue,it is for our part necessary to avoid judging the efforts to introduce innovations to a thousand years of constant tradition as inadequate,since change has been initiated in many areas.A sensitive approach will facilitate acceptance on the part of the Chinese of the principle that a contribution from the west can prove valid and useful not only in practical and operational terms but also with regard to the underlying criteria that inform universal values in contemporary culture.
　　The discourse will have to take place and be carefully framed within this particular reference‘context' of the enjoyment of art rather than that of the “emergence”of an exceptional work of art.The context is not repeatable,it can only be recorded.The artistic emergence can be copied or can be remade.The context can only be studied and presented,it cannot be repeated.We have educated out sensibilities to understanding the cultural matrix and way of life that determined the artistic expression.We have(I trust) gone beyond simple admiration of the work of art.In China the museums still focus mainly on the “beauty”exuded by the object of view and hence also the most captivating way of presenting it.
　　It is frequently the case in the China that very well-known museums show collections organized by cat-egory i.e.paintings,sculpture,calligraphy,jade,jewellery and so forth,each presented chronologically.This does not however help the visitor to understand the context of each item.Sometimes reconstructions of the context are provided based on archaeological criteria that may turn out within just a few years to be mistaken.
　　Though such an attitude may remind us of the museum practice employed towards the end of the nine-teenth century in the west,it is not the same.
　　The truth is that the Chinese cultural worldview embraces a very free approach that injects new life into relics and features form the past by introducing them into daily life including(but not only) by consistently selling objects that are “equivalent”to those on display.
　　In this context culture experienced as an image of the past that can even be taken home for a modest pay-ment.
　　When it comes down to it we do the same thing when we take photographs.For a very small cost and very quickly we are able to appropriate the thing itself.That is to say the essence of the thing that has struck our imagination.
　　It is easier to appropriate an image than study and reflect upon a reality represented by a series of differ-ent epochs and moments in history.
　　The restorer's charter in the west has opted to establish time limits to the series of moments and freeze them through the process of historicisation.In China they have not yet decided to do this.In all likelihood they will not do so.China lives its own history by fashioning it to the needs of the present time.
　　Behind this,which only a superficial analysis would reduce to a delay in implementation of a restorer's charter,lies an attitude to experimentation that departs from principles quite different from those that apply western centers of research.Is the“lasagne of Bologna”better than bird's nest soup? It would be foolish to attempt to answer a question framed in such terms.As in cuisine,so in art,both are facets of our cultural world and in both cases an understanding of history is needed as well as the willingness to accept that it evol-ves in different ways in different circumstances.
　　The question of the YangLing Museum is no different.It is recent museum established in 1999,in some respects experimental in the way that it provides different presentation of the times and the exhibits that characterize the beginnings and the rise of the Hah dynasty.
　　It is worth examining these quite different visions.
　　In my opinion the most captivating feature is the underground wing which is built to openly display the archaeological dig itself in a way that causes the visitor to directly interact with the archaeology of the place.We shall consider later how this impacts on the expectations of visitors and students,and how it is more than a scenic flourish.Certainly,on entering the museum's underground wing for the first time,the visitor is struck by the atmosphere and the modernity of the feature,especially in comparison with the feel of the many major and much-visited museums across the whole of Chine.The sense of modernity and real novelty holds up even when the comparison is made with underground museums to be found around the world as a whole.It is from such comparative studies that the project funded by the European Commission,in the Culture pro-gramme of which this publication is a part,came about.
　　Entering the underground wing the visitor comes upon a dig frozen as a work in progress.For me this was the first I had encountered restorers actually at work on a site and this is possible because some of the tombs presented have only been partly excavated and others no more than just identified.The aim of the museum designers has been to let the visitor into the reality of a dig as it goes on.To achieve this some purely museum design and scene setting features have to be introduced that take us some way from the condition in which the relics were actually found,but this does not diminish the idea behind the museum design.
　　This full immersion into the world of the dig has a palpable quality that is helped by the museography itself.The visitor's itinerary takes him or her along glass-paneled corridors in the gloom that highlights the areas illuminated of the land and the exhibits partly recomposed in funeral corteges and partly left in their(real?)position in the dig.The remains are mostly restored but some are only half revealed above the earth.All this gives the visitor a complete picture of the archaeological interpretation underlying the dig as shown in the true scale models of the remains at the time of their creation.
　　The visitor's path is different from that of the areas in which the relics were found.The humidity and temperature are thus different,as these are optimized for the benefit both of the finds and for the public.
