Wed, Mar 22, 2023 page8

• ‘Historicity’ and Tainan’s unearthed features

  • By Lee Kuan-ju 李冠儒
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Uncrewed US craft transits the Taiwan Strait

  • 5

    Taiwan assessing recruiting from Eswatini: ministry