重新思考文化遺產的真實性:通過唐代墓葬物品與當代燒紙紮祭品的比較研究來追踪和評估中華祖傳習俗的最新變化

Abstract

通過奉獻祭祀已故的祖先是幾千年以來的中華習俗。其中, 燒紙錢的習俗近年來因為有紙紮祭品上印有現代奢侈品品牌商標而受到國際媒體的關注。這股趨勢使中國消費主義受到質疑, 媒體質疑消費主義正在滲透, 轉化並破壞這古老的傳統。本論文從批判文化遺產研究的角度挑戰媒體對此質疑的正當性。 基於對祖先祭品歷史起源的調查，以及將當代紙像與其古代墓葬物品並肩齊放, 比較研究後的結果，我認為儘管外觀不同，當代祭祀用品在非物質的層面上與早期的祭祀用品具有若干驚人的相似之處，這包括使用，功能及其所賦予之關聯價值。物質形式和設計的持續變化不僅在整個歷史上屢見不鮮，而且對於達成祭祀目的是必要的，因為它們的主要目的是滿足死者的個人需求並複製他們生前的生活方式。 我將進一步提供證據，以祭祀用品用以彰顯生前社會地位並非新概念，此舉長期以來一直被希冀用於改善死者在彼端的生活水平和社會地位。由於祭祀用品完全是用紙製成的，而不是像過去那樣經常用珍貴的材料來凸顯其價值，因此，當今使用奢侈品品牌商標，是將它們賦予尊貴的價值。某些歷史祭品其實已使用相對便宜的材料(例如: 黏土)製成，儘管對於現今的我們而言，其象徵意義和聯結性可能不再明顯。 最後，我認為，譴責印製奢侈品商標在紙紮祭祀品上的媒體文章忽略了上述提到的歷史變化脈絡，且它們的判斷是基於西方傳統觀點的 - 即以布料為祭品主要原料的概念, 來定義對文化遺產的理解 - 遺產必定是古老的，不變的且與現代性相對立。然而，這種關於真實性和遺產的觀點遭到當代文化遺產專家的質疑，他們強調非物質文化和文化表現形式的活躍之重要性。

Providing for deceased ancestors through offerings is a millennia-old Chinese custom. In recent years, the elaborate paper effigies of worldly goods, burnt to be sent to the afterlife where they can be used by the dead, have received international media attention as the emerging trend of including paper simulations of modern luxury and brand items into the offering repertoire is seen as striking testimony of contemporary Chinese consumerism that is infiltrating, transforming and corrupting the authenticity of even the most ancient of traditions. This thesis challenges such media portrayals of contemporary offering practices as “inauthentic”, doing so from the perspective of critical cultural heritage studies. Building upon an investigation into the origin, history and contemporary manifestations of ancestral offerings as well as the results of a comparative study that puts side to side present-day paper effigies and their historical predecessors ancient burial goods, I argue that although different appearance-wise, contemporary offerings exhibit several striking similarities with earlier ones on the intangible level, including use, function and techniques employed to bestow them with associative value. Changes in material form and design are shown to not only have frequently occurred throughout history, but to be necessary for maintaining the effectiveness of the offerings, since their main purpose is to satisfy the personal needs of the deceased and replicate the lifestyle they were accustomed to when alive, which requires continuous adaptation and evolvement parallel to developments in worldly lifestyle. I further present evidence that valuable and prestigious offerings that bear the potential of functioning as status symbols in the afterlife are not new to the offering repertoire, but have long been used in hope of improving the deceased’s living standard and social standing in netherworld. Since offerings have come to be made exclusively from paper and not as in the past often the case from precious materials that could indicate their value, the associative power of brand logos and brand designs is exploited to mark them as valuable. Similar techniques can be observed to have been used on historical offerings made from comparatively cheap material mediums like clay, although the symbolism and associations might no longer be apparent to the present-day viewer. I conclude by arguing that the articles denunciating the usage of paper replicas of luxury and brand items as out of line with previous offering conventions ignore these continuities in the offering custom as their judgement is based on a traditional Western standpoint that features a fabric-centric notion of authenticity and an understanding of heritage as necessarily old, unchanging and opposed to modernity. Such views on authenticity and heritage are however rejected by contemporary heritage professionals, who stress the importance of intangible aspects of authenticity and the dynamisms of cultural expression.