Architectural heritage in China has not the order and significance of its European and North African counterparts -- despite having acquired a 5,000 year-old history -- because the buildings have not survived.

In China, no architectural record has remained that was built before the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). The many thousands of miles of the Great Wall, built during the Qin and Han dynasties, or the magnificent palaces of the Han and Tang dynasties have survived only as archaeological remnants below ground, with some visible groundwork existing above.

To date, the oldest known surviving stone construction in China is the Zhaozhou Bridge, built during the Sui Dynasty (AD 581-618) by Li Chun. The earliest wooden-frame architecture said to exist in China is the Great Hall of Foguang Temple in Mount Wutai, Shanxi Province, discovered by Liang Sicheng in 1937 and built in AD 857 during the Xuanzong Period of the Tang Dynasty. The Sakyamuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple in Shanxi Province, also known as Yingxian Wooden Pagoda, is a notable Liao Dynasty building built in AD 1056. Only a tiny proportion of ancient architecture recorded in historical texts has survived.

While the reasons for the scarcity of ancient architecture may be complex and numerous, it is clear it is neither accidental nor without pattern.

The Wooden Structure

It is an obvious fact that when ancient architecture survives, it nearly always has been made predominantly of stone. The Pyramids of Egypt, the Parthenon in Greece and the Taj Mahal in India all bear witness to this fact. In China, however, historic architecture has been made with a combination of wood, soil and brick, with stone being used only for support, decoration and artistic effect, such as side steps, door sills, basement support poles, parapets and sculpture. Seldom do stone poles survive as remnants of ancient Chinese architecture.

Wood-based structures were more likely to invite insect and rodent infestation as well as damage and destruction caused by changing weather conditions and fire. When natural or man-made disaster occurs, stone buildings usually protect the framework and are relatively easy to restore. Wooden buildings, however, do not survive and the restoration that follows is complex and total.

While it would be easy to argue that the choice of wood as a material resource for architecture was used primarily due to the proximity of geographical abundance found in local forests, and stone a scarce and more difficult material to locate, needing transportation and additional expense, this would be half the story.

Indeed, there are many examples from around the world where an abundance of a natural resource seems to dictate building style and choice of raw material. For example, the Nile Delta, the Apennine Peninsula and the Balkan Peninsula all possess a greater abundance of stone then timber.

There is though much evidence to support the view that what seems to dictate cultural choice of building material is not environmental resource but the power of tradition, which, once formed, will not easily be altered. In China, architectural building -- and what has been recorded and what remains -- is testament to this fact.

The royal palaces and tombs that were built during the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties were constructed using wood that was transported, at great expense, from the southwestern provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan. While there might well have been structural alternatives to the use of wood, the power of the traditional structure exerted its influence.

This same tradition is common to all building throughout Chinese history and is seen in the construction of basic home dwelling where the use and application of wood/soil and wood/brick structures provided housing for the majority of China’s vast population. There was a downside, however. The price of the power of this tradition was to plunder and remove huge areas of forest from China’s most fertile lumber regions.

Of course, this tradition did not escape the natural and man-made effects of fire damage. Throughout Chinese history, great buildings and structures were razed to the ground by fire. A fire at the E-Pang palace that lasted for three months is a notable example in Chinese history, as well as that of the great fire of Hangzhou City during the Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279). The Forbidden City itself was no exception.

Renovation

In attempting to find and argue the reasons that ancient Chinese architectural style and choice of building material were to limit its chances of survival, there is one very important factor to consider. While natural disaster and fragility of the resource often lead to its destruction, the reconstruction of an original building rarely followed a principle of restoration. In fact the opposite seems to have been true and something following the lines of “new” renovation or building as new were guiding principles. As the resources were plentiful, and often cheap in a given locality, it was as easy to rebuild as repair. The consequence of the neglect of this historical architectural record was the generational demise of an authentic ancient Chinese architecture.

While many guides of history, in museums and elsewhere, now suggest that a given building belongs to one ancient dynasty or another, this is rarely the case. There is always a lack of evidence to support these claims.

