For anyone who has traveled to Egypt, Italy or Greece, one of the
first noticeable things of significance is the prominence and
preservation of ancient architectural heritage. In some cases, this
architecture has survived for thousands of years. The Egyptian
Pyramids are amongst the oldest surviving architectural record at
3,000 years old while the Pantheon in Rome, in relatively good
shape, stands at 1,900 years old. So too in other parts of Europe,
buildings from the middle ages are still in use as they were many
hundreds of years before. In China, though, there is a different
story to tell.
Architectural heritage in China has not the order and significance
of its European and North African counterparts -- despite having
acquired a 5,000 year-old history -- because the buildings have not
survived.
In
China, no architectural record has remained that was built before
the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). The many thousands of miles of the
Great Wall, built during the Qin and Han dynasties, or the
magnificent palaces of the Han and Tang dynasties have survived
only as archaeological remnants below ground, with some visible
groundwork existing above.
To
date, the oldest known surviving stone construction in China is the
Zhaozhou Bridge, built during the Sui Dynasty (AD 581-618) by Li
Chun. The earliest wooden-frame architecture said to exist in China
is the Great Hall of Foguang Temple in Mount Wutai, Shanxi
Province, discovered by Liang Sicheng in 1937 and built in AD 857
during the Xuanzong Period of the Tang Dynasty. The Sakyamuni
Pagoda of Fogong Temple in Shanxi Province, also known as Yingxian
Wooden Pagoda, is a notable Liao Dynasty building built in AD 1056.
Only a tiny proportion of ancient architecture recorded in
historical texts has survived.
While the reasons for the scarcity of ancient architecture may be
complex and numerous, it is clear it is neither accidental nor
without pattern.
The Wooden Structure
It
is an obvious fact that when ancient architecture survives, it
nearly always has been made predominantly of stone. The Pyramids of
Egypt, the Parthenon in Greece and the Taj Mahal in India all bear
witness to this fact. In China, however, historic architecture has
been made with a combination of wood, soil and brick, with stone
being used only for support, decoration and artistic effect, such
as side steps, door sills, basement support poles, parapets and
sculpture. Seldom do stone poles survive as remnants of ancient
Chinese architecture.
Wood-based structures were more likely to invite insect and rodent
infestation as well as damage and destruction caused by changing
weather conditions and fire. When natural or man-made disaster
occurs, stone buildings usually protect the framework and are
relatively easy to restore. Wooden buildings, however, do not
survive and the restoration that follows is complex and total.
While it would be easy to argue that the choice of wood as a
material resource for architecture was used primarily due to the
proximity of geographical abundance found in local forests, and
stone a scarce and more difficult material to locate, needing
transportation and additional expense, this would be half the
story.
Indeed, there are many examples from around the world where an
abundance of a natural resource seems to dictate building style and
choice of raw material. For example, the Nile Delta, the Apennine
Peninsula and the Balkan Peninsula all possess a greater abundance
of stone then timber.
There is though much evidence to support the view that what seems
to dictate cultural choice of building material is not
environmental resource but the power of tradition, which, once
formed, will not easily be altered. In China, architectural
building -- and what has been recorded and what remains -- is
testament to this fact.
The royal palaces and tombs that were built during the Ming
(1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties were constructed using
wood that was transported, at great expense, from the southwestern
provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan. While there might well have been
structural alternatives to the use of wood, the power of the
traditional structure exerted its influence.
This same tradition is common to all building throughout Chinese
history and is seen in the construction of basic home dwelling
where the use and application of wood/soil and wood/brick
structures provided housing for the majority of China's vast
population. There was a downside, however. The price of the power
of this tradition was to plunder and remove huge areas of forest
from China's most fertile lumber regions.
Of
course, this tradition did not escape the natural and man-made
effects of fire damage. Throughout Chinese history, great buildings
and structures were razed to the ground by fire. A fire at the
E-Pang palace that lasted for three months is a notable example in
Chinese history, as well as that of the great fire of Hangzhou City
during the Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279). The Forbidden City
itself was no exception.
Renovation
In
attempting to find and argue the reasons that ancient Chinese
architectural style and choice of building material were to limit
its chances of survival, there is one very important factor to
consider. While natural disaster and fragility of the resource
often lead to its destruction, the reconstruction of an original
building rarely followed a principle of restoration. In fact the
opposite seems to have been true and something following the lines
of "new" renovation or building as new were guiding principles. As
the resources were plentiful, and often cheap in a given locality,
it was as easy to rebuild as repair. The consequence of the neglect
of this historical architectural record was the generational demise
of an authentic ancient Chinese architecture.
