Reappropriating the communal past: lineage tradition revival as a way of constructing collective identity in Huizhou, China

Abstract

This article discusses the reappropriation and redefinition of heritage and tradition as a process of purposeful and selective value extraction by various groups at the local level in Huizhou, China, based on case studies. It is a process of continuous accumulation and self-persuasion by empowering specific cultural heritages, thus reinforcing the identity and cognition of the group to which they belong. The recovery of lineage worship to negotiate different cultural meanings and gain discursive power in the village of Huangdun reveals the counterbalance of the distribution of benefits among lineage groups, locals and government officials. These heritage empowerment actions fit with the official cultural policy and the vision for cultural orthodoxy, healing the division and creating some benefits for the local community. They also generate potential conflicts between the official and folk levels but are performed with mutual achievement and utilisation rather than unilateral dominance.

Introduction

The relationship among history, heritage, and collective memory is delicate, intertwined and subtle (Lowenthal, 1998: 121). In China’s contemporary social and cultural context, especially since the 2000s, the synergistic exploration, and interpretation of the above three concepts are unceasing and revolve around the ultimate metaphysical topic of ‘who we are’ and ‘where we are going’. Starting with ‘In Search of the Origins of Chinese Civilisation’,1 which has been a continuous major national strategy since the beginning of the 21st century, the revival of Confucianism (Hubbert, 2017) and the ‘Revival of Outstanding Traditional Culture’,2 including recently at the national level, highlight the importance of cultural heritage preservation,3 all seeking to link and give new meaning to past stories and places of historical significance. These actions aim to find a basis for the interpretation of specific events, policies, and group positioning in a social context that is increasingly volatile and full of uncertainty and intensifying contradictions, thus creating legitimacy for official discourse and ideological and policy changes. Heritage, as Smith argues, is a complex, multilayered process of cultural attribution and social construction (Smith, 2006). However, how we understand Chinese efforts to rejuvenate heritages and traditions, referring to the coordination of community identity, diversity and unity, needs further exploration.

The Chinese official level does not explicitly advocate and support ‘identity politics’; instead, it tries to avoid emphasising distinctions and differences in group identities. It emphasises the ‘harmonious’ discourse marked by seeking commonality while preserving differences (Yan, 2014). However, as Madsen (2014) comments, ‘If the Chinese state wants to gain legitimacy by claiming to represent, protect, and promote China’s rich ‘intangible cultural heritage,’ it (like any nationalist government) must recognise that ‘heritage’ means many different things to different people.’ Therefore, this research aims to answer two main questions: (1) What role does cultural heritage play in the construction of local society in China and in resolving the dislocation of the individual within the society as a whole? (2) How can traditional history and collective memory be integrated with the needs of contemporary social development and manifested through the process of heritage empowerment?

The study, taking the Huizhou region of China against the background of the revival of traditional culture as an example, demonstrates how cultural heritage can become a proxy for social construction based on romanticised imaginary perceptions of the local masses under the encouragement of policy, economic investment, and fortified group identity. The case of lineage worship rejuvenation in Huangdun village reveals the definition and reuse of heritage and the characteristics of multigroup participation in the construction of local identity and even in developing the lineage tourism industry. Furthermore, this spontaneous action at the civil level subtly achieved acquiescence and support at the local government level through integration with official discourse and policy. In the face of increasing uncertainty today, the interaction of lineage history, rituals, and lineage member connections make people feel like they are living in a nonlinear history, thus giving them hope for the future. It clearly shows the conscious reuse of cultural heritage and the rediscovery and reshaping of traditional culture and ideology.

This paper argues that lineage revival in Huangdun should be understood as cultural activities that involve many traditional elemental ideas. It provides a platform for reinventing group intimacy. The concept of the new ‘Huizhou people’ is being reconstructed based on lineage surnames and regional cultural identity acknowledgement. The reappropriation of lineage tradition and reuse of heritage enable an a priori reconstruction of community that transcends spatial categories, thus awakening and strengthening the subjectivity of the participants. Therefore, there has been an attempt to explore and improve today’s grassroots community relations under the ‘unity’ scheme. In addition, the combination of historical contextualisation and the reuse of cultural heritage has redefined historical space and power through group participation. In the a priori ‘unity’ value implication, each subject can actively or passively find the interpretation point in line with their intentions in participation and thus be able to form a maximalist, supra-class identification with an authoritarian social order. While acting within the same framework of traditional cultural revitalisation and reuse of heritage, in this lineage tradition empowerment process, both laypeople and government officials have deemed cultural heritage and traditions approaches to achieve their own interests, and intentions differ among subjects. By raising the banner of promoting cultural heritage conservation and tradition revitalisation with endorsement by cultural policies through the rejuvenation of rituals and the genealogy of lineages in the Confucian tradition, lineage members have discovered a sense of self-identity and belonging and established a network of meaningful and trusting relationships. Furthermore, this lineage network provides members with a platform for active involvement in local development, seeking to advance their self-interest and dominating local discourse. Finally, locals who support this process also enjoy its dividends, such as opportunities in the tourism industry and infrastructure improvement.

However, lineage activity, based on continuous identity-shaping within local communities and even wider lineage networks, may further develop into local political power. As a result, there is a conflict between the demands of folk society organisations to actively strengthen local influence and participation in local affairs and the demands of officials to maintain authority and preserve flat control at the local level. Therefore, the rejuvenation of lineage traditions and the reuse of cultural heritage in Huizhou, represented by Huangdun, has become a window through which to observe potential changes in the Chinese grassroots social structure.

Literature review and research background

Identity construction by heritage reempowerment

The literature has revealed that the authenticity of heritage is a process of being constructed (Canavan and McCamley, 2021: 88; Kendall, 2017). This means that heritage empowerment provides people with the capability to romanticise many of their memories to cater to the imaginary needs of a particular contemporary group, reflecting changes in power structure and discourse. Correspondingly, heritage develops a top-down structure created and reinforced to capture nostalgia for a bygone era in a specific social, political, and economic context (Harrison, 2012: 18). The collective nature of heritage makes it essential that the interpretation of heritage objects and related histories be in line with the consensus of collective memory, which significantly broadens the scope and appeal of heritage (Samuel, 2012). According to Halbwachs’s (1980: 43) understanding, individual, collective, and historical memory support each other, are triggered based on consensus, and require the mutual support of different subjective memories to be refined and constructed. Norra (1996: 5–23) further argues that the ‘memory place’ is a living carrier with a group perspective. Through media, metaphors, and symbols that transcend time and space, collective identity is reconstructed based on nostalgic reflection, and nation–states are such groups. Similarly, as Lowenthal (1998: 121) and Ashworth (1994: 16) point out, cultural heritage is created for contemporary consumption, linking stories of the past and places of historical significance and giving them new meanings. This means that the process of heritage designation (e.g., inscription on a heritage list) and empowerment is broadly participatory and based on collective memory. People define themselves through shared memories and shared forgetfulness; thus, communities can be recreated through envisaging. A community is self-evident, a state of consensus. By the time the community needs to be constructed, it no longer exists. ‘Identity must belie its origin; it must deny being ‘just a surrogate’; it needs to conjure up a phantom of the self-same community which it has come to replace’ (Bauman, 2013: 18–19). The construction of a community presents a desire to find security and a familiar environment (Bauman, 2013: 1–6). Historical places are where identities are created (Groote and Haartsen, 2016). Community and heritage/traditions are thus two sides of the same coin. However, the use of heritage also faces the challenge of integrating the thinking of different individuals; eliminating divisions within the group; and weighing the relationships between local and official, local and foreign groups, etc. Inequality and discrimination are rooted not in cultural injustice and devaluation but rather in the lack of means for groups to live in ways that are valued by themselves and others (Sayer, 2005). What needs to be recognised is not the identity of a particular group but the status of individuals and group members as reciprocal partners in society. That is, they can participate in society in a nonsubordinate, mutually recognised and equal manner (Fraser, 2003: 21-24).

