我国楠木资源告罄的社会原因探析
|
摘要
在明清两代,我国的西南各少数民族地区曾多次组织过大规模的"皇木"采办行动,并由此导致"劳命伤财"的重大社会影响。性急的学人不免以此为依据,认定"皇木"采办必然导致我国西南地区楠木资源储备的枯竭,并引发严重的生态祸患。甚至断言,这是当代楠木成了濒危植物的社会原因。然而,"皇木"采办的对象是数百年,乃至千年以上树龄的大型优质楠材,对百年以下树龄的楠木资源根本不屑一顾。就生态的总体观而论,局部的受损不足以引发生态系统的总崩溃。同时,"皇木"采办的目的和归宿仅止于满足朝廷和各级贵族的奢侈生活,在楠木资源的整体性消费中,所占比例极为有限。因而,无论从生态的整体观,还是从文化的整体观而言,"皇木"采办仅是一个局部问题,而生态的退变则是一个整体性问题,其间不存在必然的因果关系。所以有关结论皆不足为凭。由此来看,轻率断言明清时期"皇木"采办导致我国楠木资源的普遍绝迹,也为时尚早。其实,在政策驱动下,将前代的楠木宜林地改作旱地农田利用,其整体的生态负效应更明显,更直接,这才是活态楠木资源濒临灭绝的关键社会原因。
The Ming and Qing dynasties organized several large-scale purchases of "Huangmu"(wood for building palaces) in the ethnic minority areas in the southwest of China, which resulted in major social impacts. Some scholars used this as a basis to determine that the purchase of "Huangmu"will inevitably lead to the depletion of the Nanmu resource reserve in southwestern China and cause serious ecological disasters. It is even asserted that this is the social reason why the Nanmu has become a protected endangered plant.However, the target of the purchase of "Huangmu"is the Nanmu of large-scale high quality, which has been hundreds of years or even more than a thousand years, and those below a hundred years are simply not taken into consideration. As far as the overall concept of ecology is concerned, local damage is not enough to trigger the collapse of the ecosystem. At the same time, the purpose of the purchase of "Huangmu"only endeavors to satisfy the extravagant life of the imperial court and aristocrats, and its proportion in the overall consumption of Nanmu resources is extremely limited. Therefore, whether it is from the overall view of ecology or from the perspective of the overall view of culture, the purchase of "Huangmu"is only a partial problem, and the degeneration of ecology is a holistic problem. There is no direct causal relationship between them, thus the related conclusions are not sufficient. Since the beginning of the Republic of China, there has been another reason for the decline of China's Nanmu resources. Considering that during the period of the Republic of China, there had been Nanmu Street in many cities, which specialized in selling Nanmu products and compete to purchase high-end Nanmu furniture. From this point of view, it's too early to recklessly assert that China's Nanmu has been universally extinct. In fact, under the drive of the policy, changing the former Nanmu woodland into dryland farmland use, the ecological negative effect is more obvious and direct. This is the key social cause for the extinction of living Nanmu resources in China.
The Ming and Qing dynasties organized several large-scale purchases of "Huangmu"(wood for building palaces) in the ethnic minority areas in the southwest of China, which resulted in major social impacts. Some scholars used this as a basis to determine that the purchase of "Huangmu"will inevitably lead to the depletion of the Nanmu resource reserve in southwestern China and cause serious ecological disasters. It is even asserted that this is the social reason why the Nanmu has become a protected endangered plant.However, the target of the purchase of "Huangmu"is the Nanmu of large-scale high quality, which has been hundreds of years or even more than a thousand years, and those below a hundred years are simply not taken into consideration. As far as the overall concept of ecology is concerned, local damage is not enough to trigger the collapse of the ecosystem. At the same time, the purpose of the purchase of "Huangmu"only endeavors to satisfy the extravagant life of the imperial court and aristocrats, and its proportion in the overall consumption of Nanmu resources is extremely limited. Therefore, whether it is from the overall view of ecology or from the perspective of the overall view of culture, the purchase of "Huangmu"is only a partial problem, and the degeneration of ecology is a holistic problem. There is no direct causal relationship between them, thus the related conclusions are not sufficient. Since the beginning of the Republic of China, there has been another reason for the decline of China's Nanmu resources. Considering that during the period of the Republic of China, there had been Nanmu Street in many cities, which specialized in selling Nanmu products and compete to purchase high-end Nanmu furniture. From this point of view, it's too early to recklessly assert that China's Nanmu has been universally extinct. In fact, under the drive of the policy, changing the former Nanmu woodland into dryland farmland use, the ecological negative effect is more obvious and direct. This is the key social cause for the extinction of living Nanmu resources in China.
引文
[1]丁鑫,肖建华等.珍贵木材树种楠木的野生资源调查[J].植物分类与资源学报,2015,(5).
[2]周默.从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办[J].收藏,2013,(9).
[3]蓝勇.明清时期的皇木采办[J].历史研究,1994,(6).
[4]杨庭硕,彭兵.认识陷阱:当前生物多样性保护中亟待逃脱的四个误区[J].云南社会科学,2016,(4).
