以古為新，道行天下

現有世界遺產名錄中的運河均為工業革命時期的水工技術典范，中國大運河作為農業文明時代的水利技術巔峰杰作來申遺，開創了首例。

大運河“申遺”不是中國文化遺產的全部，它蘊含的是中華民族特有的精神價值、思維方式與想象力。這說明文化是發展的意義來源。

中國大運河將申報世界遺產，但大運河究竟包含了哪些內涵，這樣的遺產又有何意義？就這些問題，筆者受《文化交流》雜志委托、特約采訪了浙江大學跨文化研究所吳宗杰教授，一起探討大運河“申遺”之外的精神核心。

復興中國本土遺產觀

沈嫻（以下簡稱沈）：吳老師，您好。您是《國際遺產研究》雜志編委會常委，今年5月出席了聯合國教科文組織在杭州舉辦的“文化：可持續發展的關鍵”國際會議，并參與修改了《杭州宣言》。請您從本次宣言對世界遺產的界定、挖掘與發展的關系，來談談大運河“申遺”。

吳宗杰（以下簡稱吳）：我們在會議之前，就得到了宣言的草稿。中國專家組的任務就是如何使這一以英文為基礎的文件能夠體現某種中國文化思維。這次文件起草，經過各國專家的共同努力，文件中出現了相當有分量的中國話語，在表達發展理念時起到了關鍵作用。比如宣言最后提出的“和而不同”與“以古為新”的全球共識。提出“和而不同”，大家都很快理解并接受。但“以古為新”就得好好闡明了，總的來說就是用先人留下來的文化遺產促進文化的可持續發展?！叭鐚⒉槐M，與古為新”—在中國，不同時代的創新，都是通過重新解讀先賢留下來的經典，來啟迪變革的目的。中國人用“人心不古”來說明世風日下，“古”被賦予了崇高的道德意義。它是理想，是源頭活水。

大運河之“道”

沈：吳老師，中國大運河申報世界遺產，有一定的困難和障礙。首先，現有世界遺產名錄中的運河均為工業革命時期的水工技術典范，大運河作為農業文明時代的水利技術巔峰杰作，開創了首例，但國外學界是否接受？第二，是遺產性質界定的問題：由于歷史悠久，大運河既包括仍在使用與發揮作用的構筑物與建筑物，也包括廢棄和掩埋的遺跡與遺物，還有流經各地的政治、經濟、文化與景觀特色，像這樣的復合型遺產，到底申報哪一種或哪幾種遺產類型成為難題。有人質疑，現在聯合國的遺產類型，到底能不能概括大運河的豐富內涵。

吳：西方傳統的遺產觀，包括你剛才說的遺產類型，都是圍繞著“物”的分類觀來展開的。中國古代的遺產觀以“人”為本，注重精神遺產遠大于物質遺產。如果以“人”為出發點來認識和建構大運河的文化遺產，就不會有方枘圓鑿之感，也可以把大運河遺產的各個方面貫通起來。

沈：大運河是線性文化遺產，歷史悠久，運程迢遙，大量遺產點之間有聯系有變化，時空跨度很大，所處地域環境和具有的文化價值各不相同，很難找到一個統領的文化特征。比如說絲綢之路，老百姓都知道它是溝通中西方的橋梁；而說起大運河，大家就說不出個所以然來。您覺得大運河作為文化遺產有沒有核心價值？

吳：覺得沒有（文化核心價值），是因為大家都從物質出發。要找尋大運河的遺產意義，可以參考《詩經》里的“周道”，它超越物流的概念，把它看做是一條“德”流動的通道?！爸艿馈敝竿醯勒危故幫ㄟ_，這上面的“物流”體現的是周之德政。“道”物質上是指道路，非物質上是指“德”之流動，繼而成為理想政治的化身。