For this reason, heritage has become an important proxy for coordinating identity. Public history is destined to be interpreted as controversial due to its inseparable relationship with collective and individual memory (Glassberg, 1996). Heritage provides opportunities for diverse interpretations and the empowerment of memory and identity (Ashworth et al., 2015: 15, 36–37). Thus, the ‘invention of tradition’ becomes an effective way to circumvent controversy, reshape history, and build consensus. This reflects the fact that the utilisation and reinvention of tradition imply a subtle infusion of order (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 2012: 10-13). The issue of heritage in China is unique; with a long tradition of rebuilding monuments and reshaping sites, the emphasis is not on eternity but on inheritance in change (Stille, 2002). The ‘microethical ecology’ shaped by Chinese folk traditions about heritage reflects local and central differences and diversity in heritage management (Svensson, 2016). Different subjects have diverse understandings of heritage with different emphases and are closely related to specific demands (Sørensen and Carman, 2009: 3). There is a greater need for something local, rooted in the individual and with a spirit of dedication, to meet individual needs and for psychological healing (Madsen, 2014: 64). Heritage reuse efforts arouse local and national pride, promote interactions between local officials and vernacular groups (Zhu and Martínez, 2022), and reflect the efforts of local governments to restore their own culture and promote economic development (Martínez, 2022). Therefore, to investigate the role played by heritage empowerment in shaping and integrating different identities in China today, it is important to understand the recurring Chinese obsession with long-term temporal trajectory history (Harvey, 2001). The identification of different groups with the ‘local’ dimension of official ideology and culture is essential for social and national identity integration in China (roboWen C, 2019).

Thus, the reuse and empowerment of Chinese vernacular cultural heritage and tradition, and especially how community consciousness and identity are coordinated with official willingness, need further specific case exploration.

Lineage evolution and revival in Huizhou

Due to the uniqueness of the Huizhou regional lineage culture and development process, as well as the richness of its local literature, Huizhou lineage studies have provided a window for investigating the character of local Chinese society. Existing studies are particularly concerned with the significant impact of the Huizhou lineage and merchants from the Song to Ming and Qing periods (Beattie, 1979). Since the Song period (11th century), accompanied by the rise of the Huizhou lineages, the accumulation of wealth has stimulated elite people in Huizhou to continuously construct a grand social network of lineages, which has profoundly influenced local development (Hazelton, 1984; Zurndorfer, 1984). Moreover, through marriages with other elite families and the establishment of communal property regimes, lineages can achieve, protect and enhance their local position (Walton, 1999). This is usually a large and loose network, regardless of actual consanguinity, linked by an increasing number of branches of interest rather than strict genealogy (Xu, 2021; Zou, 2012: 8-11). As a result, elites in the Huizhou countryside, based on extensive alliances of lineage networks, can flexibly adjust their strategies and roles according to social changes (McDermott, 2013). Therefore, the elites, represented by local gentry groups based on lineage systems, have a stable position but with flexible and varying occupations rather than just landlords or bureaucrats (Esherick and Rankin, 1990: 13–19). The role of local elites thus shapes rural community consciousness in the context of modern social transformation (Sato, 2017). However, most of the above research focuses on Huizhou society and lineage relations during the imperial period. Although Huizhou had a profound lineage tradition in history, it declined sharply in the 20th century.

Accordingly, the trend of reuse of Chinese rural heritage sites in recent years has provided an endorsement for today’s lineage rejuvenation. This trend is supported by a major background policy: the conservation of traditional villages.4 Related activities and industries based on the conservation and management of rural heritage have become important means for enhancing the economies of rural communities and are proxies for political change movements (Blumenfield and Silverman, 2013). In this context, the past and present should not be seen as distinct discontinuous realms; history and heritage are in some cases interrelated and interchangeable (Park, 2013: 15). This is a dynamic and subjective process of domesticating elements and content from the past for contemporary purposes (Harvey, 1989). Coincidentally, the official and local discourse of the Huangshan today clearly reflects an obsession with the glorious past of Huizhou. The dual commercial and political success of Huizhou merchants and lineages during the Ming and Qing periods is now encapsulated in the success of the entire Huizhou region. The former Huizhou is ideally described as a harmonious place of wealth and peace, with a beautiful environment, that inherited the orthodoxy of Confucianism. This also coincides with the trend of promoting the construction of a harmonious society through the revival of Confucianism in China today (Billioud and Thoraval, 2008; Hwang, 2012). In 2014, the traditional ancestor worship ceremony of Huizhou was included on the “National Intangible Cultural Heritage” list.5 Recent authoritative media reports have also emphasised the relationship between lineage worship and Neo-Confucianism, highlighting the leading role of lineage regulation in local affairs (Guangming Daily, 2023). These observations reflect the urgent need for self-confidence and effective grassroots management at the central government level, as well as the tangled attitude towards history. They also imply a return to traditional official discourse tendencies.

Research context and method

The study site is in Huangshan District, Anhui Province, China, which is known as a part of the Huizhou region. Culturally and geographically, Huizhou is famous for its iconic architecture, settlements, and Hui culture, and the UNESCO heritage sites Xidi and Hongcun are located there.