　　This is not the place or time to enter into the question of the archaeological interpretation underlying the excavations,or the problems of maintenance due to difficulties in creating the best conditions for the con-servation of the remains.I would like to point out that from the museum design and the museological points of view,the underground wing is culturally very significant.The question,by the way,of the flexibility of such a structure is very interesting.The archaeological dig that is presented regards about an eighth of the 81 tombs already identified around the Emperor's tumulus.What will happen when it is decided they would like to excavate and open other tombs to the visitors?
　　Will the study arising with this project prove to be useful when such a time comes?
　　That is still an open question,in view also of the fact that on visiting the museum one is confronted by plans and projects contracted to various different designers before the actual realization of the new under-ground wing.Alongside the wooden model,being only a part of the whole project,a second mock-antique palace in more traditional style was put forward as the space for the display of the archaeological finds.This latter intended to transport the visitor to something that the Emperor Liu Qi could perhaps have had built.That was probably the message the“traditionalist”designer had in mind.The co-existence of the two con-tracts,standing at the antipodes of Chinese culture,are indicative of an incredible ability to give serious consideration to absolutely opposite solutions in cultural terms.
　　This also happened in the case of the YangLing Museum.Not in the subterranean wing itself but in other sections of the Museum.
　　Coexisting with the new underground wing there are other threads or policies that emerge as various ways of presenting already concluded archaeological work to the public.
　　Conceptually opposed to the ideas driving the underground wing,at the South Gate of the imperial tu-mulus a reconstruction of the ancient remains was built to shelter and protect the original finds.Enormous concrete structures reworking the style and ornament of the originals made in wood formed a 120% or 130% scale iconographic representation of the original.One may wonder why there should be such an increase in the scale.The answer is simply a practical one: the new structure contains the remains of the old one within its space.In order not to destroy the remains by building over them they opted to build bigger,where the difference in size is only perceived on entering the new structure.Here we see the archaeological remains as a somewhat smaller version of what we have witnessed in reproduction at a distance.
　　It would be interesting to engage in scientific discussion on the historical sources that permit such cer-tainties when embarking on such rebuilding work,but this is beyond the scope at least of this paper.I would pause only to say a word on the intention that underlies such discordant presentation of two aspects of the same context.As previously stated,it is a matter of an approach that is not bound by the methodological tenets that are unavoidable in the west.
　　This happens in yet another way in the sacrificial area,so called because of the presumed function of the finds,though there is space for some fairly basic doubts about the reliability of the interpretation.We have seen with our own eyes that the area arouses the curiosity of visitors who approach the architectural ad-ditional from a distance,built as it is at the opposite end the spectrum from that found at the south gate.We are faced with a “critical”reconstruction quite different from the previous one.It is designed to shelter the original remains and has been built out of wood,steel and glass,expressing exquisite modern taste that highlights the characteristics of the past by distancing itself from it.This does not however mean that the wholesale reconstruction of some of the antiquities has been wholly avoided.The modern sheltering struc-tures only protect some of the originals that seem to be intact: the stone walkways and traces of walls con-served as originally laid and at their original level extend for about 20% of their length.The remaining 80% of the original features have been covered over by a compact sand exactly rebuilt a meter higher to afford the visitor a unitary view of what the flooring of a sacrificial temple looked like according to an extrapolation from the virtual plans as shown on the information panels.
　　This is no doubt that this type of approach seems close to the spirit of restoration charter even though the question inevitably arises about how it came to be that an ancient temple was presented to the public on the basis of archaeological remains that provide no certain information on the heights and levels of the orig-inal features.
　　In Chinese culture the idea of demolishing something and replacing it with a new version is a matter of daily life and it is consistent with to apply the same idea to the national heritage.For us the carrying out of such works would have been a matter for years of discussion and controversy,no sign of which may even be glimpsed in the statements coming to us from the Chinese scholars.
　　There may be a significant parallel in the western world,where the ancient coexists with a wholly mod-ern structure.The“teca”by Richard Mayer,(see picture 1 in the first pages of the book)for example,pro-tecting the Ara Pacis in Rome with its reference to contemporary architecture.It is true that the collocation of the exhibit was not the original one in the case of Rome,unlike that of the Chinese sacrificial area,but the principle is just the same.Mayer's architecture sent out a message to the public that we can protect the past by inserting it in today's daily life.The message and the means,contemporary architecture,are one and the same.
　　It is very likely that within a short time,if Chinese researchers so suggest,we will see the current situ-ation subject to radical change.It is equally true that this will not happen in the case of Italy.
　　Let us continue with our examination of the logic pursued by the Chinese in the setting up of the Yan-gling museum.
