西汉帝陵

　　Introduction
　　The ambition of the Han-Pisa Project is to fully exploit and disseminate the richness of the cultural heri-tage of two civilizations,Europe and China.The occasion is the discovery of two extraordinary archaeol-ogical sites.On the one hand,the discovery in San Rossore,next to Pisa of about 30 ancient ships dating from the first century BCE to the forth century CE.On the other hand,the discovery of terracotta images related to the burial place of Emperor Jing Di of the Han period,dating From the second century BCE.Both sites can learn from each other about how to deal with archaeology‘in situ’,exchange expertise in excavation techniques or ways of how to restore and preserve delicate and fragile objects.Because both sites are linked in different ways to the history of two different cultures,the question also becomes how best to present this heritage to the public.It is in this domain that a true Sino-European dialogue can begin to unfold.
　　Though presenting monuments and sites to the public is a phenomenon that,one way or the other,has always been linked with the profession of history and archaeology,it is only in the last few decades that it matured into a domain of its own.This evolution can be clearly illustrated if we look at the topics that were discussed by the international heritage community.The first international charters and doctrinal texts adopted before and after the Second World War deal with the physical aspects of conservation and restoration of monuments and sites.This is for example the case with the 1931 Athens Charter for the Restoration of His-toric Monuments,or the very influential ICOMOS Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites of 1964.However,during the last decade,the attention of the international heritage community clearly shifted towards considering other issues such as the intangible aspects of heritage,its wider social context as well as the meaning of heritage and how to communicate it.These recent evolutions are clearly reflected in the 2003 UNESCO convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heri-tage,the 2005 Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society and the 2008 ICOMOS Ename Charter for the Presentation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage sites.
　　In this article we will focus on the principles of the Ename Charter and illustrate their relevance as a fra-mework for interpreting cultural heritage sites in both Europe and China.We will do so by first giving a brief history of the Ename project and how the Ename Charter initiative was launched.Based on the example of the heritage project in Ronse,Belgium,the relevance of the Ename Principles for a modern sustainable heritage policy is illustrated.How the Ename methodology could be relevant for the Han Yanling Museum Site is discussed as well.We finish the article with some reflections about how the differences in presentation and interpretation of cultural heritage in both Europe and China could lead to a fruitful Sino-European dia-logue.
　　A Short History of the Ename Project
　　Before the start of the archaeological excavations at Ename near the city of Oudenaarde,Belgium,only a few historians well versed in the history of Medieval Europe could have been aware of the significance and historical potential of this small village.Even though it was known for its abbey that ceased to exist by the end of the 18th century,Ename would never have developed into the project that it now is,if this place was not linked with one of Europe's decisive moments in history:The Empire that Charles the Great founded in 800 CE and its subsequent history.
　　The Significance of Ename in the Carolingian Empire
　　A decisive moment in the history of Western Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire was the reign of Charles the Great who ruled from 771 to 814 CE.This period is heralded as the first European Renaissance when great parts of Europe were united again for the first time in many centuries.However,this splendid period could not last for long.Its destruction was ingrained in a system that would determine Europe's poli-tical and civil life for many centuries to come,a system that is known as‘feudalism’.
　　[Figure 1:Europe in the year 1000 CE]
　　One of the key elements of Medieval feudalism were its particular and strict roles of inheritance.King-doms were handed over to the sons of their father and if more than one son could claim the inheritance,the kingdom had to be divided.Thus happened with the Empire of Charles the Great when his three grand chil-dren each claimed an equal part of the vast and rich lands of Europe.This important fact in the history of Europe is known as the Treaty of Verdun,signed in the year 843.In Flanders,in what is now the northern part of Belgium,the river Schelde became the borderline between Francia Occidentalis-the West Francian Empire-and Francia Media-the Middle Franeian Empire.Ename was on the border of the river Schelde on the German part of the empire and became a major stronghold between Antwerp en Valencienne.The latter developed into major cities.Ename's history,however,would be different.
　　The Ottonian fortification that was established in 974 and around which an early medieval settlement developed would not last long.The Flemish count loyal the French king crossed the river Schelde and con-quered Ename in the year 1047.He destroyed the village and decided to build a monastery on the same spot,hence,devouring it from all military and political significance.
　　From Rescue Excavation to Pilot Project:Ename 974
　　When the first rescue excavations started in 1983,the archaeologists were aware of the rich history of Ename,but it would take another decade before the historical and archaeological significance of Ename would be completely revealed.The discovery in 1993 of well preserved Byzantine fresco's in the parish church of Ename put the whole history of this small place into a different perspective.What was thought to be an old and well preserved Romanesque church turned out to be one of the best preserved Ottonian‘Re-ichskirche'outside of Germany.This was so exceptional that only a place of highly political and military significance could answer the profile that the researchers were drawing of Ename.
　　[Figure 2:Byzantine Fresco in the church of Ename,Belgium]
　　The archaeological excavations and the discovery of the paintings in the church were of such major im-portance that their significance had to be communicated to the public.It was also realised that because of the many aspects and complexity of the history of Ename,interpreting its past and presenting its history should be approached from a multidisciplinary perspective.Hence was born the Ename 974 project.
　　Thanks to this project,what began as a purely research activity turned into a new experiment in inter-preting and presenting a major cultural site.New techniques were developed and new ways to let people dis-cover the historical significance of Ename were applied.For the first time,computer technology was presscd to the limits in the context of a heritage site in order to make people understand what archaeologists had un-earthed.Time Scope 1 gained world wide recognition for its pioneering application of ICT to heritage.By combining real time images with 3D reconstructions,the visitor gets a clear and easy to understand overview of the many phases in the historical development of the site.