While many guides of history, in museums and elsewhere, now suggest
that a given building belongs to one ancient dynasty or another,
this is rarely the case. There is always a lack of evidence to
support these claims.
The ancient architecture that has survived did so by being some
distance from the interests of renovation and also from the
protection and importance of authorities who wished to preserve
ancient traditions. These areas, remote and underdeveloped
hinterlands, have left some preserved examples of these ancient
traditions although how much longer they will survive remains in
doubt.
Defects
While it has been possible to argue that the reason for the paucity
of the survival of ancient architecture in China has been largely
due to environmental factors, the influence of cultural
determinants cannot be overlooked.
In
historical Chinese architecture, greater attention was paid to the
function of etiquette, politics and communally used space than that
of the function for living. The consequence was the development of
spacious and magnificent architecture belonging to royal palaces
and tombs, yamans, ancestral temples, mansions and assembly halls,
while personal living space and, in particular, that of the
lower-order commoner, was greatly overlooked and vastly
inferior.
The autocratic social tier system of ancient China was reflected in
the specification of building types. As such, people from different
tiers in ancient times would be accommodated in a corresponding
housing, reflecting their social position and tier. This may be
seen in different parts of the world also. For example, the
civilian residences of Pompeii, in ancient Italy, were an
unattached dwelling house that was comprised of three or four
bedrooms with a space for living and for washing. Compared to the
dwelling houses of the same age or antiquity of the civilian
population in China, during the East Han Dynasty (AD 25-220), these
buildings reflected greater comfort and size for their
inhabitants.
In
China, private residences usually used the hall as a space for
ceremony, reception or meeting area, the hall being built to a high
standard and occupying a central position, while the bedrooms and
living area were often much smaller and dark.
In
Liukeng, a village located at Le'an County in Jiangxi Province, and
said to have a thousand year history, there are houses that reflect
this use of space for living and for ceremonial activity. In one
such house, it is possible to see that the bedrooms are positioned
off the main hall in ante-chambers. These rooms are visibly small
and dark without much air.
So
while the powerful and wealthy of ancient China could rebuild their
residences and live in more opulent space, the traditional
structures that were to be rebuilt often made for cramped and
uncomfortable daily living. Occasionally, the wealthy and powerful
of China added gardens or built houses in the style of European
villas. It is suggested that the emperors of the Qing Dynasty, and
Dowager Cixi, did prefer the conditions of Chengde Mountain Resort,
Yuanmingyuan Garden and the Summer Palace. However, for anyone who
has seen the size and condition of the bedrooms in the Forbidden
City, or in the Confucius Family Mansion, the preference for the
traditional structure might well be in doubt. This is the reason,
it is said, that the Qing Dynasty emperor chose western-style
houses to live in while the Yuanmingyuan Garden was being
built.
Later on in the Qing Dynasty, nearly all Chinese gentry chose to
live in a new style of house. At the time of the birth of the
Republic of China, those that adhered to the Qing Dynasty in
Tianjin and Qingdao preferred to live in modern villas also. A
question therefore may be asked of the experts and scholars who
research and protect ancient architecture: How livable are the
houses of ancient China, those of say one hundred years of age as
well as the houses of the ancient villages, spanning nearly one
thousand years? Would anyone today despite the traditional culture
and advantage live in the present unreconstructed quadrangle or
Anhui ancient residence, earth building, the blockhouse or a
Shaanxi cave-house?
While the opinions expressed here do not represent a complete
evaluation of ancient Chinese architecture, they do go some way to
addressing the question of what happened to Chinese architectural
heritage. Firstly, that because of a natural deficiency in choice
of raw material, this heritage was beset with environmental
problems and did not survive.
Secondly, that due to the exertion of the power of tradition on
architectural building methods, in renovation rather then
restoration, much of what did exist was over-laid with newness that
obscured this heritage. This is a lesson that should be paid
significant attention today.
Thirdly, that the treatment of these old, and very special
buildings, raises the questions of the value of their function
versus the preservation of a time long since past. While it is
possible to admit that most of the functions of these buildings are
beyond the use of people today, nobody should insist on the value
of their advantages or that people should live in them. Only when
the contradictions of such an argument can be seen, and solved,
will it be possible to effectively preserve this ancient historical
record and prevent its obscurity behind reconstruction and
renovation.
(china.org.cn by Wang Zhiyong on September 29, 2002)