沈：您的意思說，運河是道路的一種，它幾千年來改善了中國的民生，促進了文化融合，鞏固了政治，正契合了“道”之立德、立功、立言的含義。這讓我想起了大禹治水。禹順應自然規律，以“導”的方式化解了水患?！暗馈痹诠糯袊灿小皩А钡囊馑?。所以是不是可以說中國最早的道，就是與水有關，而大運河的開鑿，本身也是順天命而為，貫通了五大水系，才得以沿用至今。大運河承載的是天命以及順應天命的德政？就像皮日休所說：“若無水殿龍舟事，共禹論功不較多?！?/p>

吳：可以這么說。貫通南北的大運河搭建了中央與地方“禮行天下”的溝通渠道，乾隆沿運河六下江南，學的是“先王省方問俗、觀民設教”的禮制思想，通過巡游解決各地的政治、經濟問題。再舉個例子，貢品經大運河運到京城。貢品制度從本質說，是跨越地理空間的禮義表達。大運河上流動著的人與物，以及兩岸相關的各種安排，不能簡單理解為促進經濟發展的物資運輸，而是政令與禮制涵義的流動。此外，大運河的建造不是一朝一夕的事，在很長一段歷史時間里是一種自然“疏導”，一種因勢利導、因地制宜的文化表述。

超越物流，以古為新

沈：吳老師，中國大運河“申遺”實際操作中的最大問題是遺跡的缺失，留存的成片歷史街區幾乎沒有，比如“春風又綠江南岸”的瓜洲古渡，只留存顯赫的聲名。當我們草擬申遺報告時，就會發現文獻與景觀記錄可借鑒的真實環境存量明顯不足，這是否會導致對申報對象的隨意再造，甚至偽造？應該怎樣避免此類事情的產生？

吳：這類問題確實可能存在。像這次教科文組織的會議就很好，各國將遺產開發與利用中的心得與問題分塊交流，達成共識。類似的溝通就可以指導大運河“申遺”工作，以各地表現出來的多樣化，凝聚成文化共識，物質與精神、過去與現在之間的界線不明確的東西，我們應該運用中國古人的遺產觀，來加以復活、表現，并能“經世濟用”。也就是“如將不盡，與古為新”。比如，在申報遺產點的時候，我們強調的不必是建筑學、考古學意義上的工藝與技術，而要上升到與這些遺跡相關的具體的人與事。

沈：那我們的遺產觀就能解決大運河歷史遺跡缺失的問題嗎？

吳：中國文化沒有遺產的概念，但以古達今的思想無所不在。當年我們挖掘衢州水亭門文化遺產時，把建筑當作承載人與事的空間，以此為基礎進行遺產研究，各個遺址就能構成一幅全面的文化遺產動態圖景，就像司馬遷的《史記》，各個部分從不同側面對同一事件具有互證性。

沈：現在國人對“申遺”都抱著莫大的熱情，其中一個主要原因是：隨著國家的繁榮強大，中國人開始越來越需要外界認同。如果“申遺”成功，大家會覺得世界開始接受并理解博大精深的中國文化。但“申遺”以后呢？除了這個結果本身，還有什么影響？

吳：說到“申遺”的后續價值，許多人會想到旅游業與懷舊情調，還有就是民族自豪感。這都是遺產的現代性特征，但這不是中國文化遺產的全部價值，它蘊含的是中華民族特有的精神價值、思維方式與想象力。我們可以用中國史學觀重新定義“原真性”。“以古為新”就是用原真的歷史話語對遺產當下意義進行建構，帶著對當下的道德關懷，這就是大運河遺產意義所在。遺產申報其實是一種跨文化對話和理解的過程，既要充分領悟中國本土的文化觀，又要全面認識西方的遺產話語，既要理解古人的事跡與思想，又要把握好當下人的困惑與訴求?！逗贾菪浴分杏小拔幕墙洕l展的動力與資源”的表述，我們建議加入了“文化還是發展的意義來源”這一層意思。文化是歷史的積累。由此，大運河作為文化遺產應該能為今天發展高速公路、航空、高鐵等提供重要的文化啟迪，一種與過去幾十年不同的發展與創新之路。

（除署名外，本文照片由齊耀提供）

Wu Zongjie： Significance of Grand Canal of China as Heritage

By Shen Xian

Author Shen Xian talks with Wu Zongjie， a professor of Institute for Cross-Culture Studies with Foreign Languages College of Zhejiang University， on the significance of applying for a world heritage status for the Grand Canal of China. Professor Wu attended “Culture， Key to Sustainable Development” held in Hangzhou， an international congress and UNESCO event. Professor Wu was one of the co-authors of Hangzhou Manifesto issued at the congress. The following is a gist of the conversation on the cultural significance of the Grand Canal of China.