　　[Figure 3:Time Scope at the archaeological site of Ename,Belgium]
　　The next phase of the project was the building of a museum.However,also here new ground was covered because the objects that are on display are but a trigger for a story that comes fully alive at the so-called table of the“Feast of Thousand Years”.Professional actors each present a small piece of the the giant puzzle that represents a history of 1000 years in what is now a small provincial village.
　　The church was restored in its Ottonian magnificence and a well designed computer system with wide screen and interactive functionality helps the visitor to find his way through the fascinating history of a re-markable monument.
　　Finally history and nature were integrated in the project when a small natural reserve was added to the concept:a natural environment that once belonged to the monastery was put into the care of the museum.
　　Sustainable Development Through Local Involvement
　　Despite the many initiatives of the Ename 974 project,and despite the recognition that it received-the most recent one being the European Heritage Lable of the European Union that was awarded in 2008-none of this would have been possible without the support of the local people.If this project is a success,it is thanks to the involvement of the local community.It is the people who expressed their interest in what was going on in the fields of Ename.It was they who were most interested in getting to know the details of the story of the Ottonian church.It was they who recreated old traditions such as the medieval horse market,and it was they who donated many objects for display in the museum.Thus the museum was not something given to the public,it was of the public.
　　Thanks to the experiences gained throughout the years at Ename the idea took form to start working on a document dealing with how to communicate the significance of a place and that would be helpful to the in-ternational heritage community.Indeed,while most existing cultural heritage documents and guidelines deal primarily with physical conservation and management of sites,none addressed the issue of how to ef-fectively communicate the significance of cultural heritage sites.
　　The ICOMOS Ename Charter Project
　　When the team at Ename formulated the idea of working on a doctrinal document it turned out that few existing guidelines dealt with the direct relationship between ways of interpretation and the wider social con-text of cultural heritage or its sustainable management.Another concern that was important from the very beginning was that is was soon clear that economic imperatives often steer a heritage project.The trans-formation of cultural heritage sites into venues for tourism and for gaining income not only pose dangers for the conservation in the long run,it runs also the risk of being experienced as imposed on the local vicinity from the outside.Or it could turn heritage into nothing more than another means to gain an income like so many theme parks or shopping mals that determine the life of a community.
　　These and other concerns about interpretation clearly marked the need for a reflection about the intel-lectual,ethical,social and economic contexts in which heritage interpretation might be most effectively carried out.This process started in the spring of 2002 when a first draft was formulated by the staff of the Ename Center and ended with the formal approval by the General Assembly of ICOMOS in its meeting of 4 October 2008 in Quebec.
　　Throughout the editorial process many changes to the initial draft were made.But the most important outcome of the referee process is perhaps the attempt to clearly distinguish between‘presentation’and‘inter-pretation’(Silberman 2006),The former is the straightforward attempt to provide information about a site and to make it physically and intellectually accessible to the broadest variety of people.The latter,on the other hand,is a far more complicated process.‘Interpretation’is not a one-way mode of communication from the scholar to the public.It is a complicated process of involvement by the public which turns a heritage site into a place of learning and reflection about a site's significance,and the impact of the past on contem-porary society and identity.In fact,it is here that the issue of intercultural dialogue is really taken into account.
　　We are now at the beginning of grasping the significance of‘interpretation’of cultural heritage sites and what it means when we look at this issue from a cross-cultural perspective.However,projects such as the Han-Pisa Project force us into this direction and build the founding stones for a more in depth reflection about what it means to deal with heritage in the 21st century.
　　Towards the Ename Methodology
　　Based on the principles of the ICOMOS Ename Charter,the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation aims at establishing a flexible and consistent heritage assessment methodology to assist with the active conservation,enhancement and presentation of both tangible and intangible heritage.This methodology is designed to help site managers,town councils and local authorities in assessing the suitability of their heritage developments which will promote sustainable exploitation of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.
　　The purpose of this methodology is to establish the importance of Interpretation and Presentation as es-sential tools to:
　　Facilitate understanding and appreciation of the significance and range of meanings of cultural heritage sites and foster public awareness of the need for their protection and conservation.
　　Communicate the meaning of cultural heritage sites through careful,documented recognition of their significance,through accepted scientific and scholarly methods as well as from living cultural traditions.
　　Safeguard the tangible and intangible values of cultural heritage sites in their natural and cultural settings and social context.
　　Respect the authenticity of cultural heritage sites,by communicating the significance of their historic fabric and cultural values and protecting them from the adverse impact of intrusive interpretive infrastructure.
　　Contribute to the sustainable conservation of cultural heritage sites,through promoting public under-standing of ongoing conservation efforts and ensuring long-term maintenance and updating of the interpretive infrastructure.
　　Encourage inclusiveness in the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage sites,by facilitating the involvement of stakeholders and associated community groups.
　　Develop technical and professional standards for heritage interpretation and presentation,including technologies,research,and training.
　　The Example of Ronse,Belgium
　　A site where these principles were first applied in a consistent manner in setting up a heritage pro-gramme was the city of Ronse in the province of East Flanders.On behalf of the city council the Ename Center made an assessment of the heritage resources of this town in 2006-2007.the work resulted in three distinctive proposals for a sustainable heritage policy.