　　When visitors arrive at the square at the entrance to the complex,they find themselves before the first museum established to present the Hun dynasty to the public.It was inaugurated in September 1999 and can be described as a museum cast in the traditional mould.It extends over an area of 3,750 square meters on two floors,part below ground level,and exhibits about 1,800 items brought from all the archaeological digs carried out in the area from 1970 to 1999.The digging work accelerated in the nineties due to the con-struction of the new motorway to Xi'an airport which cuts into two parts the 20 square kilometers area de-signated as being of archaeological importance.[2]
　　It is a museum with very traditional,poorly lit,glass cabinet displays that does however seek to some extent to illustrate to the visitor something of the historical context and to record life in those times.The ex-hibits thus include large scale models of the surrounding area,as well as a presentation of the personages that dominated the Hun period at the end of the first millennium before Christ and a bass-relief depicting daily life as the visitor follows a course through Han dynast life.The public thus not only sees objects but also 1:1 scale reconstructions of the original processions made out of wood.The scale reconstruction of wooden galleries with relics buried at the time of the entombment.These reconstructions interrelate with massive graphics that illustrate the natural context that is identical to that of 2000 years ago as experience by the Em-peror in a spring season between the Jing and Wei rivers.This amounts to a simple but honest presentation of items that has suffered somewhat by the limited available funding testified to by the exhibition cases and the lighting system.
　　Finally,the Museum has very large scale plans for an archaeological park in which the outlying tombs will be an important part,as well as the holy burial path and connections to the archaeological sites of Yan-gling county,all at this time shown in the forms of drawings.Within the structure a new wing is already being built to exhibit fabrics.
　　It has not been possible to examine the scientific and cultural criteria applying to these developments,and it is not entirely clear why a new wing should be built for the displaying of fabrics.
　　Looking back over all the above-described situations,it seems quite clear that any critical judgments about the way in which the Chinese culture does or should move in these circumstances must be duly tem-pered by an understanding that a worldview operates that is quite different from our own,Due respect must be afforded to an approach that lives the past as an integral part of the present.This culture inevitably leads to a relaxed view of the faithfully copying original artifacts or buildings,where the original and the copy are regarded being possessed of an essential equivalence.
　　The major difference from the west certainly lies in the lack of attention paid to workshops,laboratories and cultural spaces in which scholars can exchange ideas and information.It is also in this regard essential to make scientific and historical documentation more open to the public,as well as that which encourages openness to and exchange and interrelation with different parts of the world which have in the past followed paths similar to those being undertaken now for the first time in China.
　　Concluding these remarks on museum approaches applying in China in general and the museographical criteria adopted for Han Yangling Museum in particular,one significant aspect really must be stressed: with regard to the archaeological research carried out and the expected schedule for the digs it is indeed curious that there is no mention of the tumuli of the Emperor Liu Qi and the Empress Wang.[3]
　　That is to say,those archaeological complexes that most fire the imagination of scholars and public alike are simply set aside.Such an approach is astonishing to the western observer.The Chinese archaeolo-gists put off to an unspecified future any research into the remains that most importantly characterize their ar-chaeological sites.The very tombs of the emperors themselves.Is it a question of superstition? Quite possibly.Some doubt must hang over the official explanation that they wish to postpone excavation until conservation and protection tools more advanced than those currently in existence become available.
　　Finally,to return to what has been said about the Chinese predilection for presenting its heritage in re-production form,such criticism must be balanced by the recognition that this by no means only applies to the Chinese.If we turn our gaze to Germany,the country of modern archaeology par excellence,we see great retro and repro rebuilding after the second world and after the reunification of West and East Germany.In the former case cities such as Cologne,which had been practically razed to the ground,had their historic centres rebuilt as they were before the conflict,while in the latter instance we see for example the Frauen-kirche of Dresden,(see picture 2 in the first pages of the book) which recently reopened as a place of worship,where the structure has been entirely rebuilt exactly as it was,following the self-same criteria ad-opted by the Chinese when replicating the imperial palace of Chang'an,itself razed to the ground by the pass-age of time rather than by military ordnance.
　　References:
　　[1] This idea is well expressed by Willem Derde in this same book.Such difference can be clearly seen in Chinese parks where,Derde observes,the monuments from the past become a part of daily life and play an active role that has little to do with their cultural matrix.The Great Pagoda of Xi'an,for example,has been integrated with walls and stylistic elements for its better insertion into Xi'an's beautiful central park in which past and present co-exist,and where there are grandiose water features that repeat their sequences several times a day for the delight of thousands of inhabitants of the city.