[5]彭兵.武陵山区生态退变的社会文化成因及对策研究[D].吉首大学,2017.
(1)刘志雄、费永俊:《我国楠木类种质资源现状及保育对策》,《长江大学学报(自然科学版)》2011年第5期。
(2)陈淑容:《不同立地因子对楠木生长的影响》,《福建林学院学报》2010年第2期。
(1)来源于田野访谈对象口述资料。
(2)周京南:《论中国传统家具珍贵用材的药用价值——以紫檀木、楠木为例》,《家具与室内装饰》2012年第6期。
(1)国务院政策法规处:《中华人民共和国野生植物保护条例》,中华人民共和国国务院令第204号,1996年。
(2)丁鑫、肖建华等:《珍贵木材树种楠木的野生资源调查》,《植物分类与资源学报》2015第5期。
(3)[清]张天如等纂修:乾隆二十八年《永顺府志》卷10《物产》。
(4)[清]张天如等纂修:乾隆二十八年《永顺府志》卷10《物产》。
(1)[清]张廷玉撰《明史》卷79《志第五十五》。
(2)周默:《从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办》,《收藏》2013年第9期。
(1)杨庭硕、彭兵:《认识陷阱:当前生物多样性保护中亟待逃脱的四个误区》,《云南社会科学》2016年第4期。
(2)周默:《从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办》,《收藏》2013年第9期。
(3)蓝勇:《明清时期的皇木采办》,《历史研究》1994年第6期。
(4)雷信来、郑明钧:《南诏大理国对唐宋王朝的历史文化认同》,《广西社会科学》2015年第6期。
(5)蓝勇:《明清时期的皇木采办》,《历史研究》1994年第6期。
(1)杨庭硕、孙庆忠:《生态人类学与本土生态知识研究——杨庭硕教授访谈录》,《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年第1期。
(2)[清]林继钦、龚南金修,袁祖绶等纂:《保靖县志》卷12《告示》。
(1)彭兵:《武陵山区生态退变的社会文化成因及对策研究》,吉首大学硕士学位论文,2017年。
(2)马国君:《我国粮食作物地域性差异的生态价值探微——以清代方志“谷之属”所涉农作物为例》,《贵州社会科学》2017年第6期。
(1)[美]朱利安·斯图尔德著,谭卫华、罗康隆译:《文化变迁论》,贵州人民出版社,2003年。
[2]周默.从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办[J].收藏,2013,(9).
[3]蓝勇.明清时期的皇木采办[J].历史研究,1994,(6).
[4]杨庭硕,彭兵.认识陷阱:当前生物多样性保护中亟待逃脱的四个误区[J].云南社会科学,2016,(4).
[5]彭兵.武陵山区生态退变的社会文化成因及对策研究[D].吉首大学,2017.
(1)刘志雄、费永俊:《我国楠木类种质资源现状及保育对策》,《长江大学学报(自然科学版)》2011年第5期。
(2)陈淑容:《不同立地因子对楠木生长的影响》,《福建林学院学报》2010年第2期。
(1)来源于田野访谈对象口述资料。
(2)周京南:《论中国传统家具珍贵用材的药用价值——以紫檀木、楠木为例》,《家具与室内装饰》2012年第6期。
(1)国务院政策法规处:《中华人民共和国野生植物保护条例》,中华人民共和国国务院令第204号,1996年。
(2)丁鑫、肖建华等:《珍贵木材树种楠木的野生资源调查》,《植物分类与资源学报》2015第5期。
(3)[清]张天如等纂修:乾隆二十八年《永顺府志》卷10《物产》。
(4)[清]张天如等纂修:乾隆二十八年《永顺府志》卷10《物产》。
(1)[清]张廷玉撰《明史》卷79《志第五十五》。
(2)周默:《从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办》,《收藏》2013年第9期。
(1)杨庭硕、彭兵:《认识陷阱:当前生物多样性保护中亟待逃脱的四个误区》,《云南社会科学》2016年第4期。
(2)周默:《从明清史料看宫廷皇木(楠木)采办》,《收藏》2013年第9期。
(3)蓝勇:《明清时期的皇木采办》,《历史研究》1994年第6期。
(4)雷信来、郑明钧:《南诏大理国对唐宋王朝的历史文化认同》,《广西社会科学》2015年第6期。
(5)蓝勇:《明清时期的皇木采办》,《历史研究》1994年第6期。
(1)杨庭硕、孙庆忠:《生态人类学与本土生态知识研究——杨庭硕教授访谈录》,《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年第1期。
(2)[清]林继钦、龚南金修,袁祖绶等纂:《保靖县志》卷12《告示》。
(1)彭兵:《武陵山区生态退变的社会文化成因及对策研究》,吉首大学硕士学位论文,2017年。
(2)马国君:《我国粮食作物地域性差异的生态价值探微——以清代方志“谷之属”所涉农作物为例》,《贵州社会科学》2017年第6期。
(1)[美]朱利安·斯图尔德著,谭卫华、罗康隆译:《文化变迁论》,贵州人民出版社,2003年。