　　Ronse is typified as a small Belgian town with a complex community at the border of Dutch speaking Flanders and French speaking Wallonia.The town has barely 24,000 inhabitants and lies as it were hidden in the middle of the green,rolling hills of the Flemish Ardennes.Despite its relative isolation from the rest of Flanders,the town is exceptionally rich in different kinds of heritage resources,Social life is abundant in customs and festivities,some of which have been performed for thousand years.Due to its peculiar history,it has a rich patrimony of medieval churches unlike in other cities of this kind.And despite its isolated location the town flourished unprecedentedly from the end of the 19th century onwards when it be-came a very important local centre of textile production.Because of the social and economic decline that lasted for decades from the 1960's onwards,the town was hardly able to develop and innovate.Therefore,we now have a unique patrimony of industrial heritage that is part of the city fabric and that needs a specific approach and heritage policy.The challenges that heritage professionals face when dealing with such a com-plex situation are great and it is clear that they go beyond the usual issues of protection and conservation.It is in situations like these that the Ename methodology,inspired by the ICOMOS Ename Charter principles,can demonstrate its value and applicability.
　　[Figure 4:A View of the City of Ronse,Belgium]
　　When we began our work in the city of Ronse,it was obvious that much pride was taken in the old crypt.Not only is it one of the oldest in the country it is also one of the biggest and it contains two‘bathing rooms’ where in medieval times ritual performances took place related to the adoration of the relics of Saint-Hermes,patron saint of the church.It is clear that the relics of Saint Hermes,which are still kept in a shrine,are very important for the history and development of the city of Ronse.Not only did they transform the city into an important pilgrimage site during the Middle Ages,today they are still carried around once a year by the citizens of Ronse in a yearly procession of almost 33 kilometers that takes them into a wide circle around the city and into neighbouring villages and fields.This ritual that is known as the‘fiertel’has an im-portant impact on the formation of the local identity of the citizens of this town.What is lacking,however,is an appreciation of the history of the city that links these elements to the city landscape,its monuments,its parks and its lay out.
　　Further research revealed that at the centre of the town,some important elements of the earlier“Free-dom”are still clearly marked though they are no longer put into context.Until the French Revolution,the“Freedom”-for so it was called-was an independent medieval feudal manor where the clergy ruled as the highest civil authority.It was so to speak a“town within the town”of which the borders were precisely ma-rked and which had its own jurisdiction and economic life as well as its particular customs.We soon found out that this original situation was remarkably preserved in today's urban lay-out.
　　[Figure 5:A 17th century map of the‘Freedom’in Ronse,Belgium]
　　Of the three churches that stood one next to the other,two are still standing.A third church disappeared by the end of the nineteenth century because it was in a very poor condition.However,one can still see where it stood because the foundations that have been unearthed during excavations have been restored.The old chapter houses are no longer there but a well chosen design with plants indicates the location of the old convent next to the church of Saint Hermes.In front of that church the Old Market Place is still preserved and is still enclosed by taverns as was the case in the Middle Ages.On this square not only markets were organised but also court was held in public.What is now a small city park used to be the old grave yard.Even the gallows,where convicted criminals were hanged,is still clearly marked because on the same spot a beech tree was planted.
　　When we put all these elements together,it was clear that far more had been preserved from the town's heritage than was first thought.Because the manor ceased to exist after the French Revolution many elements in the spatial organisation lost their original function.The area was incorporated into the rest of the town,especially during the nineteenth century when Ronse expanded rapidly due to the textile industry.
　　Though we have given a very general overview,these elements suffice to illustrate how some of the principles of the Ename methodology could be applied.We recontextualised the very different urban elements by linking them to their original context of the old‘town within the town,’thus illustrating the significance and range of meanings of cultural heritage sites.This was further enriched by the fact that we could even link the tangible aspects of a medieval urban lay out with the contemporary custom of the‘fiertel’.If,for example,at the beginning of the‘fiertel’the mayor of Ronse asks permission to carry the shrine of Saint-Hermes and if the dean grants this permission,then it refers to the fact that the‘Freedom’was once a separate enclosure.The relics belonged to the‘Freedom’and could only leave the jurisdiction of the manor if per-mission was given.
　　[Figure 6:The‘Fiertel’in Ronse,A Tradition dating from Medieval Times]
　　Elements such as these allowed us to make the recommendation to transform the area of the former“Freedom”into a modern heritage zone.Thus we foster public awareness of the heritage importance of this town area and underline the need for its protection and conservation.
　　The Challenge of the Han Yangling Museum Site
　　Based on the workshop that was held in Xi'an in November 2008 it is clear that despite the differences in background,history and scale one could apply the same methodology to the Hah Yanling Museum site to its advantage.
　　The Han Yanling Museum site with the mausoleum of the emperor Jing Di and his empress is of out-standing value thanks to the miniature terracotta statues of men,animals and utensils that were found around the imperial tomb.The underground museum gives an unprecedented view of the archaeological findings in situ and is unique in its kind.The old museum shows a fine collection of terracotta statues as well as other archaeological objects.The archaeological site is further marked by a so-called‘sacrificial site’that is partly reconstructed and partly kept ‘in situ’,Finally,the South Gate that marks the southern entrance to the imperial burial mountain,is an important landmark because of the construction that protects the original earthen gate.
　　[Figure 7:The South Gate at the Han Yanling Museum Site,China]
　　What makes the archaeological park of the Han Yanling Museum so interesting is that it presents a clear focus on the archaeology of China.This is obviously the case in the underground museum,but the same is true at two other locations of the site:at the south gate where a reconstruction of an old style gate protects the earthen remains of the original gate and at the‘sacrificial area’where some of the key features of the build-ing can be seen‘in situ’through some window boxes.In each of the instances another methodology has been used.This makes the site particularly interesting for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques,not only in terms of conservation of the archaeological relics,but also in terms of their usefulness and impact on the presentation and interpretation of the site.