　　[2] Millions of visitors pause before the outline of the pyramid in the earth that defends the tomb of Emperor Cing Shi.Though many know much detail of the place as described in the histories,they are left able only to admire the terracotta army created to defend it.
　　公元1455年，罗马教皇尼古拉斯五世主持教务期间，他决定修建新圣彼得大教堂，并毁掉公元4世纪时依照康斯坦丁大帝一世的意愿而建成的当时世界上最大的早期基督教教堂。圣彼得大教堂由5座殿堂组成，殿内装饰奢华，各类艺术珍品琳琅满目。这些都发生在早期的西方世界，因为直到5个多世纪之后，美洲大陆才被发现。圣彼得大教堂地位至高无上，成为当时宗教和文化的圣地。在今天这样的历史条件下，这样的事情几乎不会再发生了。但是那时正值意大利文艺复兴时期，再加上大教堂由教皇尼古拉斯五世亲自督建、尤利乌斯二世指派布拉曼特、米开朗基罗主持设计，这使得圣彼得大教堂备受瞩目。但是，人们对文化遗产的理解已经发生了改变，所以今天我们眼中看到的圣彼得大教堂已经是基督教教义演变和语言进化后的结果。一个社会对文化的诠释是源自其所处的历史时期，而时间本身不是一成不变的，相反的，它总是持续的变化发展。正在教皇尼古拉斯全心投入他的宏伟工程的同时，地处遥远东方的北京也在明朝永乐年间再次成为中国的首都。那时的北京城也在经历着重建。重建计划中紫禁城首当其冲。整个工程直到1420年才完工。整个建筑严格遵循了中国传统建筑风格，全部选用木制结构。中国的文化理解与意大利文艺复兴时期的标准是截然不同的，甚至也异于今天的西方国家。文化价值的准则和许多潜在的世界观虽然都存在着千丝万缕的联系，我们不能让所有的人接受和使用同一种价值体系。
　　有许多因素都可能对文化理解产生影响，而建筑材料的选用也会产生出特殊的关联。例如在建筑方面，用木料就和用石料产生的结果完全不同，而且随之的建筑保护方式也不尽相同。运用耐久性材料如石料能让我们从历史的角度来看待一座建筑在它的历程中所承载的种种见证。然而使用非耐久性材料就意味着每经过一段时期就要时不时地进行维护与保养。
　　换言之，建筑的保护方式与建筑本身一样也在开始时就“被赋予了历史意义”。在中国，传统工艺技术可以完好的保存流传到下一代，揭示出中国文化模式的特殊重要性；而在西方，则是技艺精湛的工匠师不断尝试开发新的耐久性材料，已取代以往长期固定的建筑模式。
　　引用圣彼得大教堂和故宫的例子可以说明这一点，中国文化遗产保护的功能走的是与布拉曼特和米开朗基罗完全不同的一条道路。这一趋势进而随着时间的变化发展成了像行为主义，巴洛克主义等潮流。
　　当我们为了修复历史遗迹或是向公众展示与我们完全不一样的文化遗产而相互合作时，我们在科技领域中讨论合作事宜时就非常容易，这是因为西方以前在这一方面就已取得了巨大进展。但是在如何将遗产置于文化环境中的问题上我们却不太容易找到一个方法论上的共同观点。首先文化遗产保护的意思就是要了解以前已经发展过的历史情况。即尊重不同的历史渊源并致力于开展建设性的和互惠性的对话。其次很重要的是要避免专门将国外的理论置于本国文化经验之外。我们在一起交谈时我们必须要认识到这一点，即使我们自己的基本观念受到质疑而出现交流障碍时，我们也应该明白其他经验是会让我们变得更加充实起来的。在这里，我着重指的是那些在西方世界不同的时代中所发展出来的各种文物修复理论。
　　1995年，米切尔科达罗根据他在西方国家获得的经验遵循凯瑟布兰迪的理论在西安建立起了一座文物修复中心。然而他却不得不在一些新的令他吃惊的问题上做出让步。尤其是在我们概念中什么是赝品或什么是复制品这一问题就和中国的文化无法认同。
　　亚历山大斯蒂尔在他的著作《不久的将来，信息时代如何威胁并至摧毁我们的文化遗产》中这样描述到：参观完著名的临潼兵马俑考古遗址现场后，科达罗被他中国的同行带到了遗址上一个工匠区，在那里生产着与兵马俑看起来一样古老的几乎一模一样的复制品。中国人对这种工作非常自豪，他们说：“看，我们仍然可以用同样的技术制作出它们来!”