This study, based on case studies of Huangdun village in Huizhou, aims to investigate how the revival of lineage worship shapes collective identity in the Huizhou rural areas and how to reconcile the differences and similarities between official and local claims. Field investigations and interviews were conducted from 2020 to April 2023. For reliable data and firsthand information, the primary sources included various field investigations and observations of three lineage worship rituals in Huangdun in 2023. We applied the principle of nonparticipatory observation to the research fieldwork. Sixteen people with different backgrounds and sectoral identities were selected for semistructured and open-ended interviews. Interviewees were categorised according to their occupation as A: villagers, B: village committee staff, C: lineage ceremony participants, and D: activists or experts participating in lineage affairs and marked with their occupations. This helped understand the attributes of the interviewees (see Table 1). Informal chat and event speeches were not included. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain the opinions of subjects with diverse identities, standpoints, and interests and to demonstrate varied perceptions and attitudes towards lineage worship revitalisation in Huangdun. Some interview points and narrative descriptions of rituals are not directly quoted but rather incorporated into the narrative interpretation and analysis.

Table 1. Interview profiles and feedback during the 2023 lineage ceremonies.

Interviewee code	Age group	Attributes of identity	Attitude towards the lineage revival in Huangdun	Motivation
A1	Elder	Villager, farmer	Positive, could enhance village environment and infrastructure	Emotional
A2	Elder	Villager, farmer	Positive, could provide small business opportunities	Economic
A3	Elder	Villager, farmer	Positive, more visitors make the site lively	Emotional
A4	Middle-aged	Villager, cleaner	Neutral, has no direct benefit or correlation
A5	Middle-aged	Villager	Positive, as a member of a long lineage, lineage activities could bring her part-time jobs, such as cook	Economic and emotional
B1	Middle-aged	Villager, village committee staff	Positive, inspired pride in the village and could bring potential economic opportunities	Economic and emotional
B2	Middle-aged	Local, village committee staff	Positive, could bring potential economic opportunities	Economic
C1	Middle-aged	Outsider, lineage ceremony participant	Very positive, proud to be an important participant in the ceremony	Emotional and social
C2	Middle-aged	Outsider, lineage ceremony participant	Positive, could recognise and contact other lineage members	Economic and emotional
C3	Young	Outsider, lineage ceremony participant	Positive, could find a sense of belonging, interested in lineage history	Emotional
C4	Young	Outsider, lineage ceremony participant	Positive, could find a sense of pride and belonging	Emotional
C5	Elder	Outsider, lineage ceremony participant	Positive, could find a sense of belonging, this was a travel opportunity	Emotional and social
D1	Young	Local, cultural heritage activist	Neutral, lineage cannot be revived as before but is a spiritual support to the community	Emotional and social
D2	Middle-aged	Local, district government official	Very positive, proud to be an important member of lineage, could benefit the economy	Economic and emotional
D3	Elder	Local, retired high school teacher	Very positive, could increase local popularity and enhance the pride of residents	Emotional
D4	Middle-aged	Local, host of the lineage ceremony	Neutral, keen on lineage affairs but difficult to proceed further due to hindrance from official level	Emotional and social

Secondary data sources included historical documents, policy text and other documents, images, local chronicles, government work reports, and media reports. These data are useful supplements to the primary sources. They help connect fragmented historical events and outline the evolution of lineage worship revitalisation at the case sites.

Recovery of group identity in heritage practice: the case of Huangdun village, Huizhou

Reconstruction of the lineage and Confucian tradition

Heritage empowerment is closely linked with subjectivity. In the case of Huangdun village in Huizhou, people are actively using the correlation between heritage and Neo-Confucian culture to strengthen community identity and even profit. Different subjects, from bureaucrats and scholars to villagers, all pay particular attention to promoting lineage and Confucian culture and exploring famous historical events while integrating this process with national heritage conservation initiatives.

Huangdun is an ancient Huizhou village with a history of nearly 2000 years. The village is adjacent to Huangshan city. It is considered an important settlement for ancient Chinese lineage immigrants from North China who migrated to the south. At least 56 lineages can be verified. Most of the immigrants were elite gentry groups who believed in Confucianism; therefore, the village is considered to be an important birthplace of Hui culture and inherited the so-called Chinese orthodox Confucian culture, especially as the ancestral home of famous Neo-Confucian Masters Chengyi, Chenghao (程颐,程颢) and Zhuxi (朱熹) (Liu, 2011). Local voices therefore proudly proclaimed Huangdun ‘the representative village of Huizhou culture’. In May 2020, a stone archway engraved with the words ‘Luo min su ben (洛闽溯本)’, which means ‘the origin and ancestral home of the masters of Neo-Confucianism’, was unearthed in the village. The engraving was also identified as containing the seal and royal signature of Emperor Qianlong (乾隆) of the Qing period. In addition, the dragon pattern on the archway is actually a ‘five-clawed dragon’, a decoration that could only be used by the royal court in the imperial era. The archway was built in 1612, restored in 1760, and finally demolished in 1976 during the Cultural Revolution. Thus, local academics noted the close relationship between the village of Huangdun and Neo-Confucianism at the royal level in imperial times, while today’s reconstruction implies permission and support for the reemergence of Confucianism and lineage worship on the part of the central government. Therefore, local media have proclaimed the village “the iconic evidence/token which represents the premium hierarchy of Huizhou culture” (Xinan Evening News, 2020).

After the reconstruction of the archway, in 2021, the SanFuzi Ci (the hall of the three masters三夫子祠) memorial hall, which was built in 1760 but destroyed in the late 19th century to commemorate Cheng Yi, Cheng Hao, and Zhu Xi, was rebuilt behind the archway with reference to historical records. Both projects not only received financial support and publicity at the government level but have also been welcomed by local villagers. Although these structures are restorations or replicas, they are still considered to be of great symbolic importance to local lineages.

For example, Interviewee B1, a villager who works for the village committee and is also a folk historian, is passionate about the history of Huangdun village and has played an active and important role in the restoration of the abovementioned structures. He claimed that these structures are important because they proclaim the long history of Confucian cultural orthodoxy and the prosperity of Huizhou. In addition, they symbolise local lineages originating from noble families that could date back one thousand years. In a more realistic sense, they will allow the small, unassuming village of Huangdun to receive direct 10 million CNY of financial subsidies and publicity from the municipal level in the name of heritage conservation, which the village can use to improve environmental and infrastructure conditions, repaving roads and taking other measures to address the village’s increasing popularity. This was confirmed by villagers A1, A2 and A3. A1 said,

“The buildings are certainly beautiful to look at, and we may have opportunities to do small business in the future when more people come to visit and worship ancestors.”

In this case, top-down public attitudes show an obscure consensus. The revival of ancestor worship has brought opportunities for development based on interpersonal relationships. B1 is confident in the prospect:

“Huangdun has always been a place where Huizhou culture flourished because the roots of Neo-Confucianism are here. We also feel honoured in this village, as it is the epitome of Huizhou. In the next step, my task is to receive those people who come to seek their ancestors or hold lineage worship rituals. I will let them publicise the history and culture of Huangdun to the whole country, even overseas.”