　　[Figure 8:Partial Reconstruction of the‘Sacrificial Area’]
　　Only some key parts of the so-called‘sacrificial area’are kept‘in situ’ for the visitors to be seen.The rest is covered with ground at the current walking level and even higher.Putting the reconstructions at this higher level has the obvious advantage of protecting the lower level,archaeological relics.Therefore,the method should be favourably assessed.Also from the perspective of presenting the archaeological meaning of this part of the site many arguments are in favour of the approach that has been used.It is good that only some key elements of the original construction are recreated and that the rest is suggested by some markers in the ground.It is very easy to imagine how the building might have looked like.On the other hand,this partial reconstruction,apart from the fact that it does not damage the original archaeological remains,could be easily replaced if new insights into the historical reality would demand this.Another obvious advantage is the sustainability of the current approach.
　　A more contested approach is used at the imperial south gate.The modern construction has the purpose of protecting the earthen archaeological remains.It is obvious that it meets this goat very well.However,because of the spatial impact of the building,some questions arise in terms of the interpretation of this part of the archaeological park.The suggestion is made that what we see today is a reconstruction of the original construct because the building follows the ancient style as can be seen on original iconographic material pre-senting gates and buildings.However,it must be clear that the modern building of iron and concrete has nothing to do with the original construct and does not even resemble it.Thus,the visitor could be easily misled,especially the hasty tourist who does not take file time to visit the gate and get an impression of how the original gate might have looked like.
　　The principles used in the Ename methodology do not only allow us to assess the different elements of the archaeological site,they are also able to point towards possible avenues for improvement.What is cur-rently lacking is a clear understanding of the context of the different elements into the original landscape.All the different elements that we see today were once clearly related to each other in terms of their meaning and purpose.This meaning and purpose could be partially restored and be made accessible to the visitor by em-phasising the relationship between the different elements.The advantage of such an approach has been de-monstrated by the example of Ronse in Belgium.The same approach could be used at the Han Yanling Mu-seum site.The result could be a richer experience and a better understanding of this outstandingly important relic of the history of China.
　　Towards a Sino-European Cultural Dialogue
　　The challenges that China faces in terms of its heritage management are enormous.In the previous cen-tury many spectacular archaeological discoveries were made such as the famous terracotta warriors of em-peror Qin Shi Huangdi or such as those of emperor Jing Di.It is to be expected that with the continuous and rapid evolutions in China more discoveries will be made.One of the major questions is how to deal with the archaeological remains?
　　The same question has been addressed in Europe too.The process of reflection led to the so-called Con-vention of Valletta in Malta in 1992.The European governments recognised the importance of the European archaeological heritage and stated that the relics should be left untouched if possible.New development pro-jects should take into account that they potentially destroy important archaeological evidence and that a pro-per excavation should take place if there are indeed indications that the piece of land is of archaeological im-portance.The Convention of Faro(2005)of the European Council extented the care for heritage from ar-chaeological sites to monuments,sites and landscapes and introduced the concept of‘heritage community’.It thereby emphasised the importance of the social dimension for a sustainable heritage management.The ICOMOS Ename Charter(2008)takes this one step further and considers interpretation as a two-directional activity in which the people,the visitors and the local communities are not only recognised as key stake-holders,but also determine the value of heritage.There is no doubt that China could learn from these models and apply them to their own situation.However,if we live up to our own principles,then we should also acknowledge that the Chinese heritage professionals as well as the people who absorb their heritage in the ra-pidly changing environments of China,should be heard too.In fact,confronting the way the West and China deal with heritage,is necessary if we want to understand the importance of heritage in our contem-porary society or if we want to understand the concept of heritage as such.
　　[Figure 9: Wild Goose Pagoda in Xi'an,China]
　　The history of the Buddhist pagoda of the Wild Goose in Xi'an reaches back to the 7th century CE,when Xuan Zang returned from India with new Buddhist insights and scriptures.The building was protected as an historical monument in 1961.One cannot fail to notice its central place in a new and ongoing urban devel-opment programme.It is situated on the central axis with the main road leading straight to the statue of Xuan Zang and the prominent pagoda tower behind it.The whole city area left and right of the main street is now rebuild in Chinese style houses,hotels and other facilities.The temple complex itself is surrounded by parks where Buddhism,Chinese art expressions or traditional Chinese folklore are the main themes.In the parks traditional designs and statues are mixed with modern sculptures,lightning techniques,music and water plays.There is no doubt that this project is successful.Day and night the neighborhood attracts many people young and old joining in dance,performing music,doing tai chi,or simply hanging around.
　　What is striking is the adaptation of the Wild Goose Pagoda and its importance as a Buddhist monument into a modern and lively environment.The feeling one gets when walking there,is one of bursting life in a modern environment filled with a meaningful rich past.With their unique approach,the Chinese transform their heritage into a new environment where the old and the new come together.It is a way of connecting to the past in a new context.Old themes live on and are incorporated in a modern setting.It is as if the past is part of the present.
　　This kind of approach is absent in Europe.Therefore,differences such as these are not without impor-tance.They point towards a different attitude to heritage and thus,to a different attitude towards history and the past.It is here that a real dialogue between China and Europe should take place and where both meet as equal partners with a different cultural background.It is this dialogue that will genuinely enrich both Euro-pe and China.It is our hope that the Han-Pisa project,could be a first step towards such a long term dialogue.
　　References:
　　ICOMOS Ename Charter(2008),ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites.http://www.enamecharter.org/downloads.html.
　　Jacobs,Andrew(2009),Finding Treasures in a City's Disappearing past.The New York Times,19 Januari 2009.
　　Faro Convention(2005),Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society.http://conventions.coe.int/.