　　这一功能在西方艺术历史学家与他们中国的同行间产生了不小的摩擦。尤其在一些展览中欧洲和美国的馆长们发现由中国送来的文物只有部分是考古现场发掘的，而其他部分则是新复制的。
　　这并不表明中国人要愚弄他们西方的同行，而仅仅是上述的那种文化观点的一种表达方式罢了。从他们的眼光来看，文化的强制性作用要小多了。这是我们同西方首先要探讨和商议的问题。就是当我们深入研究中国文化时还有许多东西要向我们的同行去学习。
　　对于我们西方人来说，过去与现在是同时存在的，而对于东方人和中国人来说，过去是现在不可分割的一部分。[1]
　　特别需要注意到这样一个现实，20世纪中国的文化政策注重现在，过去完全从属于日新月异的现在。这一文化政策逐渐引导了20世纪70年代的文化大革命。这个文化大革命具有无上的权力去否定一切并抹杀掉任何正在与新中国脱离的事物。
　　要想给这个观点下一个定义则需要在许多彼此不同的观点上做一些严格地思考。这不仅仅要考虑原品与复制品的地位的问题，而且还要比较过去的观点，比较艺术与保护其艺术的思想还有历史遗迹的保护等问题。西方人对于复制品的价值基本等同于原品价值的观点现在不得不要搁置在一边了，否则我们就无法开展真正的对话。
　　我们要面对的另一个思想上的挑战就是现实主义，这对我们思想上的冲突同样巨大。也就是中国人认为他们的文化可以对世界本身做一个最充分的展示。这一种片面的观点就和我们自己的相对论发生了冲突并且使我们无法接受绝对论的观点。
　　这不仅对于文化在其现有的严格的意义上真实存在。举一个简单的更为直接的例子，如果我们看看中国的烹饪，我们也可以在这个领域看到中国人相信权利之高无上。他们认为他们的烹饪技术是世上最好的。要想让一个从没有出过国的中国人认为如果眼前没有30盘菜也能吃好那显然是不可能的。
　　斯蒂尔停驻在了他以前引证过的书籍前思考着在酒宴中向贵宾敬酒所花费的时间。关于实际的问题他什么也没有解决就只溅了一身的水点儿。现实中社会之间的相互作用将人们聚会到了一起，因此就可以进行下一步的谈话和更复杂的话题了。
　　再回到烹饪的例子上来，我们首先要明白面条在中国人眼中是一场盛宴的伟大谢幕。然而在意大利它却是首道菜，在意大利许多北方地区它也不过是一道配菜。一个有比较性的思路不能仅仅是检验他们最佳调味品的质量，而且还要在整个环境中考虑到其重要性。一个位置是不是比其他所有的位置都优越?不是的。每一个都有它自己传统的表达方式。当我们试图去弄明白酒宴聚会的真正含义时，在文化功能有差异的地方是不能做直接比较的。当我们学着享受甲鱼汤和10道素菜时，我们也应该对于他们只享用“烤宽面条”和仅两道菜而彼此给予一些理解也是必要的。
　　现在回到文化对话的问题上来，我们不要认为对千年传统进行革新是不合适的，因为在许多地方都已经开始发生了变化。对于一些中国人，有一个敏感的文化功能将更会被他们所接受。即西方人所取得的成果不仅在实践和操作方面被认为是有用的，而且这成果还和一些内在的准则有关，这些准则在当代文化中能够表现出普遍的价值来。
　　享受一件杰出的艺术品而不是去表现它，借助于这样的一种特殊的“环境”，这个话题就有必要开始进行并且仔细构建下去了。环境不能被重复，它只能被记录。艺术的灵感可以被复制或被再造。环境只可以被研究和展示，却不能被重复。我们已经充分敏感地认识到了文化源流和决定艺术表达形式的生活方式。我们相信已经远远超过了仅是欣赏艺术品的问题。在中国的博物馆仍然是从客观的角度来注重其焕发出的“美感”，因此这也是艺术展现成为了最吸引人的方式。
　　在中国有名的博物馆经常是根据展品的种类来安排文物展览的，像绘画，雕塑，书法，玉器，珠宝等等，每一类文物都以时间的顺序来展出。然而这并不能够帮助观众理解每件文物当时所处的环境。有时重塑的环境仅仅是根据几年前考古上的依据，但这或许就产生了偏差。
