Comments on: More on public history http://www.froginawell.net/china/2007/10/more-on-public-history/ The China History Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:35:30 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Anonymous http://www.froginawell.net/china/2007/10/more-on-public-history/comment-page-1/#comment-71707 Anonymous Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:39:07 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/china/2007/10/more-on-public-history/#comment-71707 Sir; may I suggest that the concept of historical ruins is not well-established in East Asia? For example, in Japan, the shrine at Ise is burnt down every two decades or so and rebuilt. And things like the 2000-year old Confucius Temple cannot simply be left as historical artifacts; the thing was an active tool of the state for hundreds of years; if it gets run down, how could the Emperor pay homage at a ruin? Perhaps it could simply be a different notion of history. To leave things as they are does mean that the ruins are historical; they are a part of the past, not part of the present. If they're refurbished and rebuilt day in and day out, it suggests that the past is still part of the present; that the institution the structure represents is still alive. Sir; may I suggest that the concept of historical ruins is not well-established in East Asia? For example, in Japan, the shrine at Ise is burnt down every two decades or so and rebuilt. And things like the 2000-year old Confucius Temple cannot simply be left as historical artifacts; the thing was an active tool of the state for hundreds of years; if it gets run down, how could the Emperor pay homage at a ruin?

Perhaps it could simply be a different notion of history. To leave things as they are does mean that the ruins are historical; they are a part of the past, not part of the present. If they’re refurbished and rebuilt day in and day out, it suggests that the past is still part of the present; that the institution the structure represents is still alive.

]]> By: Phil http://www.froginawell.net/china/2007/10/more-on-public-history/comment-page-1/#comment-69773 Phil Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:41:04 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/china/2007/10/more-on-public-history/#comment-69773 Coming in halfway through this debate, it may be that I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but... This seems like kind of a western-centric question to be asking. Refurbishing old, valuable buildings (whether for continued use or simply for historical/artistic appreciation) is surely a normal thing to do - as evidenced by the fact that many western monuments are also carefully maintained and repaired when necessary. The more salient question would be: why do some monuments in the west (ones in quite a tightly defined state of half decay) not get rebuilt? And the answer would presumably revolve around romantic notions of history ("gothic ruins" - some full disclosure here, I got dragged around lots of England's semi-repaired castles by my dad when I was a kid, and I'm working out my anger still!), and academic archaeological curatorship of certain historical sites. Why China rebuilds can be answered quite simply by saying 1) it's a money spinner and 2) people like to connect in tangible ways to their history and to create narratives. The place I find most interesting in this respect is the army of terracotta warriors. I'm not sure whether its relative lack of rebuilding is due to a more academic approach to the site, or because at that depth of history it's difficult to create a meaningful connection (and doubtful whether anyone would want to, given the reputation of the first emperor). Coming in halfway through this debate, it may be that I’m getting the wrong end of the stick here, but…
This seems like kind of a western-centric question to be asking. Refurbishing old, valuable buildings (whether for continued use or simply for historical/artistic appreciation) is surely a normal thing to do – as evidenced by the fact that many western monuments are also carefully maintained and repaired when necessary. The more salient question would be: why do some monuments in the west (ones in quite a tightly defined state of half decay) not get rebuilt? And the answer would presumably revolve around romantic notions of history (“gothic ruins” – some full disclosure here, I got dragged around lots of England’s semi-repaired castles by my dad when I was a kid, and I’m working out my anger still!), and academic archaeological curatorship of certain historical sites.
Why China rebuilds can be answered quite simply by saying 1) it’s a money spinner and 2) people like to connect in tangible ways to their history and to create narratives.
The place I find most interesting in this respect is the army of terracotta warriors. I’m not sure whether its relative lack of rebuilding is due to a more academic approach to the site, or because at that depth of history it’s difficult to create a meaningful connection (and doubtful whether anyone would want to, given the reputation of the first emperor).

]]>