The ancient architecture that has survived did so by being some distance from the interests of renovation and also from the protection and importance of authorities who wished to preserve ancient traditions. These areas, remote and underdeveloped hinterlands, have left some preserved examples of these ancient traditions although how much longer they will survive remains in doubt.

Defects

While it has been possible to argue that the reason for the paucity of the survival of ancient architecture in China has been largely due to environmental factors, the influence of cultural determinants cannot be overlooked.

In historical Chinese architecture, greater attention was paid to the function of etiquette, politics and communally used space than that of the function for living. The consequence was the development of spacious and magnificent architecture belonging to royal palaces and tombs, yamans, ancestral temples, mansions and assembly halls, while personal living space and, in particular, that of the lower-order commoner, was greatly overlooked and vastly inferior.

The autocratic social tier system of ancient China was reflected in the specification of building types. As such, people from different tiers in ancient times would be accommodated in a corresponding housing, reflecting their social position and tier. This may be seen in different parts of the world also. For example, the civilian residences of Pompeii, in ancient Italy, were an unattached dwelling house that was comprised of three or four bedrooms with a space for living and for washing. Compared to the dwelling houses of the same age or antiquity of the civilian population in China, during the East Han Dynasty (AD 25-220), these buildings reflected greater comfort and size for their inhabitants.

In China, private residences usually used the hall as a space for ceremony, reception or meeting area, the hall being built to a high standard and occupying a central position, while the bedrooms and living area were often much smaller and dark.

In Liukeng, a village located at Le’an County in Jiangxi Province, and said to have a thousand year history, there are houses that reflect this use of space for living and for ceremonial activity. In one such house, it is possible to see that the bedrooms are positioned off the main hall in ante-chambers. These rooms are visibly small and dark without much air.

So while the powerful and wealthy of ancient China could rebuild their residences and live in more opulent space, the traditional structures that were to be rebuilt often made for cramped and uncomfortable daily living. Occasionally, the wealthy and powerful of China added gardens or built houses in the style of European villas. It is suggested that the emperors of the Qing Dynasty, and Dowager Cixi, did prefer the conditions of Chengde Mountain Resort, Yuanmingyuan Garden and the Summer Palace. However, for anyone who has seen the size and condition of the bedrooms in the Forbidden City, or in the Confucius Family Mansion, the preference for the traditional structure might well be in doubt. This is the reason, it is said, that the Qing Dynasty emperor chose western-style houses to live in while the Yuanmingyuan Garden was being built.

Later on in the Qing Dynasty, nearly all Chinese gentry chose to live in a new style of house. At the time of the birth of the Republic of China, those that adhered to the Qing Dynasty in Tianjin and Qingdao preferred to live in modern villas also. A question therefore may be asked of the experts and scholars who research and protect ancient architecture: How livable are the houses of ancient China, those of say one hundred years of age as well as the houses of the ancient villages, spanning nearly one thousand years? Would anyone today – despite the traditional culture and advantage – live in the present unreconstructed quadrangle or Anhui ancient residence, earth building, the blockhouse or a Shaanxi cave-house?

While the opinions expressed here do not represent a complete evaluation of ancient Chinese architecture, they do go some way to addressing the question of what happened to Chinese architectural heritage. Firstly, that because of a natural deficiency in choice of raw material, this heritage was beset with environmental problems and did not survive.

Secondly, that due to the exertion of the power of tradition on architectural building methods, in renovation rather then restoration, much of what did exist was over-laid with newness that obscured this heritage. This is a lesson that should be paid significant attention today.

Thirdly, that the treatment of these old, and very special buildings, raises the questions of the value of their function versus the preservation of a time long since past. While it is possible to admit that most of the functions of these buildings are beyond the use of people today, nobody should insist on the value of their advantages or that people should live in them. Only when the contradictions of such an argument can be seen, and solved, will it be possible to effectively preserve this ancient historical record and prevent its obscurity behind reconstruction and renovation.

(china.org.cn by Wang Zhiyong on September 29, 2002)