The restoration of an ancient bridge in Xinzhou, Shanxi has attracted attention beyond recognition
Cultural relic restoration cannot change the original state of cultural relics
□ Our reporter Han Dandong
□ Yin Yushuang, an intern in this newspaper
Recently, an unremarkable video of an ancient stone bridge being repaired has attracted attention on the Internet. The ancient bridge is named Tieliang Bridge, and is located in Xinzhou, Shanxi. It may date back to the Jin and Yuan periods. After the stone bridge was repaired, almost all parts except the bridge arch were newly repaired, and some of the pillars and stone carvings on the bridge were also lost.
On April 22, the Shanxi Provincial Cultural Relics Bureau pointed out at a media conference that the local cultural relics authority lacked the concept of protecting cultural relics and supervision was not in place, and Xinzhou has been requested to implement rectification as soon as possible.
The encounter with Tieliang Bridge once again brought the topic of restoration of cultural relics into public view. How should cultural relics be repaired to avoid "secondary damage"? Recently, a reporter from Legal Daily conducted an interview on this.
The ancient bridge loses its historical style
Destructive repair causes controversy
Tieliang Bridge is located in Liansigou Village, Zhuangmo Town, Xinzhou City, Shanxi Province. It was included in the first batch of municipal cultural relic protection units and intangible cultural heritage in Xinzhou City in June 2007.
In order to enable the bridge body to continue to assume the modern transportation function, in recent years, the local key parts of the bridge body have undergone large and small maintenance to varying degrees. In 2019, Xinzhou City Cultural Relics Bureau and Xinfu District Government put the maintenance work of Tieliang Bridge on the agenda, and successively organized the preparation, demonstration, approval and engineering technology bidding of Tieliang Bridge maintenance plan, which began in early October 2019 The maintenance of Tieliang Bridge was completed, and the main maintenance project was basically completed by the end of November.
However, the comparison video before and after the restoration of the Tieliang Bridge caused heated discussion on the Internet, and many cultural relics believe that the bridge is "unrecognizable" and "lost historical significance" after the bridge is restored.
On April 21, Xinzhou City Cultural Relics Bureau announced that a local investigation team had been established to conduct a comprehensive investigation around the repair work of the Tieliang Bridge.
Professor Qi Jiahua, an expert in ancient architecture restoration at Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, told the "Legal Daily" reporter that the most important thing about ancient architecture is its style and the historical information it carries. This restoration destroyed the original historical features of the ancient bridge, and actually caused the depreciation of the ancient buildings. "From the pictures of Xinqiao, it does not use the previous materials, so where did the previous materials go? If the whereabouts of these materials are unknown, it may also constitute a cultural relic crime."
In recent years, the restoration of cultural relics has been nothing new. In 2016, the wall and ground of a section or two kilometers of the Xiaohekou Great Wall in Suizhong, Liaoning, known as the "most beautiful wild wall", were directly paved with cement hardened pavement during the restoration process; a Republic of China named "Autumn Mountain Villa" in Hangzhou In ancient buildings, the mottled gates and outer walls of the paint were painted with a layer of yellow paint; in 2018, the national key cultural relics protection unit Qinglian Temple color paint was repainted with gold paint, and it became completely new, and the head of the Buddha statue was added Streamers that were not there before.
"Many historical monuments are no longer usable, but it is a symbol of that era, carrying the cultural information of that era and has uniqueness." Qi Jiahua believes that the use of historical monuments for tourism is intended to be good, but the local cultural relics are not well done Protection work. It is a very rough method to evaluate the ancients with modern technology. With new materials and new processes, there is no sense of historical vicissitudes and charm. Terracotta Warriors, Giant Wild Goose Pagodas, Xuankong Temple, etc. are very old and have been repaired repeatedly, but their charm is not diminished. The main reason is to retain the original cultural genes.
Cultural relics should be repaired as old
Destruction of authenticity is undesirable
In practice, what standards should be used to restore cultural relics? How can we achieve a balance between beauty and practicality?
It is understood that the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics stipulates that the repair, maintenance, and relocation of immovable cultural relics must comply with the principle of not changing the original state of the cultural relics. The “Guidelines for the Protection of Chinese Cultural Relics and Historic Sites” stipulates that the restoration should protect the original state and historical information of existing objects, and should be based on existing and valuable objects; the unique traditional process technology must be retained, and all new materials and processes must go through the pre-stage Experiment and research; correctly grasp the aesthetic standards, and do not allow to change the original state of cultural relics in pursuit of completeness and gorgeousness.