　　Silberman,Neil(2006),The ICOMOS-Ename Charter:New Principles for Interpretating Cultural Heritage Sites.The George Wright Forum,Volume 23,issue 1,pp.28-33.
　　UNESCO Convention for immaterial Heritage(2003),Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heri-tage.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/OOl3/OOl325/13254Oe.pdf.
　　Valletta Convention(1992),Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe.http://conventions.coe.int/.
　　总介绍
　　“汉·比萨”项目的宗旨是致力于传播和利用中国、欧洲两大地区珍贵的文化遗产。该项目源自两处重大的考古发现：一处是在意大利比萨附近的31条古船遗址现场，年代大约在公元前1世纪到公元4世纪；而另一处是位于西安北郊汉代景帝陵墓的大量陶俑，时间是公元的2世纪。这两处考古遗址都以各自不同的方式，为我们提供了如何更好地保护与展示遗址现场的方法，并且在挖掘技术、文物保护以及遗迹文物的修复技术等方面提供经验。由此，一场中欧对话拉开帷幕。
　　人们通常在展示一处文化古迹和遗址时，或多或少的都要把它相关的历史背景和专业考古知识也展示出来。近年来以来，这些向公众展示文化古迹和遗址的课题已经开始在其自身领域里成熟起来。如果我们回顾那些在国际文化遗产组织上讨论过的主题，就能够清楚的知道这一趋势变化。国际方面，在第二次世界大战前后颁布了最初的关于文物的物理保护和修复方面的诸多国际宪章。例如，1931年《雅典历史文化遗址保护章程》；非常有影响力的国际历史文化遗址保护和修复章程《威尼斯章程1964》。无论如何，在过去的十年间，国际社会的关注点已经理性地转向其他方面，例如文化遗产的无形性、遗产背后的复杂的社会背景，以及文化含义等。这些种种变化，都可以从以下这些条约的颁布反映出来：如2003年联合国教科文组织颁布的《非物质文化遗产保护公约》；2005年《欧洲理事会框架条约：文化遗产对社会的价值》；以及2008年国际古遗址理事会关于Ename遗址颁布的《文化遗产及遗址保护与展示章程》等。
　　本文将重点介绍Ename宪章的各原则并说明其在欧洲和中国的文化遗产上的相关方面。首先，简要介绍Ename项目的历史以及宪章如何发起。其次，以比利时的隆瑟文化遗产项目为例，在说明Ename项目的可持续性遗产政策的基础上，讨论如何能使Ename的方法与汉阳陵遗址的展示达到更好的融合。本文将集中讨论中国和欧洲在文化遗产展示与介绍上的不同，及这次中欧合作对话产生的丰富研究成果。
　　Ename项目历史简介
　　比利时奥德纳尔德城市附近的Ename遗址区在展开挖掘前，仅有少数的熟悉欧洲中世纪历史的史学家们注意到这个小村子的潜力和历史价值。到了18世纪末，即使是著名的修道院也已经不复存在了。如果这个地方没有发生欧洲的一个决定性历史时刻，即公元800年查尔斯大帝的建国，那么这个Ename项目也绝不会发展到今天。
　　加洛林王朝对Ename的影响
　　自罗马帝国衰败后，整个欧洲西部发生了一件重要的历史事件，即公元771年到公元814年的查尔斯帝国统治时代。这一时期的诞生预示着首批欧洲文艺复兴的国家联合在一起了。然而这一辉煌的时代并没有持续太久，其灭亡归于一种根深蒂固的社会系统，并且在随后的几个世纪里都决定了整个欧洲的政治、民主生活，这个系统就是“封建主义”。
　　【图片1公元11世纪的西欧】
　　中世纪封建主义的关键因素之一就是其严格的继承原则。而国王死后会将其国家即财产分配给自己的儿子，若不止一个继承人出现的话，就必须将王国划分。这同样发生在查尔斯帝国时代，查尔斯国王的三个儿子平均划分了巨大而富饶的欧洲西部，这一重要的历史事件也因公元843年签署的凡尔登条约而著名。在弗兰德斯地区(今比利时北部)，流经的斯海尔德河变成了当时法兰克王国天然的分界线，法兰克王国被分为东部、中部和西部三个部分。而Ename正位于斯海尔德河上邻接德国，是安特卫普和瓦朗西纳之间的重要据点，随后发展成了主要城市，这使得Ename的历史注定有所不同。
　　欧图城堡建于974年，它周围中世纪早期的居住地没有持续多久。1047年，法兰德伯爵向法国国王效忠，越过斯海尔德河攻克了整个Ename地区。他摧毁了整个村镇，并决定在同一地点重新修建一座教堂，并从军事及政治上实施彻底统治。
　　抢救挖掘试行项目：Ename974
　　1983年开始第一次尝试挖掘，考古学家们就开始意识到Ename的丰富历史贤源，但是仍需要以其10年前的历史来完善Ename的考古意义。1993年在这一地区发现一座教区教堂，其中有保存完好的拜占庭时期的壁画，使得这里又增添了新的考古意义。起初这座教堂被认为是罗马教会的产物，是座保存最完整的欧图时期的教堂，并不属于德国。由于该地的特殊性，只有地方政治和军事高层人员才能被记录在此。