This attitude, that ancestor worship activities could improve the reputation of the village and bring potential benefits for tourism and investment, is echoed by a native cadre of the village committee, B2. The restoration and rebuilding of historical structures provide the basis for extensive revival of intangible activities.

As Sather-Wagstaff (2015: 191-204) claimed, heritage and memory have many common characteristics; people share the memory of heritage through narratives and various activities, while heritage also functions through ongoing social and intergroup narrative interactions. As a result, heritage activities cannot be sustained without the two crucial factors of collective memory and group identity. Due to the correlation of the village with Confucianism and historically prominent lineages, ancestor worship has gradually flourished there. The ancestor worship tradition ceased during the anti-Japanese war. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, ancestor worship rituals were identified as ‘feudal superstition’ and banned. In 2007, nearly 30 years after the ‘Reform and Opening’ policy was applied, the Cheng lineage decided to recover its ancestor worship tradition. Therefore, the Cheng lineage gathered members through the internet and restarted the ancestor worship ritual in Huangdun after a 64-year hiatus. According to a witness, while it was obstructed by some people and even reported to the local police for intervention, in the end, the ritual was successfully conducted. Since then, the members of the Cheng lineage from throughout the whole country and abroad have come to Huangdun and participated in ancestor worship ceremonies each year. In 2011, the chairperson of the World Federation of Cheng Clansmen Cheng Mingrong, and other federation members participated in the ritual in Huangdun. In 2011 and 2017, Cheng Wanqi, the chairperson of the United World Chinese Association, visited Huangdun twice to participate in ancestor worship. The 2017 ritual even fulfilled the long-held wish of the Chinese nuclear engineer and physicist Cheng Kaijia; that is, he claimed himself to be the Huizhou people. The son of Cheng Kaijia, General Cheng Bozhong, also participated in the ceremony. A growing number of famous lineage members have gathered in Huangdun village, holding ancestor worship ceremonies. These actions are driving ancestor worship and lineage discovery in Huangdun and are closely tied to overseas communities such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Canada, with prominent international influence. This provides important public support and justification for ancestor worship.

Thus, except for the Cheng lineage, folk groups, and other major lineages have been inspired to gradually recover their traditions. In recent years, between February and April, members of different lineages who recognise Huangdun as their ancestral home have visited Huangdun from all over the country to hold ancestor worship rituals, such as major lineages with the surnames Cheng, Zhu, and Huang. The Cheng lineage, the oldest and longest lineage in Huizhou, spent more than 1 million CNY on the renovation of their ancestral tomb and purchased more than 20 mu (1.3 ha) of land near the village for a cemetery in 2013. In 2019, the Huang lineage purchased a plot of land in the village at a cost of more than 300,000 CNY and rebuilt their ancestral cemetery. In 2023, the Zhu lineage raised 178,000 CNY and made plans to restore their ancestral tomb. On 13th April 2023, the Zhu lineage conducted their first ancestor worship ritual since the founding of the People’s Republic of China at the rebuilt SanFuzi Ci in Huangdun. Lineage members from Hubei, Jiangxi, and other provinces participated in the sacrificial ritual and displayed the slogan of revitalising Neo-Confucianism at the event site. This ritual was strongly supported by the Huangshan Neo-Confucianism Research Society (程朱理学研究会).

From a series of historic building reconstructions and site restorations, as well as the manifestations of intensified lineage-seeking and worshiping activities, these spontaneous folk actions to uncover history and traditions not only show a reverence for the glorious past and pride in the lineage but also support common people. In particular, the influence of contemporary celebrities and successful lineage members is used to extend the legitimacy of the action, which in turn prompts government acquiescence. As a result, this regional “conscious historical construct” (Faure and Siu, 1995) encompasses a wider range of lineage-centric relationship networks.

Heritage empowerment and discourse construction in Huangdun

The recovery of lineage worship has met with some opposition, based on the concern that tight intralineage relations could benefit lineage members but marginalise smaller lineages and ordinary individuals. In addition, historically, lineage power, especially in China’s imperial period, usually led to powerful regionalist forces that were even capable of opposing the centralised official government (Miller, 2008). Therefore, lineages are usually subject to repression at the national level. For example, the Anhui Provincial level has adopted an ambiguous attitude of “no objection, no support, and no participation” towards activities such as lineage worship and religious rituals. This is one of the reasons for the protests mentioned above. In response, historical sites and traditional rituals in this reconstruction process have not merely engaged in worshipping ancestors. Instead, they have become carriers of discipline and preachers for the expression of official will and discourse in the new era, conveyed in a more subtle and palatable way. As Giblin et al. (2015) noted, this is a product of reclaiming and reappropriating the meanings and concepts of the past.

The ancestor worship rites in Huangdun today are different from the rituals revived in other places, which are concerned with reestablishing a sense of lineage identity and belonging and educating their descendants (Zhang and Wu, 2016). Instead, the narrative of the Huangdun rites ties the flourishing of individuals and lineages to the stability of the nation–state, thus echoing the official discourse in support of the revival of lineage culture. Therefore, although the provincial level does not directly support such activities, in practice, they are tacitly approved. For example, a member of the Zhu lineage argued that they are not in conflict with official ideology but are actually in accordance with the national policy of the “revival of outstanding traditional culture”. D4, the host of the ancestor worship ritual of the Zhu lineage, claimed that ancestor worship means, most importantly, acknowledging the moral principles of Neo-Confucianism, such as filial piety and reciprocation; these are the foundation and the core values of the Chinese orthodox tradition. This echoes the pursuit of cultural orthodoxy and ideological legitimacy of the contemporary Chinese Communist Party. Support from cultural policy at the national level provides an endorsement for such activities.

In addition to its connection to the moral principles of Neo-Confucianism, patriotism has been considered an essential rationale for ancestor worship in Huangdun. On 11th March 2023, at an ancestor worship ritual there, the leader of Association of Huang Lineage, Jiangxi Branch, stated why it is necessary to reclaim the lineage:

“Our Huang lineage has striven for the prosperity of the country and the rise of the nation–state for thousands of years. Our lineage has spread around the world, and our ancestors have left us the spiritual legacy that we need self-improvement and to strive not only for ourselves but for our family, lineage and nation.”

The vice-chairperson of the Association of Huang Lineage also noted an important link between lineage and the stability of the state:

“We have travelled thousands of kilometres to the Huangdun ancestral cemetery to pay our respects to our ancestors. We hope that our ancestors will bless the descendants of the Huang lineage…History tells us that countries can be destroyed, dynasties can be replaced, individuals can perish, and only the lineage can last forever. Only when there are members of the lineage can there be a whole nation. So, it is only the harmony and prosperity of lineages that constitutes the harmony and flourishing of the entire ethnicity and the nation.”