　　这种观点会使我们认为中国的博物馆实践采用的是西方19世纪末的方式，然而这却不尽相同。
　　原因是中国文化的世界观包含有一个非常自由的功能，即将新生活注入到文物中并且通过将文物带到日常生活中进而展现过去。这一过程不只是通过不断地出售那些与博物馆展品“具有相当性”的复制品来实现。在这种情况下文化就成为了过去的一种意象，你甚至可以用一个不错的价钱把过去带回家。
　　除这个以外当我们拍照片时也同样会发生这种现象。只用很少的价钱和很短的时间我们就可以获得文物本身。也就是说是文物的精华激起了我们的想象。
　　获得一件艺术品要比在重现的现实面前研究和思考它容易多了，重现现实要通过一系列不同的历史时代和时期来完成。
　　西方文物修复者的准则很适合在连续的时间段中建立起时间上的界定，并通过给时间界定赋予历史意义来强化它。
　　在中国他们还没有决定去这样做。他们不可能这样做。为了现时的需求，中国人会通过把旧物时尚化而沿着自己的历史轨迹来生活。
　　在这个问题之后，仅仅一个肤浅的分析就会延误西方文物修复者去实现他的准则。西方的研究中心所应用的准则与我们十分不同，于是关于这场实验一个观点就产生了。是不是腊肠宽面条就比燕窝要好呢?回答一个用这种方式来构建的问题是愚蠢的。就像烹饪和艺术，它们都是我们文化世界中的一面，并且两者都同样需要诠解历史，同样愿意在不同的环境中去接受它所涉及的各种方式。
　　西安汉阳陵博物馆遗产的文化功能
　　现在重谈汉阳陵博物馆的话题。这是一座新建立于1999年的博物馆，在尝试的某些方面，博物馆提供了不同时段的说明并且其展览描绘出了汉朝的建立和崛起。验证这些不同的观点是很有必要的。
　　我觉得博物馆最鲜明的特点就是地下的展览区，修建这里是为了展示当时考古发掘的现场，这就使得游客能够直接与考古场地互动。我们应该认识到这对游客和学生会产生什么样的影响，认识到这不仅仅是一个让景区繁荣的问题。当然，第一次进入到博物馆地下展区时游客会被这里特有的氛围和现代感所打动，尤其是当他们与许多中国其他地方主要的和参观量很大的博物馆所产生的感觉相比。
　　即使是和全世界所有这一类的地下博物馆相比较时，人们也会产生这种现代感和新奇感。就是在这种比较研究中，由欧洲委员会资助的这个文化遗产项目便出台了，这本著作是文化项目的一部分。
　　一进入到地下展区游客就可以看见一个像是正处在发掘过程中的墓坑。我还是第一次感觉到文物修复工作者好像正在场地上工作着。这是有可能的，因为展示的有些墓葬仅仅是部分发掘并且其他的一些墓葬也只不过是被标示出来。博物馆设计者的目的是让游客进入到考古发掘仿佛还正在进行的场地之中。为了达到这个效果，就要借用一些纯博物馆的设计和场景设置将我们带到文物原始发掘的场面中来，但这并不减弱博物馆设计所隐含的思想。
　　借助博物馆图表，游客完全进入到发掘坑中时会有一种可触摸性。游客的通道是一条在黑暗中装嵌玻璃的走廊。黑暗更加突出了那些被照明的地方并且展品部分被按照墓葬的形式重新摆放而部分文物被放置在它们墓穴中原本的位置。大多数文物都被修复过了但是有些文物却只在地面露出一部分。所有这些都使得游客完整地看到了墓穴下进行的考古互动。墓穴是按照考古遗存真实比例的大小而创作的模型。
　　游客的通道和考古发掘区域被隔离开来。所以彼此的湿度和温度也是不同的，这样是为了尽可能地照顾到文物和游客。
　　现在还没有说到在发掘过程中开展考古互动活动的时候，也没有说到因为很难找到最佳的文物保护方法而产生的保养问题。从博物馆的设计和博物馆学的角度，我应当指出地下展区的修建在文化方面非常有意义。顺便说一下，这种地下建筑的灵活性非常有趣。现在所展出的考古墓穴已经被证实是皇帝陵墓周围81个陪葬墓中第八个大的墓葬。当其他墓葬也准备要发掘和对外开放时会发生什么情况呢?当这一时刻到来时因这个文化项目而引出的研究课题还会有用吗?
