[auspicious dragon]

I am amazed to learn that one of the best ways to understand house design of the Tang Dynasty is to look at foreign (Japanese) copies. Is this a general trend with regard to ancient Chinese relics? Some Chinese are trying to repatriate antiques taken by foreigners. However, would these antiques have otherwise been lost?

[Pattie]

auspicious dragon, on May 15 2007, 08:30 PM, said:

However, would these antiques have otherwise been lost?

This question has come up repeatedly throughout the history of collecting. The classic example is the Parthenon Marbles: http://www.uk.digise...mentor/marbles/ Everyone draws their own line in the sand and others need to respect that.
What one person believes to be right and moral another sees as selfish and deviant.

It's all subjective.

[auspicious dragon]

You've made a good point about the marbles. However, the marbles presumably stay the same. How does one know what changes the Japanese may have made to the basic Tang design of house. Perhaps the house is more Chinese in outward appearances and more Japanese in the interior. And if such a house is recreated in China today then how do we know if it is a faithful recreation or more Japanese? I might surmise that temples and palaces might be closer to the original, but would that hold true for a house that serves everyday purposes?

[bayonet]

Of course the Japanese might make some changes for the architectures technics they had learnt from Tang China, and improved them to match the weather there. So I can fully understand the concern caused for it when asked to refer to Japanese relics. But we do not have better choice. The real Tang buildings existing till today are very rare and could not represent the general pics of Tang architectures, its state of art and its flavor. All we can be known and affirmed are those records from the books and papers that handed down for thousand years. They are in many cases either contradict or less reliable for recorded in remote era or vague in words or just a claimed recreation of some long lost tech in late dynasties which we have no idea whether this kinda recreation was a real reflection of the original one or not. On the contrary, the Japanese preserve well a bunch of real arthitectures that really in good shape which are reflection of true life sytle of that time. Known that the early Japanese civilization was reshaped by the Tang culture, their architectures built in accordance with the same period of Tang are not far from it. And from the Japanese historical resource, we know that the city design and architectures in Nara period were strict copies from Tang China. I m not indicating that this is the only way to look into the Chinese buildings at that era, but this is a good way for reference.

[Jake Holman]

The "problem" is that ancient Chinese buildings were made of wood. Beautiful (IMO ancient Chinese architecture is much more attractive than Roman, Greek or Egyptian, which look bulky and clunky to me) but of course wood buildings generally do not last.

That is why there are many fewer Tang Dynasty buildings left (a couple of temples on Wutai Shan (五台山), I think a couple of others may have been discovered) than there are Roman, Greek and Egyptian buildings, even though the latter are often 2000 years old and up.

The best remaining "Tang Dynasty" buildings are in Japan, like the Horyuji Temple (which I believe actually predates the Tang), and the only remaining "Tang Dynasty Music" exists in Korea and, debatably, in Japan.


The Horyuji (法隆寺) Temple near Nara (奈良市), Japan:




The Court Orchestra of Korea Performing Tangak (Tang Dynasty Music: 唐樂):




The same orchestra performing Aak (literally "elegant music": 雅樂, Confucian ritual music supposedly from the Zhou 周 Dynasty):

This post has been edited by Jake Holman: 16 August 2007 - 08:51 AM