Such a narrative demonstrates a rationalisation of actions based on the collective memory of patriotism. On 17th April 2023, the Cheng lineage held their annual ancestor worship ritual in the restored cemetery in Huangdun. Approximately 800 lineage members participated. The slogans posted at the site proclaimed the orthodoxy of the lineage by highlighting the long history and notable historical figures of the lineage. All the named figures were famous bureaucrats in imperial times. In particular, Cheng Lingxi was the first Huizhou person to be recorded in the official chronicle because he both defended Huizhou during the civil war and recognise the authority of the imperial government. Therefore, he was bestowed the title ‘Shizhong (世忠)’, which means ‘loyal to the imperial court for generations’, by the Song emperor in the Jiading period (1223 AD). Since then, Cheng Lingxi has been considered an important local deity by the Huizhou people. This process incorporated folk gods into the officially recognised gods through an imperial edict. Through the process of ‘standardising the gods’, national institutions and powers thus intervene in folk beliefs and create a crossover of cultural meaning between national and local societies (Watson, 1985). Therefore, the Cheng lineage combines the notable figures of the lineage who were admired in imperial times to support real-time/contemporary lineage legitimacy. That is, they acknowledge their loyalty to the central regime and their role as guardians of the familiar common past of the Huizhou people. This explanation echoes the official discourse of national rejuvenation and allows nonlineage members to recognise the prominent status of the Cheng lineage. The interviews revealed general support and acknowledgement from local villagers and ordinary lineage members Figs. 1–5. This is a process to preserve and utilise the collective memory carried by the heritage, thus developing it into cultural awareness and establishing a collective identity (Song and Zhu, 2012).

Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Stone archway ‘Luo min su ben’ in Huangdun village.

(1)(2) Fragments of the stone archway excavated in the village. (3) Reconstructed stone archway. Source: Photograph provided by Jin Xinji and the author, 8th June 2022.

Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]

The ‘SanFuzi Ci (The hall of the three masters)’ and the stone archway.

(1): Illustration of the ‘SanFuzi Ci (The hall of the three masters)’ and the stone archway in the book ‘Huangdun Cheng Zhu que li ci zhi’, issue 3, edited in 1745. (2) Reconstructed SanFuzi Ci and the stone archway. Source: (1): National Library of China – Harvard-Yenching Library Chinese Rare Book Digitisation Project, Record ID: 990080258810203941. (2): Photographed by the authors, 13th April 2023.

Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Reconstructed SanFuzi Ci.

Front view of the reconstructed SanFuzi Ci. Source: Photograph by the authors, 13th April 2023.

Fig. 4 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Slogans at the first ancestor worship ritual of the Zhu lineage in Huangdun.

Slogans on the dissemination of Neo-Confucianism at the first ancestor worship ritual of the Zhu lineage in Huangdun. Source: Photograph by the authors, 13th April 2023.

Fig. 5 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Ancestor worship ritual of the Cheng lineage in the ancestral cemetery.

Ancestor worship ritual of the Cheng lineage in 2023. Portraits of notable historical figures of the Cheng lineage are presented. Source: Photograph by the authors, 17th April 2023.

Similarly, D2, a local bureaucrat with the surname Cheng, has been dedicated to promoting and studying the genealogy of the Cheng lineage for several years. He proudly declared that he was the 64th-generation descendant of the lineage in Huizhou. He believes that the genealogy of his lineage proves that Huizhou has a long and uninterrupted cultural background. He said he was editing a book about ‘100 famous people in the history of the Huizhou Cheng patriarchal lineage’, with the following motivation:

“I want to achieve a goal through the excavation of Huizhou genealogy culture; that is, the study of traditional culture should serve the past for the present and promote the development of contemporary economy and society…Without a country, how can there be a family?”

This echoes the idea of the unity of the lineage and the country. Moreover, he pointed out that those who actively participate in genealogy study and tracing their ancestors are basically those who have ‘achieved fame and fortune’ and wish to ‘glorify their ancestors’ through worship rituals:

“These participants generally are bureaucrats or enterprises with profound personal connections, funds and project resources, so they can promote the development of genealogy-seeking tourism, which can finally be transformed into capital investments in Huizhou. This is also due to the opportunities presented by a sense of identity recognition.”

This rhetoric refers to participants’ involvement in worship activities. D2 is currently a government official and is not permitted to participate in lineage activities. However, participants in the ancestor worship ritual of the Cheng lineage include former government bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and even a former provincial deputy director of the Department of Education. Thus, lineage ceremonies promote mutual connection and assistance not only within the same genealogy but also among officials, scholars, and enterprises. The rituals have become a good way for influential elites to bond and promote interaction, as well as providing opportunities for municipal or district officials to develop tourism and investment.

Notably, not everyone is interested in participating in lineage rituals and exploring the connotations of traditional culture; young people are particularly unenthusiastic. They usually do not have opportunities to directly benefit from the reuse of heritage. For most, traditional events and lineage rituals are simple proxies for celebration and collective revelry with an element of curiosity. This phenomenon is well explained by cultural heritage conservation activist D1:

“This example is like Christmas (in China); many people may just take it as a consumption holiday. Referring to the issue of cultural heritage and folklore, my point of view is, the first thing is to let young people know that such a beautiful historical place exists, even if they only visit it initially because it is nice to take pictures, so that there is a further chance someone will be interested in the connotation behind it.”

C4, a young member of the Cheng lineage from Beijing who has participated in the ritual, described the ceremony as an astonishing experience that made him interested in the rich history and glorious past of the lineage. C3 from Jiangxi expressed a similar attitude. Thus, although not everyone understood or was passionate about the revival of traditions and conservation of heritages, different participants found their own areas of interest and reasons for involvement in the activities in this process. D3, a resident who had been away from Huangdun since 1953 and now lived in another county, was the most active and important editor of the Huangdun chronicle. He spent five years editing the chronicle without pay, believing this to be his most meaningful contribution to local affairs. Just as most participants were from other provinces or even abroad, this reflects that the shaping of identity, based on shared local history and pride, could transcend geography and attribution. Huangdun, this small village, has thus become a ‘hometown that has never been met’ by many people. The process of idealised heritage creates a new environment in which participants can discover their own possibilities and concerns. As a result, the emphasis on immortality, aesthetics, and authority in the field of heritage is increasingly being replaced by a more inclusive approach that combines ordinary, popular, and intangible heritages (Featherstone, 2007).