　　还要考虑到一个事实，就是当参观博物馆时你会发现在新的地下展区建成之前博物馆的计划和项目就被承包给了不同的设计师，这仍然是人人皆知的。沿着木质模型往前走，这属于整个项目的一部分，一座式样传统的仿古宫殿便映入眼帘，同时空地用来展览考古发掘。最后这就使得游客以为汉景帝刘启或许就是这样去修建的。或许“传统主义”的设计师在脑海中就出现过的这种信息。
　　这两个并存的对立面，在中国文化里却不是那么对立。它们有一种不可思议的能力，就是对于完全相对立的方案可以用文化上的方式来认真解释。
　　在汉阳陵博物馆也出现了同样的情况。但不是在地下的展区而是在博物馆的其他部分。
　　除了新的地下展区以外，还有其他以许多展示方式出现的方案和思路也要求考古工作必须面对公众。
　　与建造地下展区的概念相反，在帝王陵墓的南大门重建了一座古代建筑，是为了保护原来的遗存。大量的水泥结构仿照原来的式样并且原建筑的饰品是木质的，有原饰品图样的120％或130％倍那么大。有人会疑惑为什么这尺寸要比原来的大。答案非常实际：新建筑物之内保存有文物。为了在建筑过程中不损坏其下面的文物仿古建筑应该被建的大一些，建筑大小的差异只是在刚进入新建筑时可以看到。这里我们看到的文物就要比我们在近距离所见到的复制品要小一些。
　　在开始这样的重建工作时，对于允许这种可能性存在的历史资源进行科学探讨是非常有趣的。但是最起码在本文中这就已经跑题了。同一个文化环境中都隐藏有两个不一致的表现方式，我对于这种想法只能是简单地说说。如前所述，这是一个文化功能的问题，这种功能不受方法论上的限制但在西方却不可避免。
　　尽管人们对于在考古现场进行互动的可靠性还有种种疑问，然而这个现象在祭祀区会以另一种方式来出现，这样说是因为文物具有预测的功能。
　　我们已经用自己的眼光看到了那些接近附属建筑的游客对这个地方产生了兴趣。这个附属建筑仿佛建在了这个范围内与南门相对的另一端。我们遇见了一个与先前完全不同的“具有批判性”的仿制建筑。它被用来保护原始的遗存，全部是用木料，钢筋和玻璃建成的，表现出一种精细的现代品味，这一品味通过远离过去而更加突出了过去的时代特色。然而这并不意味着已经避免了对有些古建筑进行全部重建。现代防护性的结构只是保护了一些看起来完整的原始部分：石通道和墙基保存的和原来的一样并且它们的长度都比原来的长了大概20％左右。原来建筑80％的部分已经被密实的沙土完全覆盖了。这样建筑就比原先高了一米，游客就可以借助信息栏的主要规划图的补充说明站在沙土上完整地看到祭祀神庙原来地表的样子。
　　毫无疑问，即使不可避免地要产生出一些问题，这些问题就是关于在考古遗存并没有提供出原建筑的高度和规模等具体信息的情况下，一座古代庙堂是如何向公众展示的等等。但这种文化功能看起来也已经和文物修复者的精神很接近了。
　　在中国的文化中把什么东西毁掉然后再用一个新版本来代替它是司空见惯的，并且这种思想还继续作用在国内的文化遗产上。对我们来说可能要花好几年的时间来探讨和争论去执行这样的工作，然而在中国学者那里却没有这样的迹象甚至我们的观点还会被他们忽略掉。
　　在西方世界或许也存在一个同样重要的问题，就是古代建筑与完全现代的建筑是共存的。比如理查德梅尔修建的“teca”借助于它现代的建筑护佑着罗马的AraPacis古建筑。与中国的祭祀区不同，罗马表现出的设置是与原来不同的，但是其思想是一样的。梅尔的建筑向公众传播出一个信息即我们可以将过去融入到今天的日常生活中来进而保存住它。这个信息，方式和现代建筑都是一回事儿。
　　如果中国的研究者们这样认为的话，那么我们有可能在很短的时间内看到现在的环境将发生根本性的变化。而在意大利却不会发生类似的情况。
　　让我们继续我们的逻辑验证，这一逻辑是通过中国人在修建阳陵博物馆时形成的。
　　当观众来到博物馆建筑群门前的广场上时，他们会发现自己已经站在了第一座用来展示汉朝的博物馆前了。1999年9月是一个值的纪念的时刻，可以用传统的方式把这里形容成为一个博物馆的矩阵。博物馆有两层面积约3750平方米，有一部分是在地下，展出约1800件文物，这些文物都是1970至1999年间从这里所有的考古发掘现场收集到的。由于修建了去西安机场的高速公路，在20世纪90年代这里的发掘工作得以加快了。高速公路将20平方公里的地方划分成了两个部分，这里成为了考古重地。[2]