　　【图2比利时，Ename教堂的拜占庭时期壁画】
　　在教堂里发现的这些壁画，对于展示Ename地区的文化有着十分重要的意义。它如此真实、直观地揭示了Ename地区的许多方面，从多种角度诠释过去。至此，抢救挖掘试行项目Ename974正式实施。
　　Ename974项目的实施首次实现了从纯粹的理论研究到展示与揭示主要的文化遗址的工作转换。该项目为我们提供了新技术与新思路，第一次，把电脑技术运用到资源有限的考古遗址现场，使人们更加了解遗址的真实情况。如“时光机器”，它在世界范围内的应用和通信技术都得到了肯定，主要是通过3D摄影机还原遗址的成像技术，让参观者通过画面清楚、直接地了解遗址现场的原貌和发展状况等。
　　【图3比利时Ename遗址现场“时光机器”】
　　本项目的另一个阶段是建立教堂博物馆。这里同样是宗教活动的纪念圣地，会定期举行宗教故事演绎等活动，被称为“千年快乐宗教节”。由专业演员每人手持一小块拼图，总共一千人组成了巨型拼图，代表了这个小村庄1000年的历史。这座教堂在欧图时期被修复过，现在教堂内部设计有完整的电脑系统以及宽屏幕，帮助参观者更好的了解这座纪念教堂的历史。
　　最后，Ename遗址的历史和周围的自然风貌也被列入项目保护范围。限定一个小型的自然保护区，让自然的周边环境包围整个遗址和教堂。
　　地方机构的参与和可持续发展的进步
　　尽管有许多关于Ename974的倡议提出，尽管项目也得到了认可即2008年颁布的《欧洲遗产法案》。但是，如果没有地方的参与和支持这项工作也不可能进行，这是与地方支持的良好参与；与民众对Ename遗产地区历史的浓厚兴趣；与最吸引人的欧图教会教堂故事；与他们再现古老传统如中世纪的马匹市场，以及与陈列在博物馆内的大多数捐赠品等息息相关。所以，这样的博物馆不仅只是展示给公众，而是属于公众。
　　近年在Ename项目实施过程中取得的一些经验和想法，对如何更好的展示重大遗址现场，及世界范围内的文化遗产保护均有积极影响。的确，尽管大部分现有的文化遗产的文件和指导方针都是主要涉及遗址自身的物理保护和考古现场的管理，但是并没有解决如何更好的展示重要遗址的价值意义，及如何更好的与公众互动等这些基本问题。
　　国际古迹遗址理事会Ename项目章程
　　当Ename小组成员有了制定一个学术性文件的想法时，人们对于诠释文化遗产，以及遗产所处的社会环境或对文化遗产进行合理管理等，几乎没有一个明确的认识。值得关注的是，从一开始就清楚的表明，经济上的因素往往会影响文化项目的实施。把文化遗址视作盈利场所或旅游地点的观念，从长远看不仅是对文物保护本身构成危险，其运作也同样经历着来自周边环境的侵害。或者反过来将文化遗址纳入另一种保护手段，例如像许多主题公园或大型的购物中心等，真切的融入到人们的社会生活。
　　关于文化展示方面，需要同时考虑知识、道德、社会以及经济条件等，这样才能达到最有效文化展示。Ename项目章程的颁布这一过程，始于2002年春，制定第一份项目草案。2008年10月4号，国际古迹遗址理事会在加拿大魁北克召开的大会上正式批准通过这个草案。
　　整个编辑过程对最初的草案做了很多修改，但是，其中最重要的一项修改是特别区分了“文化展示”和“文化演示”的概念。(希尔伯曼2006)前者是，直接试图提供文化遗址现场的信息，并使其文物自身及相关知识与更广泛的观众群体接触；后者，另一方面，是一种更为复杂的过程，“文化演示”不仅仅是一个展示给公众和学者的单向模式，而是一个让公众参与学习和思考，共同揭开文化遗址的意义、影响以及当代定位的过程。事实上，这一问题已经通过跨文化间的合作对话开始考虑。如果从跨文化领域这方面看待这一问题，我们现在则正处在“文化演示”的初级阶段。但是，例如“汉·比萨”这样的文化合作项目，促使我们从这一方向开始深入的思考，思考如何处理21世纪的文化遗产。
　　Ename项目的方法论
　　基于《国际古迹遗址理事会Ename项目章程》的条文，Ename公共考古展示中心致力于建立一种灵活持久的文化遗产评估方法，以积极协助保护，加强及展示有形和无形文化遗产。设计这套方法的目的是协助文化遗产的管理者、文化议会及地方当局在评估文化遗产的发展，是否适合当地有形和无形文化遗产的可持续发展。其目的也是建立文化展示和文化演示的必不可少的工具：
　　提高公众的文化保护意识，理解和欣赏文化遗产本身的意义及其广泛的社会含义；
　　通过对重要的文化遗产进行详细的书面认可，或通过公认的科学的、传统的文化生活的角度等，阐释文化遗产的意义；
　　维护有形和无形文化遗产的自然价值、文化价值和社会价值；
　　尊重文化遗产的真实性，通过了解其历史结构和文化价值，确保基础设施完善，遗址现场免受不利影响；
　　推动可持续文化遗产保护，让公众及时了解目前的保护工作进度，并确保长期稳定的基础设施建设；
　　鼓励包容性的展示和演示文化遗产，促进社会利益共享者及相关社会团体的参与；
　　开发有技术含量的、专业的文化遗产展示标准，包括技术、研究以及培训。
