您现在的位置是: 首页 > 通知公告 > 正文

会议预告| 物质与非物质文化遗产对话与融合

发布者:转自:人大考古 发布时间:2019-06-24 21:06 阅读量:



meeting agenda


 本次会议由中国人民大学历史学院考古文博系、北方民族考古研究所与剑桥大学蒙古与内亚研究所(MIASU)联合举办,由中国人民大学国际交流处和中国人民大学汉语国际推广研究所协办。会议为期两天,由讲座和讨论两部分构成。第一天的讲座从地域性出发,着重强调内亚草原和古代中国的“边界”,比较地域文化考古学与人类学的研究成果,在方法和理论层面探讨“非物质”(intangible)概念。 第二天根据当下博物馆研究、宗教研究和创意实践中正在进行的项目,围绕真实性、宗教场所和感知三个主题,探索中国文化遗产中“物质”和“非物质”之间的界限。




 Two days of interventions and discussion are hosted by the Department of Archaeology and Museum Studies, School of History, in Renmin University of China, and the Archaeology of Northern Ethnicity Institute, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge Mongolian and Inner Asian Studies Unit (MIASU), through the generous sponsorship of the Institute for the Promotion of Chinese Language and Culture, Renmin University of China. The first day, with a strong regional emphasis on the Inner Asian steppe and the historical Chinese ‘frontier’, confronts archaeological and anthropological research on the culture of the area, questioning the notion of ‘intangible’ in its methodological and theoretical dimensions. The second day gathers on-going projects in the fields of Museum Studies, Creative Practices and Religious Studies questioning the boundaries between ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ in Chinese cultural heritage around the themes of authenticity, religious sites and perception.

 Note of Intention

 To present day, China has made great strides in developing a comprehensive cultural heritage preservation regime including ‘material’ heritage, ‘intangible’ heritage, etc. . In recent years China has attempted to both incorporate and integrate its cultural protection mechanisms into global discourses of cultural preservation regimes. China’s unique history, national circumstance, and special considerations all contribute to an equally unique outlook on cultural heritage and heritage protection, yet nevertheless done through an internationally recognized vocabulary of preservation norms.  It is precisely due to this unique history and development process that Chinese cultural heritage preservation concepts differ from other regions and countries.  Particularly in the case of ‘intangible’ cultural heritage, international preservation regimes are understood to begin at the ‘grassroots’ where local recognition of cultural heritage protection leads to locals seeking out support from governments or IGOs/NGOs so as to preserve, develop, transmit, and even promote heritage that they themselves perceive as valuable and endangered.  Yet in China, the process is quite the opposite.  Chinese conceptualizations of heritage protection begin with Party and central government institutions, which are then filtered down to regional and local governments, and finally to the common people.  That is to say, the state formulates policies which require lower levels of government to seek out and identify local cultural heritage to be protection, transmitted, and promoted. To be sure, neither worldview is more correct than the other, where each has its merits.  Nevertheless, this alternative outlook and system of practice has developed a radically different understanding of ‘heritage’ and has yet to be properly theorized.