Zhou Rong, director of the Institute of History, Culture and Tourism, Xi'an Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that in the past practice, there are two different ideas for the restoration of cultural relics in China and internationally: "repairing as old" and "different between old and new". The first is the current common idea in China, which is to repair according to the original state of the cultural relics. The restoration materials and techniques must be the same as the original cultural relics. The cultural relics restored in this way are seamless, and generally no traces of restoration can be seen. However, some scholars have put forward different views on this. They believe that since the restoration is done, the original thing should be distinguished from the newly restored thing. This is the "different old and new" method, that is, on the basis of not affecting the aesthetics, the repaired part is deliberately differentiated in color.
"No matter what kind of restoration concept, authenticity should be the primary principle of restoration of cultural relics. Rehabilitation of cultural relics must be consistent with the era of cultural relics and its original origin, and must be consistent with the original cultural style and can not be modified indiscriminately. In the restoration process In the process, the beauty and practicality must be balanced on the basis of maintaining the authenticity, and the authenticity cannot be destroyed because the cultural relics do not accord with the current aesthetics. "Zhou Rong said.
Qi Jiahua believes that the restoration of cultural relics should adhere to "repair as old" in the form, that is, to maintain the authenticity of history and reflect the level of craftsmanship of that era; in content, it should adhere to "cultural genes", that is, adhere to the aesthetic orientation of that era, The style of the times, for example, the Tang Dynasty prefers plumpness, and the Song Dynasty likes to be delicate and thin. "During the process of design and construction, experts should be invited to make suggestions to study what the era of cultural relics is like and what the corresponding technology is like."
In the interview, Liu Rui, an associate researcher at the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said: "The standards for restoration of cultural relics have been evolving. Traditional Chinese thoughts like to be refreshed, and now the generally accepted principle in the West is to" repair as old. "Restoration is a constant discussion Process, this is an academic issue, and scientifically it should be a little more cautious. I personally feel that it is enough to continue the local ecology and traditions in line with local aesthetics. "
Build a multi-party participation mechanism
Establish accountability system
"Destructive restoration" of cultural relics has occurred in many places. At present, China attaches great importance to cultural construction, and the protection and restoration of cultural relics are also increasingly valued.
According to Article 66 of the Cultural Relics Protection Law, if one of the following acts does not constitute a crime, the department in charge of cultural relics of the people's government at or above the county level shall order it to rectify it, and if it causes serious consequences, it shall be punished by 50,000 to 500,000 yuan. Fines; if the circumstances are serious, the original certificate issuing authority shall revoke the qualification certificate: (1) without permission to carry out construction projects or operations such as blasting, drilling, and excavation within the protection scope of the cultural relics protection unit; (2) construction in the cultural relics protection unit Construction projects within the control zone whose engineering design plans have caused the historical style of the cultural relics protection unit without the approval of the cultural relics administrative department and the approval of the urban and rural construction planning department; ) Repairing unmovable cultural relics without authorization and obviously changing the original state of the cultural relics; (5) Reconstructing completely destroyed non-removable cultural relics on the original site without authorization, causing cultural relic damage; (6) The construction unit does not obtain the cultural relics protection project qualification certificate and engages in cultural relics repair , Migration and reconstruction.
In the interview, Zhou Rong believed that the cultural relics at all levels should be examined and approved by the relevant cultural relics authorities for protection and restoration according to their different levels. According to some past cases, the situation of Tieliang Bridge should start the corresponding administrative review process. First of all, it is necessary to check the scientificity and rationality of the restoration plan. Secondly, the cultural relics management department and the person in charge who do not meet the requirements of the plan shall be subject to corresponding administrative accountability.
"In the process of protection and restoration of cultural relics, we must adhere to such a mechanism led by the cultural relics authorities and involving cultural relics experts and scientific research institutions. In addition to the cultural relics administrative departments, cultural relics experts must also actively participate in the proposal and implementation of cultural relics restoration plans. At the same time, a corresponding accountability system should also be established, and some so-called protection schemes and practices that do not meet the requirements for the protection of cultural relics and wantonly destroy cultural relics should be held accountable to decision makers, departments, and review experts who make decisions Investigate. "Zhou Rong said.
Qi Jiahua believes: "Tieliang Bridge is a municipal cultural relics protection unit. According to existing regulations, ancient bridges need to be submitted for approval before restoration, and a site restoration plan should be proposed. Whoever proposed the current plan and how to pass it should be investigated. In addition, when the local government wants to use local resources to do something, it should carry out professional operations instead of relying on enthusiasm and patting their heads. The government should use relevant colleges and scientific research institutes to give full play to the professional Strength, so that you can achieve twice the result with half the effort. "
Zhou Rong suggested that in the process of cultural relics protection, due to financial constraints of local governments, there may be funding gaps. The state should consider setting up appropriate funds or special funds to increase support for local cultural relics protection and make up for the financial gap.