Discussion

In the case of Huangdun, the ‘authenticity’ in the professional conception of cultural heritage was not valued by the participants during the implementation of specific ritual processes and etiquette. Rather, the participants sought the sense of cohesion and moulding power over individuals that comes from group activities based on a common identity. The lineage rituals reappropriated in this new era were accompanied by lively celebrations, singing and dancing, banquets and travel for a few days after the ceremony. The whole process was enveloped in a cheerful atmosphere and allowed for the participation of members of all ages, as well as females and members with foreign surnames. These proceedings were completely different from the traditional rituals that are shrouded in hierarchical patriarchy. This is why they are more appropriately regarded as a ‘cultural carnival’ for sufficient ‘legitimate’ reasons. They can be inclusive, bringing together individuals with different intentions and identities. Before such a ceremony, most participants may be complete strangers, but with the identification of the Huizhou region and lineage, they borrow the collective memory from the past and then construct a new one. The result is cordial communication among strangers and deserved recognition and support of each other. The sense of presence created in lineage activities strengthens recognition of and respect for individuals and provides participants with the possibility of security, dependence, and real career ties. Participants’ sense of existence and self-meaning are highlighted and respected in lineage activities. Therefore, rebuilding a sense of community through lineage revival is the focus of this process. This community is not a narrowly defined local community based on locality and kinship in the general sense but rather a cultural community that transcends geography and is spread across more than a dozen provinces in China and overseas.

Huangdun thus serves as a symbolic historical site, using lineage ceremonies as a platform to unite the network of group relationships based on consensus. On the one hand, this reinforces the orthodoxy derived from cultural traditions and lineages and integrates the cross-regional identity of the same family name so that the lineage is not limited to strict bloodlines, which is helpful in expanding the power of the reconstructed community. More importantly, in conjunction with the preservation of Huizhou’s heritage and tradition, it reinvents and expands the notion of the identity of the ‘Huizhou people’ at a time when Huizhou as an administrative entity has disappeared. A concept based on cultural identity subtly allows the recognition of lineage origin from Huangdun to be transformed into a cross-regional identity.

This is precisely in line with the official intention of strengthening nationalist discourse. For example, with Huangshan village in the same city, the reconstruction of tradition since 2013 has centred on the sacrifice of the Yellow Emperor, which was claimed to have originated from the intangible cultural heritage ‘Xuanyuan Che Hui (轩辕车会)’. This is both a way of correlating the concept of the Yellow Emperor and the Yellow Mountain to promote local pride and prestige based on cultural orthodoxy and a means of fitting in with the idea of grand unity. Thus, for officials, the specific local manifestations of folk worship are not important, and there is a high degree of freedom but also an acknowledgement of local–central unified concepts and ideologies of grand unity (Faure and Liu, 2008). Existing critical heritage studies usually criticise the government based on discursive hegemony and official standard norms that call for the specific use of heritage and expression, which ignores folk discourse and marginalises the demands of vulnerable groups. Most actions at the official level are characterised by a dominant position based on authorised heritage discourse, but this does not mean that civil discourse and intentions are completely suppressed and opposed in an a priori manner. Although lineage activities draw on the idea of cultural heritage preservation and appeal to the official discourse of patriotism, their relationship with officialdom is delicate. Similarly, China’s Shanxi Province has consciously constructed a new identity for former Shanxi merchants as innovative and ethical entrepreneurs since the 1990s, which has not only become part of the discourse emphasising contemporary Shanxi business development but also significantly reshaped the public understanding of local history and identity (Kong, 2010). At the national level, lineage traditions and activities could become the carriers of official discourse to preach official ideology. For example, officials may visit ancestral halls for anticorruption education through learning about exemplary bureaucrats and personalities from history, spreading traditional morals such as loyalty and filial piety through the tradition of lineages, and learning and citing from lineage rules and laws to maintain local management and social order (The Supreme People’s Court of The People’s Republic of China, 2023). Events in Huangdun have helped enhance local pride, and Huizhou’s cultural image and long history and the image of its gentry, who once relied on lineage relations to succeed, have been embellished. This serves to indoctrinate and spread ideology. For instance, the Huangdun Village History Museum was funded by the government and displays the deeds of various lineages and famous figures throughout the village’s history. It has become a must-visit site for those who come to Huangdun to worship their ancestors. There are even small-scale, privately sponsored cultural conferences on kinship study during this process. Individual participants’ self-perception and sense of place are thus awakened and become clearer, which may help strengthen the sense of belonging and official narrative of state agencies, but it may also have the opposite effect on regionalism and division. The revival of lineage tradition is thus, in fact, a contractual relationship with the official that is mutually beneficial though full of continuous contradictions (Freedman, 2021).

Through the empirical and discursive study of related ceremonies, we can observe that for the influential members involved in this process, it is a potential way to expand their own interpersonal network and local influence. The different intentions in the use of lineage traditions between people and officials have led to an implicit conflict. Although the revival of traditional culture and the reuse of heritage offer approaches to rationalise the organisation and activities of civic groups, for local governments, there is a potential risk of making local affairs more complicated and less impactful. The central government has always been wary of the growth of civil society organisations, hoping to maintain the flattened control and authority of the Communist Party of China in local areas. Currently, the trend of lineage revival represented by Huangdun village is still strongly dominated by elites and nonlocal influential people. Moreover, because lineage activities have no connection to local management and democratic decision-making, such actions can only serve as an interest-gaining tool for elite groups and intralineage relations. At the same time, the ambiguity of officialdom and the lack of clear regulations allow for “grey areas” of operation in matters relating to lineage activities. It is worth continuously observing how lineage reconstruction trends under traditional culture revival and cultural heritage conservation schemes will reflect the coordination of folk and official purposes.

Conclusion

This article analyses the role of traditional Chinese cultural revival in shaping group identity and forging consensus. The study notes that in the nostalgic historical interpretation process, the revival of lineage activities in Huangdun has essentially become a multisystem structure that encompasses the enhancement of the village’s built environment, the generation of income for the local economy, the construction of cultural industries, and the shaping of the group’s identity. For local society, the actions of lineages and folk groups subtly highlight the consistency between the recovery of local tradition and official discourse and national policy, recognising the consensus of the values of stability and loyalty. This ingenious strategy has allowed folk action to gain official acquiescence. This process connects and expands the network of lineage members through rituals, and thus, economic benefits can flow to individual subjects, while other locals who are not part of the lineage can benefit from infrastructure upgrades and the dividends of tourism. For local officials, although they maintain neutrality towards the revival of lineage traditions, the lack of investment capabilities at the regional government level and the endorsement of national cultural policies make lineage interventions possible. The difference in intentions between officials and locals is aligned with mutual precaution and realistic goals. The example of Huangdun shows that the reappropriation of heritage/tradition should be considered a process of social construction and cultural reshaping rather than just ontological performance. This dual reconstruction and redefinition of historical buildings, sites, and traditions is a reminder of the dubious dichotomy between tangible and intangible elements in existing mainstream heritage theory. Identity recognition based on a wide lineage network provides members with transcendental collective security and pride. Thus, the community is reconstructing in this collective activity, and the process of reappropriating traditions and utilising them under the banner of the past and ancestors is fully legitimate and inclusive. The revival of lineage traditions by folk groups has drawn on the theoretical support provided by cultural policies at the national level while also satisfying the political desires of local governments eager to develop the tourism economy and achieve rural revitalisation. Lineage worship traditions have thus been sustained and have become a signature local cultural phenomenon.

