During the railroad relocation project in Tainan, 19 features have been discovered, each of which represents the contexts of past human activity.
It is extremely rare for a feature to be preserved. That a historical site could be in such good condition happens only by chance, and its discovery is pure accident.
Another recent example is an excavation near Taoyuan Railway Station. In 2020, the construction of the Taoyuan Mass Rapid Transit network’s Green Line unearthed an archeological site in Dashulin (大樹林) and a Qing Dynasty railroad feature. The Taoyuan Department of Cultural Affairs’ Cultural Heritage Section approved an excavation project, and traces of not only Qing Dynasty track ballast were discovered, but also a Japanese colonial period railway station.
A major reason traces from different historical periods have been simultaneously preserved to this day is that the railroads constructed during the Qing Dynasty and the Japanese colonial era were at different elevations.
Initially, the route from Taipei to Taoyuan passed through today’s Sinjhuang (新莊) and Gueishan (龜山), overlapping today’s Highway 1A, but the railway was repeatedly destroyed due to steep slopes and floods. During the Japanese colonial era, the route was redirected, passing through Banciao (板橋) and Yingge (鶯歌) districts along today’s Taiwan Railways Administration route. In other words, the Taipei-Taoyuan railway line was relocated from a mountainous area and reconstructed alongside the Dahan River (大漢溪), and hence the original track ballast was preserved.
In the case of Jhongli Station, no historical traces were found, as the construction there was carried out at the same elevation. Also, Taoyuan station was relocated between those two historical periods and for this reason features that include the structure of the station, the drainage system and toilets have been preserved.
A historical site holds the memory of the past, coexisting with the present and yet not corresponding to our time. It reveals the status of its own time, offering traces of the weather, culture, technology, materials and thoughts in a particular context. By discovering, excavating, preserving and interpreting a historical site, we are given an opportunity to “remember” the past. With today’s archeological knowledge and skills, we are able to remember, to summon the past to the present, and to interpret what it was like back then.
At the historical site near Taoyuan station, for instance, it was discovered that the toilets and the station were not close to each other, leading to the conclusion that the toilets were not for the use of passengers, but for the railroad workers whose dorm was close to the station.
When we interpret a historical site and hence enable a number of possible ways to understand the past, our interpretations should always be based on evidence. The unearthed historical site exists in our world, whereas our understanding of the site exists on an ontological level. As German philosopher Martin Heidegger suggested, any understanding of entities precedes interpretation, while an interpretation is a process or a result of how we transform our understandings via language and expressions.
In some cases, interpretations of things could be more important than the understanding of things. The significance of a historical site has less to do with its existence in the past than with our interpretation of it in the present.
What, then, would turn an object or an entity into a “historical artifact,” such as an antique or an archeological site? A historical artifact is no longer an object, given that the world to which it belonged has already passed. Based on our “historicity” and “futurity,” we select certain objects as historical artifacts, of which we inherit some historical facts and carry them on into the future. If a historical site is to be treated merely as a “made present,” namely, if we view the past simply through the lens of our current moment, our “historicity” then lacks the potential of inheriting the past and bringing that past into the future.
When a historical site is taken seriously as a shared “historicity,” whether to keep it can be determined by our ontological being. The public should then be entitled to experience archeological excavation.
On the issue of handling Tainan’s unearthed features, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications should consult with the Taoyuan City Government and organize on-site visits for the public to engage with the past.
Lee Kuan-ju is a former civil servant in cultural heritage preservation and a doctoral student in philosophy.
Translated by Emma Liu
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS