婆羅浮屠作為杌隉的印度教及佛教文化景觀：印度尼西亞殖民遺產的研究

Abstract

從歷史和法律人類學的角度進行探索，本論文探討印度尼西亞最珍貴的文化遺產之一：candi Borobudur （婆羅浮屠寺） 在 20 世紀的“遺產化” （heritagization） 的起源和影響。自 1907 年至 1911 年由荷蘭殖民政府首次修復以來，學者們一直忽視印度教和佛教的神學維度，該維度揭示了以 candi 為中心的更廣闊的文化景觀的存在。 “西方”的遺產化方法不僅引入了侵入性方法來保護“真實性”（authenticity），而且這些方法還繼續阻止關於婆羅浮屠及其周邊地區預期功能的歷史和科學知識的多樣化。未能理解 candi 的印度教和佛教方面最終構成了婆羅浮屠“遺產化”的基礎——這一過程需要對更大的曼荼羅文化景觀進行空間縮減以及無視該遺址的無形特徵，以及所有以當地居民的傳統生活方式為代價。 1945年獨立後，印尼國民政府在 1973 年至 1983 年的第二次修復期間反映了荷蘭的殖民做法。以發展項目為幌子的意識形態驅動和執行，第二次修復是“加密殖民主義”（crypto-colonialism）和 “授權”（authorized）遺產管理的一個典型例子，並最終導致坎迪婆羅浮屠在 1991 年被聯合國教科文組織列入世界遺產名錄。雖然官方目標是為了防止進一步的結構衰退，“修復”反而破壞了政府想要保護。鑑於婆羅浮屠是穆斯林占多數的國家的印度教佛教遺址，其宗教意義也越來越淡化。婆羅浮屠是一個“紀念碑”、“文化景觀”和許多其的東西。

Explored from the viewpoints of historical and legal anthropology, this thesis addresses the origins and ramifications of the “heritagization” of one of Indonesia’s most prized cultural heritage sites, Candi Borobudur, or “Borobudur Temple” over the course of the twentieth century. Since its first restoration by the Dutch colonial administration in 1907-1911, scholars have consistently overlooked the Hindu-Buddhist theological dimension that reveals the existence of a more expansive cultural landscape with the candi at its center. Not only did “Western” approaches to heritagization introduce intrusive methods to preserve “authenticity,” but such methods also continued to prevent the diversification of historical and scientific knowledge on the intended function of Borobudur and its surroundings. The failure to understand the Hindu-Buddhist aspects of the candi ultimately forms the basis of the “heritagization” of Borobudur — a process that entails the spatial reduction of a larger mandala cultural landscape as well as a disregard for the site’s intangible features, and all at the cost of traditional ways of life for local inhabitants. After independence from the Netherlands, Indonesia’s national government mirrored Dutch colonial practices during the second restoration in 1973-1983. Ideologically driven and executed under the guise of developmental projects, the second restoration was a prime example of “crypto-colonialism” and “authorized” heritage management and culminated in Candi Borobudur’s inscription on UNESCO’s World Heritage Site List in 1991. Although the official objective was to prevent further structural decay, the “restoration” damaged far more than it claimed to have protected. Given that Borobudur is a Hindu-Buddhist site in a Muslim-majority country, its religious meaning has also become increasingly diluted. Candi Borobudur is a “monument”, “cultural landscape” and so many other things in one.