　　比利时，隆瑟文化项目
　　在设立文化遗产保护的程序中，第一次用这些方式实行的是隆瑟市，它位于比利时的东弗兰德省。2006至2007年之间，Ename考古中心代表市政委员会对这座小镇的文化遗产进行了评估。为这一地区文化遗产的可持续发展政策制定出三个主要目标。
　　隆瑟是一座典型的比利时小镇，城区成分复杂。它与德国相邻的地方讲弗兰德语，与法国相邻的地区讲瓦隆人语(荷、法双语)。城市人口约2.4万，周围自热风貌优美，丘壑起伏绵延。尽管它相对远离其他弗兰德人居住地，但是城市文化资源丰富，拥有各种不同的文化遗址。当地社会生活丰富，传统习俗和庆祝节日颇多，其中部分宗教节日的历史可以追溯到1000年以前，正是于这种历史资源的丰富，使得小镇上的教堂也与众不同。虽然到19世纪末，这里发达的纺织品工业使得小镇变成了一个重要的地方经济中心，但是由于1960年起的社会经济萧条危机，迫使这里几乎无法再继续发展。至此，今天我们已经拥有了独特的文化遗产工业，关于城市建筑结构，并需要具体的方法政策，而其中的大挑战就是文化遗产的保护和保存。正是在这样的情况下，Ename计划的研究方法启发了国际古迹遗址理事会的宪章原则，并能够证明其价值性和使用性。
　　【图4比利时，隆瑟城市图】
　　当我们着手在隆瑟的工作时，对这座古城庞大的地窖的发现十分令人振奋。这不仅是属于最古老的国家，也是最大的地窖之一。它包含了两座“浴房”，中世纪时期，这里经常举行朝拜圣蒙赫的圣骨和教堂大主教圣物的宗教仪式。所以，保存在神龛里的圣蒙赫的遗物及圣骨，对于了解隆瑟城市的发展和变化有相当大的作用。中世纪时期，这里的人们不仅把这座城市当作一个重要的朝圣之地，直到今天，他们仍然每年公开举行一次长达33公里的宗教游行活动，范围延伸到了周围的城市和邻近村庄。这种宗教仪式被称为“费提尔”，具有重要影响，也是当地居民最重要的活动之一。
　　进来研究表明，在小镇中心一些早期能够反映出“自由领地”时期的重要遗迹，今天仍然清晰可见，尽管那些辉煌的原建筑都已经不复存在了。直到法国大革命爆发，这种“自由领地”的思想才被具体确定为中世纪时期封建统治的权威，大多都是由最高神职人员制定。这座小镇曾被叫做“城中城”，其边界有着很明显的界定，还有自身的管辖范围、经济生活以及传统习俗。不难发现，今天，小镇当年的样子还依然清晰地保存在这座城市里。
　　【图5比利时，17世纪“自由”思想下的隆瑟城市地图】
　　原先有三座教堂并排相连，其中有两座至今还在，而第三座教堂由于贫困的经济状况在18世纪的时候被毁掉。但是，这座教堂的基础部分，通过仔细的挖掘和修复工作，使得我们今天仍然能够清晰的看到。城中老式的教会建筑(标点已标出)都不存在了，但是在圣蒙赫教堂附近的城墙保留了下来。当时，在这座教堂正前方的是个大市场至今仍然保留下来，到中世纪的时候被一间酒馆代替；在这一角落还有座旧时的公开法庭；当时在城市里的公园后来成为了墓园；这张地图还清晰的表明了当时的绞刑架，那些执行绞刑的树木也被清晰标出。
　　当我们把这些遗迹全都联系起来的时候，很明显这要比当初人们想象中的城市构造完整得多，需要保护的遗址部分也大的多。在法国大革命以后，这座庄园不复存在，许多建筑也都丧失了其原有的功能。到了19世纪时期，隆瑟城市迅速扩大，纺织工业发达，该地区周边都被并入了这座小镇。
　　尽管我们现有的概念是非常笼统的，但是这些因素也足以说明Ename的研究方法是可行的。我们把这些不同部分的遗迹尽量还原，放在原来的背景环境里，以达到更好的展示文化遗产的内涵的目的。这也进一步丰富了这个事实，我们甚至可以把这座小镇的任何一处中世纪的有形遗址，和当代的“费提尔”仪式对应起来。例如，在每次“费提尔”式开始前，隆瑟的市长都会要求允许去圣爱马仕教堂朝拜，如果主教同意了这项要求，那么它指示了这样一个事实，即“自由领地”曾经是一个独立的存在的部分，而小镇“自由领地”时期的文物，除非获得许可，是绝不能离开小镇的领地管辖范围。
　　【图6隆瑟的“费提尔”仪式，中世纪的传统】
　　这些建议使我们能够把前“自由”思想时期的文化遗产过度到现代化的遗产区。这样，就需要我们正视公众对于本地文化遗产的认识，以及培养必要的保护、维护意识。
　　汉阳陵博物馆项目的挑战
　　2008年11月，在西安开展了“汉·比萨”项目的第一步，我们清楚的了解到，尽管我们的文化背景、历史和规模均不同，但是Ename的研究方法可以同样使用汉阳陵遗址区。
　　汉阳陵博物馆的遗址区是由汉景帝陵墓及其皇后陵墓组成，珍贵的微缩陶俑及动物俑出生数量非常庞大。其中地下博物馆提供了一种前所未有的遗址现场展示方式；而考古陈列管展出了精选的出土文物；宗庙遗址者则采用了原址保护的方法，真实的展示了建筑基础的原貌；最后，就是南阙门的重要标志建筑，采用了在原址基础上仿制的办法。
　　【图7中国，汉阳陵，南阙门】
　　为什么汉阳陵博物馆如此吸引人，成为中国当代考古界的焦点?显然，是地下博物馆，但是其他两处遗址现场也是如此：在南阙门的仿制门阙工作；在宗庙遗址现场的原址保护方法，其对原址回填并使用大型的玻璃顶保护原址表面。这样的做法，使得该遗址可以从视觉和利弊方法上比较，这不仅仅是在文物的保护和修复上，在文物的展出方面效果也较显著。