The collective memory is reawakened in the nostalgia process through interaction with heritages and the review of history. Although the lineage revival in Huangdun draws on the official discourse of preservation and reuse of cultural heritage and traditions, the details of its rituals today differ from the historical records, as well as from the processes and locations of rituals during the imperial period. These historical facts and the truth about ancestral lineage are no longer important today. Importantly, the universalisation and blurring of heritages have led to a romanticised imagination that substitutes the events and concepts of ‘today’ for the scenes of ‘the past’. The category of “identity” thus has the potential to transcend time, space, class, and material conditions to become a wide-ranging and highly universal concept, enabling the expansion of group consensus and healing wounds of reality. Therefore, each participant’s nostalgic memory of the vernacular community and ancestry, along with their subjective understanding of history, reconstructs the collective memory. In this process of continuous accumulation and self-persuasion, the history of lineage and perceptions of groups are reinforced, integrated and eventually aggregated into the grand narrative of who ‘we’ are: ‘true’ Huizhou people with many traditions and a long shared history centred on a noble lineage. This recognition, based on shared identity and the value of ‘harmony’, has led to the construction of grassroots communities. It is also a current consideration for the current Chinese official discourse, which is inclined to use the term ‘cultural gene’ to describe ideological inheritance extracted from cultural tradition (Li et al., 2015; People’s Daily Online, 2022). Therefore, the experience of the reuse of rural heritages in Huizhou, China, reveals that historical traditions and values are subtly interpreted in conjunction with contemporary socialist values and are intended to persuade visitors to be humble, courteous, subordinate, and disciplined. Importantly, “us” originates from history and shares a common past. The contestation of what is “Huizhou culture” and what is “us” has become vaguer and negotiable. Therefore, following the Confucian orthodox order to promote the establishment of a “harmonious” society, the contribution of lineage is consistent with that of the nation–state. Finally, the interpretation and reuse of heritage and tradition are based on a priori value implications: Heritage and traditions are not only relics, rituals or cultural commodities in a narrow sense; to some extent, heritage is a declaration based on current ideology and cultural awareness.

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude to the scholars and participants in Huangshan for their help in the research, their availability for the interviews, and their generous arrangement of the site visits, as well as to Jin Xinji (金鑫季) of Huangdun village and Cheng Jingliang (程景梁) for research material support. We are grateful to Professor Xu Subin (徐苏斌) for her support for this research.

Data availability

The data for this research consist mainly of video recordings, interview records, and historical documents, which were collated and analysed to present the results in the article. Original video recordings, interview records, and photographs cannot be shown directly to the public to protect the privacy and ownership of the interviewees and authors. However, if potential readers would like to obtain a copy of any of the original video recordings, interview records, etc., they may do so by specifying the purpose and providing specific contact, affiliation, and other information in a request. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical statements

This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the author’s institution, Tianjin University and the National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (Beijing, China, CN), Number: No. 21ZD01. All the interview records were reviewed and approved by the interviewees.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants and/or their legal guardians.

1

Since 2001, the multiyear project ‘In Search of the Origins of Chinese Civilisation: A Long-term Transdisciplinary Program’ has continued to receive the support of national research funding programmes and has been in operation for decades, analysing the origins of Chinese civilisation and whether it could extend back 5000 years. The project has been greatly valued and supported by Chinese officials. See the detailed descriptions from The Institute of Archaeology CASS: http://www.kaogu.cn/en/Research_work/Exploration_on_the_origin_of_Ch/2013/1025/30314.html and from The State Council Information Office of China: http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/2018-05/29/content_51528874.htm.

2

In 2017, the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China released the ‘Opinions on the Implementation of the Project of the Inheritance and Development of the Outstanding Chinese Traditional Culture’: http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/xwbfbh/wqfbh/37601/38768/xgzc38774/Document/1634775/1634775.htm.

3

The Chinese national government has been highlighting the importance of protecting history and cultural heritage in recent years for various national departments. See the notice of the Ministry of Culture And Tourism of the People’s Republic of China: https://zwgk.mct.gov.cn/zfxxgkml/qt/202206/t20220602_933336.html and the notice of the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China: http://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/gwxw/ttxw/202203/t20220323_451311.html.

4

Several central government departments of China, including The Ministry of Housing and Urban‒Rural Development, the Ministry of Culture, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, and the Ministry of Finance, jointly launched a policy to conserve traditional villages in 2012. See: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012-04/24/content_2121340.htm.

5

See the description of the traditional ancestor worship ceremony of Huizhou on the website of China Intangible Cultural Heritage: https://www.ihchina.cn/project_details/15225.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Ashworth, GJ; Graham, B; Tunbridge, JE. Pluralising pasts: heritage, identity and place in multicultural societies; 2015; London, Pluto Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18mvnhw]

Ashworth GJ (1994) “From History to Heritage-From Heritage to Identity”. In: Ashworth, GJ, Larkham, PJ (eds) Building a new heritage. Routledge, p 16

Bauman, Z. Community: seeking safety in an insecure world; 2013; Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons:

Beattie, HJ. Land and lineage in China: a study of T’ung-Ch’eng county, Anhwei, in the Ming and Ching dynasties; 1979; New York, Cambridge University Press:

Billioud, S; Thoraval, J. The contemporary revival of confucianism. Anshen liming or the religious dimension of Confucianism. China Perspect.; 2008; 2008, 3 pp. 88-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.4123]

Blumenfield, T; Silverman, H. Cultural heritage politics in China; 2013; New York, NY, USA, Springer: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6874-5]

Canavan, B; McCamley, C. Negotiating authenticity: three modernities. Ann Tour Res; 2021; 88, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103185]

Esherick J, Rankin MB (1990) Chinese local elites and patterns of dominance (Vol. 11). University of California Press, Berkeley

Faure, D; Siu, HF. Down to earth: the territorial bond in South China; 1995; Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9780804764735]

Faure, DW; Liu, Z. Standardization or legitimization? Perception of the unity of Chinese culture from the standpoint of popular beliefs. J Hist Anthropol; 2008; 6, 1 & 2 pp. 1-21.