Renascence of Chinese Concepts of Heritage

We received the draft version of Hangzhou Manifesto before the UNESCO event. The Chinese expert panel was supposed to express Chinese cultural viewpoints in the document. Our past experience indicated that it would be a hard task to insert some really Chinese terms in an international document in English. We were wiling to display Chinese concepts， but Chinese terms would run the risk of looking awkward as they were probably under-the-radar ones for international scholars and policy makers. However， thanks to the joint efforts of experts at home and abroad， the manifesto highlights such Chinese concepts as “Diversity in Harmony” （和而不同） and “Harnessing the Past to Create the Future”（以古為新） .

UNESCO pursues cultural diversity and world heritage is a measure to preserve cultural diversity. Now the international community is aware that the western glossary may not be universal when it comes to the diversity of cultural heritage. Its concepts and criteria must cope with specifics of a wide range of heritages. UNESCO needs to be localize its concepts and vocabulary.

If “diversity in harmony” is not difficult to understand， “harnessing the past to create the future” may need explaining. In the past， we Chinese perused classics and studied the past in search of solutions for the present. Our ancestors believed that creativity and innovation were based on the past. In ancient terms， the past was considered as virtue， aspiration， source of everything. Moreover， Chinese concepts are neither abstractions nor metaphysics. They are always illustrated in real events， lessons， experience.

So some people do question if the UNESCO heritage criteria can highlight the rich cultural connotations of the Grand Canal of China. At present， the canals on the world heritage list are all prototypes of industrial technology of the west. The Grand Canal of China represents the best of technology of the agricultural Chinese civilization. The UNESCO criteria centers around objects， but we Chinese stress the human factor in our concepts. Etymologically， Taoism of China is about roads； canals are part of roads. We construe canals as roads that connect all the major rivers across the central empire.

The Grand Canal of China played a big role in the feudal China. Emperors traveled southward on the canal. The canal connected the central government and local governments. Emperors came to solve local political and economic issues. They were not there to appreciate the natural beauty of the south. The central government operated a tribute system for centuries. The system was more than to get goods from across the country. It was also a system of information on local economies. The Grand Canal is full of life primarily because it blends nature and man.

Harnessing the Past to Create the Future

The biggest challenge to the application is that many canal-related physical sites are long lost in history. For example， we can hardly find large blocks of historical districts along the canal. When drafting documents for the application， we found the shortage a real problem. In the past， local governments ran different agendas and had different priorities. Their preservation projects were not coordinated. The UNESCO international congress in Hangzhou was enlightening as deputies reached consensus after discussing the pros and cons of some preservation projects in various categories. This approach can help guide our application efforts. We need to hold similar meetings ourselves to tackle our issues in applying for a world heritage listing for the canal.

A world heritage status is by no means alpha and omega of our expectations about a successful attainment of a world heritage status for the grand canal. Tourism and nostalgia are inevitable， but we need to understand the spiritual value typical of the Chinese nation. Harnessing the past to create the future means we should construct the significance of the heritage with concepts of our classics and highlight moral care and concern we should have for the Grand Canal. Our understanding of the canal is a cross-cultural dialogue. We need to understand our historical viewpoint fully. And we need to understand the western discourse of heritage. We need to understand what our ancestors did and thought； we also want to understand the current needs and wants of individuals as well as of the society. The four dimensions are so interwoven that they cant be torn apart and exist independently. After all， culture is what makes development significant and meaningful.