　　这座博物馆采用了非常传统的简陋的照明，然而玻璃展柜在某种程度上却在致力于向观众展示一些历史环境并记录下当时的生活。
　　这个展览因此包括了许多周围环境的模式，同时还有显要人士的展示，他们在公元前的第一个太平盛世末期统治着汉王朝。而且还有一个展示日常生活的浮雕，这样游客就可以走过一条汉朝人们日常生活的通道。观众不仅可以看到原品而且还可以看到按原比例用木头复制的各种物品。在仿建墓室的时候人们就大规模地重建墓室掩埋文物了。这些仿建的建筑都配有巨大的图画，上面描绘了2000年前的一个春季在泾河与渭河之间汉朝皇帝当时所处的自然环境。
　　由于展柜和照明系统的条件，由于已证实可用的文物遗存也很有限，这些大量的环境内容却用了一种简单的但却是真实的手段展示出来。
　　最后，博物馆对建立考古遗址公园有一个非常庞大的计划。公园内显眼的陵墓将是一个重要的部分，还有神道，与阳陵县的考古场所连接起来的部分等，都在这时被画出了草图。在公园建筑中一条新的侧廊已准备修建用来展览纤维织物。
　　现在还不太可能去验证应用在这些计划中的科学依据和文化依据，并且现在也不是很清楚为什么新的侧廊会被准备修建用来展览纤维织物。
　　再全部回顾一下上述的情况，对于中国文化在这些条件下所具有的功能和应该具有的功能，很明显任何这种批评的观点都会被与我们完全不同的世界观所同化。应该对过去是现在不可分割的一部分这一文化功能给予尊重。这种文化将会不可避免地产生出一种令人愉悦的观点，那就是忠实地复制艺术原品或建筑，因为原品和复制品都被赋予了相同的地位。
　　与西方人相比主要的差异就是缺乏对作坊，实验室和文化场地的关注，在那里专家可以交流意见和信息。在这里也可以把科技上的与历史上的记载向公众更为开放地展示，这样就可以鼓舞向全世界的各个角落开放，交流和联系。这在过去其他地方已有了类似的做法，但对于中国还是第一次。
　　对于在中国境内博物馆所普遍发挥的作用还有尤其是汉阳陵博物馆所采用的博物馆地形学标准等观点，我们可以做一总结。有一个很重要的方面值得一提：就是关于所开展的考古研究和以后的发掘计划，让人感到奇异的是这里却没有提到汉景帝刘启和王皇后的陵墓。
　　也就是说，那些最能激起学者想象的考古建筑和类似的公共建筑都只是被搁置在了一旁。从西方人的观点来看，这样的一种功能太令人惊异了。中国的考古专家将以后不能确定的研究定向在了文物遗存上，这些遗存对于它们现在的考古遗址起着最重要的影响作用。就是皇帝陵墓本身。难道这是一个有关迷信的问题吗?很有可能。官方作出解释说在文物保护与保存技术比现在大为提高以前他们要暂时要推迟发掘的时间，所以有一些疑问还是要继续存在着。
　　最后，我们再回到中国人喜欢用复制的方式来展现他们文化遗产的话题上。当认识到这绝不仅仅适用于中国人时，这种批评观点就必须要更正了。如果我们看一看现代考古学非常先进的德国，二战和两德统一后我们看到了重新修建的仿古建筑。在前面列举的城市中像科隆，它有一部分建筑已经不存在了但它却有按照战前重建的历史文化中心。后面我们可以看一下德累斯顿市的Frauenkirche，近来已被作为一个祭拜的场所而重新开放，那里的建筑完全是按照它原来的样式重建的，符合自我一致的标准。当中国人重建长安城的皇宫时就采用了这种标准，但长安城的皇宫不是毁于战火而是由于年代久远才损毁的。
　　注释：
　　[1]这一观点威廉·戴尔德也在同样的文章中做了很好的表述。据他的观察，在中国的游园中，这种区别显而易见，过去的纪念碑已成为人们日常生活的一部分，且扮演着积极的意义，但却浅浅地体现出其原有的文化雏形。例如，西安的大雁塔，已与墙垣及艺术因素相结合以更好的融合于西安优美的中心公园，在其中，古今巧妙结合，在那里每日复演的宏伟喷泉奇景，带给这个城市成千上万的人们以喜悦的心情。
　　[2]对于西方学者来说扩充这片地方是一个主要的问题，因为他们认为鉴于这儿文物的数量和重要性原来的考古区域是非常有限的。

汉阳陵·比萨：文化遗产的原址保护与考古博物馆