Featherstone M (2007) Consumer culture and postmodernism, 2nd edn. Sage, London

Fraser N (2003) Rethinking recognition: overcoming displacement and reification in cultural politics. In: Hobson B (ed) Recognition struggles and social movements: contested identities, agency and power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–34

Freedman, M. Lineage organization in Southeastern China; 2021; London, Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003135296]

Giblin J (2015) Critical approaches to post-colonial (post-conflict) heritage. In: Waterton E, Watson S (eds) The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research. Palgrave Macmillan, London, p 319

Glassberg, D. Public history and the study of memory. Public Hist.; 1996; 18, 2 pp. 7-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3377910]

Groote P, Haartsen T (2016) The communication of heritage: creating place identities. In: Graham B, Howard P (eds) The Routledge research companion to heritage and identity. Routledge, pp 181–194

Guangming Daily (2023) 传统家礼文化的地位、功能与传承价值 [The status, function and inherited value of traditional lineage ritual culture]. https://news.gmw.cn/2023-07/03/content_36669103.htm. Accessed 3 Jul 2023

Halbwachs, M. The collective memory; 1980; New York, Harper Colophon Books:

Harrison, R. Heritage: critical approaches; 2012; Abingdon, Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203108857]

Harvey, D. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change; 1989; Oxford, Blackwell Publishing:

Harvey, DC. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. Int J Herit Stud; 2001; 7, 4 pp. 319-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13581650120105534]

Hazelton KD (1984) Lineages and local elites in Hui-Chou, 1500-1800. Princeton University

Hobsbawm E, Ranger T (2012) The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 10–13

Hubbert, J. Back to the future: the politics of culture at the Shanghai Expo. Int J Cult Stud; 2017; 20, 1 pp. 48-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367877915597495]

Hwang KK (2012) Confucian relationalism and social exchange. In: Foundations of Chinese psychology International and cultural psychology. Springer, New York, pp 187–217

Kendall, P. The location of cultural authenticity: identifying the real and the fake in Urban Guizhou. China J; 2017; 77, pp. 93-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/688851]

Kong, S. Cultural propaganda in the age of economic reform: popular media and the social construction of shanxi merchants in contemporary China. China J; 2010; 63, pp. 79-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/tcj.63.20749195]

Li, S; Huang, J; Zhao, G. The Chinese traditional culture genes in Xi Jinping’s doctrine; 2015; China, The Starite Book Co Ltd.:

Liu B (2011) 徽州篁墩氏族迁徙考论 [A study of the migration of the Huangdun lineage in Huizhou]. Hist Res Anhui(3):74–82

Lowenthal, D. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history; 1998; Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511523809]

Madsen, R. From socialist ideology to cultural heritage: the changing basis oflegitimacy in the People’s Republic of China. Anthropol Med; 2014; 21, 1 pp. 58-70.MathSciNet ID: 1314377[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2014.880875] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24564490]

Martínez, PG. The ‘preservation by relocation’ of Huizhou vernacular architecture: shifting notions on the authenticity of rural heritage in China. Int J Herit Stud; 2022; 28, 2 pp. 200-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1955728]

McDermott, JP. The making of a new rural order in South China: volume 1, village, land, and lineage in Huizhou, 900–1600; 2013; Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107070455]

Miller, H. State versus gentry in late Ming dynasty China, 1572–1644; 2008; New York, Springer:

Norra P (1996) Realms of memory: rethinking the French past. Volume 1: conflicts and divisions. Columbia University Press, New York

Park, HY. Heritage tourism; 2013; London, Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315882093]

People’s Daily Online (2022) 习近平谈历史文化遗产保护 [Xi Jinping talks about the protection of history and cultural heritage]. http://politics.people.com.cn/n1/2022/0323/c1001-32381843.html. Accessed 27 Apr 2023

Samuel, R. Theatres of memory: past and present in contemporary culture; 2012; London, Verso Books:

Sather-Wagstaff J (2015) Heritage and memory. In: Waterton E, Watson S (eds) The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 191–204

Sato H (2017) 近代中国的乡土意识: 清末民初江南的地方精英与地域社会 [Vernacular consciousness in modern China: local elites and regional society in Jiangnan in the Late Qing and early republican periods]. Beijing Normal University Press

Sayer, A. Class, moral worth and recognition. Sociology; 2005; 39, 5 pp. 947-963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038505058376]

Smith, L. Uses of heritage; 2006; London and New York, Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263]

Song, F; Zhu, T. 国家遗产.集体记忆.文化认同 [National heritage, collective memory, and cultural identity]. Chin. Landsc. Arch.; 2012; 28, 11 pp. 23-26.

Sørensen LS, Carman J (2009) Heritage studies: methods and approaches. Routledge, London, pp 3

Stille, A. The future of the past; 2002; New York, Macmillan:

Svensson M (2016) In the ancestors’ shadow: cultural heritage contestations in Chinese villages. Centre for East and Southeast Asian Studies, Lund University, Lund

The Supreme People’s Court of The People’s Republic of China (2023) 古徽州“公约”文化现象下的乡村治理 [Rural governance under the cultural phenomenon of “convention” in ancient Huizhou]. https://www.court.gov.cn/jianshe/xiangqing/395392.html. Accessed 30 May 2023

Walton LA (1999) Academies and society in Southern Sung China. University of Hawaii Press, Honululu

Watson JL (1985) TEN. Standardizing the gods: the promotion of T’ien Hou (“empress of heaven”) along the South China coast, 960 - 1960. In: Johnson D, Nathan AJ, Rawski ES (eds) Popular culture in late imperial China. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 292–324

roboWen C (2019) 从异域到旧疆 (宋至清贵州西北部地区的制度开发与认同) [From foreign lands to old territory (institutional development and recognition in northwestern Guizhou from Song to Qing)]. Social Sciences Academic Press

Xinan Evening News (2020) 黄山市千万巨资维护篁墩古村风貌 修复清代牌坊 [Huangshan city invested 10 million yuan to maintain the style of Huangdun ancient village and restore an archway of the Qing dynasty]. https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20201127A0B0IF00. Accessed 16 Apr 2023

Xu B (2021) 明清乡村绅权建构与社会认同研究: 以徽州士绅修谱为中心 [Research on the construction of rural gentry power and social identity in Ming and Qing Period: focusing on the compilation of genealogy by Huizhou gentry, China]. Social Sciences Press

Yan, H. World heritage as discourse: knowledge, discipline and dissonance in Fujian Tulou sites. Int J Herit Stud; 2014; 21, 1 pp. 65-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.894930]

Zhang, Y; Wu, Z. The reproduction of heritage in a Chinese village: whose heritage, whose pasts?. Int J Herit Stud; 2016; 22, 3 pp. 228-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1114505]

Zhu, Y; Martínez, PG. Heritage, values and gentrification: the redevelopment of historic areas in China. Int J Herit Stud; 2022; 28, 4 pp. 476-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.2010791]

Zou, Y. Huizhou tea industry and local society since Ming and Qing periods (1368-1949); 2012; Fudan University Press:

Zurndorfer, HT. Local lineages and local development: a case study of the fan lineage, Hsiu-Ning Hsien, Hui-Chou 800–1500. T’oung Pao; 1984; 70, 1 pp. 18-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853284X00026]