罗马尼亚旅行推荐之“DIMTRIE GUSTI”国家乡村博物馆
如果您来到罗马尼亚首都布加勒斯特BUCHAREST，一定不要错过露天博物馆——“DIMTRIE GUSTI”国家乡村博物馆THE NATIONAL VILLAGE MUSEUM "Dimitrie Gusti"。
个人游览心得是，震惊于这种保持、抢救、展现必将随着时间流逝时代变迁而湮灭的民居、民俗的博物馆，想法在那么早的年代就提出（在罗马尼亚建立露天博物馆的想法从19世纪下半叶就开始了）。想法亦在这么早的年代就得以实现:在政府的支持下，众多学者有志人仕数辈人的努力，1936年5月10日，在国王查理二世的见证下，乡村博物馆正式开馆。更难得可贵的是，历经多年时光变幻，社会变迁，直到今天，我们仍然可以看到形式丰富，形态完整的露天建筑民居、民俗展现，传统的保留传承。
该博物馆座落在Lake Herastrau湖畔，占地9公顷。建议花费2-3小时慢慢游览、体味。
（当天游览时未用手机拍照，照片全部在相机里，故本记未附图）
以下是网络上搜寻到的该博物馆相关历史简介:
“DIMTRIE GUSTI” NATIONAL VILLAGE MUSEUM “迪米特里·古斯蒂”民族村博物馆史料简介 在罗马尼亚首都正中央的赫拉斯特劳湖畔，来自世界各地的游客都有邂逅一个真正“村庄”的喜悦，这里有从17世纪到20世纪初的古迹和文物，来自重要民族志地区的代表性建筑在国家村庄博物馆“迪米特里”被赋予了第二次生命“古什蒂”。 在罗马尼亚建立露天博物馆的想法从19世纪下半叶就开始了。1867年，文化知名人士亚历山德鲁·奥多贝斯库提议在巴黎万国展览会上，在一个特别设计的展馆中展示流行建筑的纪念碑。后来，学者Alexandru zigara Samurca sh设想将一些“罗马尼亚人居住的所有最重要地区的正宗和完整的家庭”带到他1906年在布加勒斯特建立的民族艺术、装饰艺术和工业艺术民族志博物馆，这个项目于1909年实现，在这个博物馆展出了戈尔杰县的一所农民房。 20世纪30年代，欧洲只有两个露天博物馆：斯德哥尔摩的Skansen博物馆（瑞典，1891年）和利勒哈默的Bygdoy博物馆（挪威）。在我国，当时，由Romulus Vuia教授于1929年创建的克鲁日“Hoia”公园的特兰西瓦尼亚民族志博物馆，具有地域特殊性；1936年起在布加勒斯特的罗马尼亚村落博物馆（今天的国家村落博物馆“Dimitrie Gu sh ti”），具有民族性。 乡村博物馆的建立是在布加勒斯特社会学学院创始人Dimitrie Gusti教授的协调下，经过十多年的紧张和持续的理论和实地研究以及博物馆实验的结果。作为布加勒斯特大学社会学系主任，古斯蒂在1925年至1935年期间，与来自各个领域的专家（社会学家、人种学家、民俗学家、地理学家、统计学家、医生）和他的学生一起，在相当多的村庄（Fundu Moldovei-Suceava县、Nereju-Vrancea县Dragus-Brasov县、Dragomiresti-Maramures县、Clopotiva-Hunedoara县、Runcu-Gorj县、Rusetu-Buzau县等）组织了跨学科的专题研究活动。 在这些经验的基础上，在构思的艰苦工作和皇家基金会“查尔斯王子”的精神和物质支持下，1936年3月，仅用两个月的时间，就有可能建造出一件非凡的博物馆作品。在这短短的时间里，由D. Gusti教授和H. H. Stahl教授领导的专家和学生小组（参加实地运动的同一批人）从被调查的村庄购置了农民建筑（房屋、附属建筑、教堂、技术装置）和室内物品（家具、陶瓷、织物、工具等），这些都被认为是其原籍地的代表。 按照今天仍然有效的真实性和尊重当地建筑传统的标准，博物馆的建造是在专家的认真监督下重新组装的，主要是亨利·H·斯塔尔和维克托·伊昂·波帕，他们是从纪念碑起源的村庄带来的工匠。 