Can the protection of cultural relics refer to tombs as mausoleums?

■Tuk Tuk Fresh

First of all, a historical and cultural common sense, the ancient mainland called the emperor's burial place as a mausoleum, such as the mausoleum of The First Emperor of Qin, the Ming Tombs, and the king of the clan should be called a tomb. However, in the Jingjiang King's Mausoleum, a national key cultural relics protection unit in Guilin, Guangxi, there is a "Zhuangjian King's Mausoleum", which has been pointed out by scholars to have problems such as "upgrading the tomb to a mausoleum" and writing the plaque incorrectly, which has aroused concern in society.

Jingjiang King Mausoleum is a group of tombs of many clan kings sealed in Jingjiang in the Ming Dynasty, which has always been called the tomb of the King of Jingjiang in ancient books, and the folk custom is to call it a mausoleum, so the Tomb of the King of Jingjiang has slowly become a proper noun. As far as the tomb of a certain king of the clan is concerned, the staff of the cultural protection unit said that it should indeed be written "King's Tomb", and the "King's Tomb" should be written for publicity reasons. However, is this propaganda a bit self-deceptive? People who understand the difference between a mausoleum and a tomb will not buy it, and others will not know where the mausoleum is higher than the tomb. If it is to be consistent with the Jingjiang Royal Tomb, then is it necessary for the cultural security unit to take the initiative to move the accurate formulation in the direction of non-standardization? The relevant departments may wish to give authoritative answers, or provide reference for other cultural security units.

The response to the plaque question was even worse. The picture shows that a plaque in the tomb of the king reads "The Hall of Grace", which is the regulation of the imperial tomb, and the format and font are not standard, because "the character was written by the leaders of the time and the calligraphers who came to investigate." Such a problem appears in the state-level cultural security unit, which is not only laughed at generously, but also has a negative exemplary effect on the cultural security work. When the state-level cultural security unit repairs ancient buildings, it is arbitrary, what will other units do?

Therefore, it is necessary to investigate deeply whether there is a shadow of the political achievement project behind the "elevation of the tomb as a mausoleum" and the "leadership inscription". Were the higher authorities slow to discover the problem, or did they turn a blind eye? Does the planning and review mechanism for the restoration of cultural relics need to be improved, and how can it be guaranteed? How can cultural security workers be treated with due respect and that people do not have to be torn between "pragmatism" and "truth-seeking"?

Some people may question whether clinging to the original face of a stele and a plaque is not a fuss? For the development of tourism, changing the name may be able to drive passenger flow, but it is certain that the development and evolution of history and culture has a rigorous vein, if all the way wrong, the context is like the ship of Theseus that is replaced one by one by one, the real history is gradually annihilated, the solid knowledge becomes blurred and scattered, and at that time, in the face of various repaired and inferior cultural relics, ambiguous titles and definitions, more and more outrageous stories and images, and how to answer "Who are we, where do we come from?" What kind of road have we come?"

This is not alarmist, the tomb of King Lujian in Xinxiang, Henan Province, has been inscribed "Tomb of King Lu" by the present, and the tomb of King Luhuang in Jining, Shandong Province, has built a new "Ming Lou" that should not exist... Many gardens and beds across the country are facing similar problems to the tomb of King Zhuang Jian, which requires the state to pay attention to and make a difference. The Mainland Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics requires that "the repair, maintenance and relocation of immovable cultural relics must abide by the principle of not changing the original state of cultural relics", and without changing the original state of cultural relics, in the final analysis, it is impossible to change the original state of history. It is necessary to know that to protect and inherit historical and cultural heritage well is to be responsible for history and the people.