　　【图8宗庙遗址】
　　只有宗庙遗址这一处地方采取了遗址现场保护的方法，而其他三处遗址均采取室内覆盖或重建的方法。对原址建筑物做了仿制，整个建筑的规格看上去要大，这也不失为一种积极的保护方法。此外，从不同的角度提出关于考古遗址现场的保护方法，被专家团队所赞同。宗庙遗址这种方法很好的保护了建筑的基础部分，也明显标出了那些是原始考古现场；同样的，这种方法的直观效果也非常好。另一方面，这种在原址重建的办法既不破坏原来的遗迹，也可以根据不同的认识发展随时做调整。这是种可持续的方法。
　　另一个颇有争议的做法是南阙门部分。现代建筑保护的目的就是保护考古地面的基础部分，很显然它符合这个标准。但是由于建筑空间的影响，也随之而来引起了一些展示方面的问题。我们现在能看到的是传统的建筑风格和仿原始材料的古典建筑，然而，必须明确指出的是，现代建筑技术使用大量的钢筋和混凝土，这于原建筑的材料和结构没有任何关系。因此，观众很容易受到误导，尤其是那那些时间紧张的参观人员和匆忙的过路参观者，这类人群所获得的印象只可能是仿制后的样子。
　　在Enamc项目中实施的研究方法，不仅能够满足不同需求的评估和测试，也能够指出可谓整的途径。我们今天所看到的遗址所有不同因素，相互影响着都基于遗址自身的意义和同一目的。而这种目的和意义只能做到部分恢复，并强调着不同要素间的关系。这种做法的优势，已经在比利时的隆瑟项目中被证明了。同样的方法也可使用在汉阳陵博物馆，其结果可能会增加中国考古界对出土文物保护的成功经验，并更好的理解文化遗址本身。
　　建立中欧文化间的对话
　　在文化遗产管理方面，中国面临的挑战是越来越多了。上世纪就有许多重大的考古发现如：秦始皇兵马俑和汉阳陵裸体俑等。可以预期，随着中国快速而持续的发展，更多的重要遗址将被发现，这其中主要的问题就是如何处理这些考古遗迹。
　　同样的问题在欧洲已经被提出。针对这一问题的反思，制定了1992年的《瓦莱塔公约》。欧洲各国政府都认可了欧洲考古遗产的重要性，并声明遗迹文物应当被尽可能的保留在原址。考虑到任何新的重要的考古项目进行时，都有可能毁坏考古证据，所以应被提前预测评估且采取适当的挖掘手段。2005年欧盟颁布发《法鲁公约》，主要就是把考古遗址的范围扩大到涵盖遗址纪念碑、现场和周边景观等，并特别提出了“文化遗产社区”这一概念。特此，专门强调了遗址可持续发展的社会管理方面。国际古迹遗址理事会Ename宪章2008，也特此做了进一步的解释，把这种保护视为双向活动，公众和地方社区的参与不仅仅视为相互利益关系，更可以理解为文化遗产价值的确定关系。毫无疑问，中国可以借鉴这些模式。然而我们遵循自己的原则，也应承认中国有着复杂多变的国情，处理好这类文化遗产的问题对中国当代意义重大。
　　【图9中国，西安，大雁塔】
　　大雁塔的历史可以追溯到公元7世纪，玄奘从印度取经的历史背景。这座建筑在1961年被确定为历史古迹保护。作为城市新发展的另一个中心点这里不可忽视，它正位于这座古老城市的中轴线上；其左右两边的周边建筑、住宅和酒店等均采取了复古设计；而慈恩寺本身就被公园所包围，园内展示了中国传统工艺和许多传统民间艺术；北侧的广场还设计有现代雕塑、灯光技术、音乐及喷泉等。毫无疑问，这个文化遗产的保护是成功的。白天和夜晚都会有许多年轻人和老人来此或娱乐表演，或舞蹈健身，或打太极拳，或者简单的游逛。
　　这是一个先进的当代佛教纪念地，其周边的环境充满活力，也同时具备新兴的社会生活文化中心以及丰富的历史文化价值。这种独特的展示方式让新、旧两种文化环境结合在一起，既保留了原始的文化本质，也纳入现代基础设置。
　　欧洲现在正是缺乏这种创意。然而，这种文化上的差异却不得不引起重视。中欧对待文化遗产的持不同态度，所以就需要进行了一个真正的跨中欧两种文化的对话，同时还要满足不同合作伙伴间的需要及不同的文化背景的现状。只有这种对话才能真正的让欧洲和中国得到进步。我们由衷地希望，“汉·比萨”项目将会成为开启今后长期合作对话的新起点。
　　参考资料：
　　[1]《国际古迹遗址理事会Ename章程》(2008)，《国际古迹遗址理事会文化遗产说明与展示章程》；http：//WWW．enamecharter．org/downloads．html．
　　[2]约克伯·安德鲁(2009)，《寻找城市消失的宝藏》，纽约时代杂志，2009年1月19日；法鲁章程2005，社会文化遗产价值的欧洲框架公约；http：//conventions．coe．int/
　　[3]希尔伯曼，尼尔协定2006，《国际古迹遗址理事会Ename章程》：阐述文化遗址的新条规，乔治怀特论坛，23卷，第一刊，第28-33页；联合国教科文组织保护《非物质文化遗产公约》(2003)，保护无形文化遗产规程，http：//unesdoc．unesco．org/images/0013/001325/132540e．pdf
　　[4]瓦莱塔章程1992，保护欧洲考古遗产公约。http：//conventions．coe．int/

汉阳陵·比萨：文化遗产的原址保护与考古博物馆