1936年5月10日，在国王查理二世的见证下，乡村博物馆正式开馆，一周后，1936年5月17日。 在1936年至1940年的早期阶段，乡村博物馆有4.5公顷的土地。在这片土地上，有33个真正的建筑群，从所研究的村庄转移过来：带附属建筑的房屋、一座教堂（来自马拉穆鲁斯县Dragomire shtti）、水槽、技术装置、喷泉和尖顶。他们的布局是基于剧作家和布景设计师V. I. Popa拟定的计划。 D. Gusti教授和他的合作者将罗马尼亚乡村博物馆设想为一个社会学博物馆，认为它的使命是向参观者展示罗马尼亚农民生活的现实，村庄的生活。这就是为什么，定期地，来自古迹原籍村庄的农民家庭会住在博物馆的房子里，起初甚至是前主人。这些“居民”带着生活所需的一切来到布加勒斯特，包括鸟类和动物。 学者迪米特里·古斯蒂（Dimitrie Gusti）领导的社会学学派的伟大功绩是无可争议的，但同样真实的是，由于在当时没有适当处理保护和修复遗产的条件下大量使用古迹和博物馆文物，导致古迹和博物馆文物恶化的情况。 1940年，布科维纳和黑塞哥维那的一部分比萨拉比亚并入苏联后，布加勒斯特市政府决定在博物馆的部分住户中安置来自布科维纳和比萨拉比亚的难民家庭。后来，没有找到其他解决办法，这意味着它们一直在博物馆里呆到1948年。在这种条件下，博物馆被置于无法再继续开展活动的境地。此外，由于侵占这些古迹使用不当，导致大量家庭库存被毁。在损失一章中，我们还应提及1937年由于为建造伊丽莎白宫开辟工地而拆除的古迹（Bessarabia的六座风车、马其顿的一座房屋、Caliacra的一座住宅、一座浮磨和一座cherhana）。 1948年，乡村博物馆重新向公众开放，Gusti教授的前学生和专题研究小组成员Gheorghe Foc shAh被任命为博物馆馆长，标志着该机构发展的第二阶段的开始。Gheorghe FocšA在担任董事之初承担的第一项任务是疏散博物馆的其余租户，以阻止遗产的恶化。同时，他的努力还指向为博物馆配备自己的专家工作人员，因为在战前，该机构只有一名管理员。 除了共产党政权的变迁，博物馆充分感受到了共产党政权的变迁，由于馆长Gheorghe Foc shsh a的专业能力和他拒绝向旧政权的限制和压力让步，博物馆不仅成功地生存了下来，而且还记录了重要的成就。 博物馆的发展方向基于多重标准：历史性的（在17世纪至20世纪的空间发展中，传统栖息地的表现--并隐含着流行文化）、社会性的（由于处理的方式，今天有问题，展览也有望反映被剥削农民的状况）、地理性的（按历史省份分组的古迹）在很大程度上今天仍然有效，倾向于复制罗马尼亚地图，根据起源地点地理上接近的标准，将建筑纪念碑和流行技术分组，在代表该国历史大省、经济（取决于职业和手工艺的家庭类型）、艺术（作为隐含或明确价值的美学存在）、真实性和典型性的部门。 根据这些标准，露天展览暗中导致了系统的研究和收购运动，并通过消除社会学成分，农民与展品一起出现，改变了它的概况，从一个“社会学保留地”转变为一个民族志博物馆。 通过其建筑和流行技术的展览，并含蓄地通过民族志物品的具体清单，以及通过新的博物馆组织概念，博物馆成功地以比过去更系统的方式向公众展示了一个村庄的形象--罗马尼亚的综合，其独创性、代表性、统一性和多样性。同时，由于一贯尊重和适用多样性中的统一原则，罗马尼亚民间文化与罗马尼亚其他民族民间文化之间的种族差异和干扰，Harghita县Bancu的一个Szekler家庭被转移，另一个来自Tulcea县Jurilovca的俄罗斯-Lypovians家庭被转移。 遗产发展新战略的制定，加上需要增加博物馆的展览空间，导致专门展示古迹的面积从1936年的4.5公顷扩大到9公顷，藏品也有所增加和多样化。露天展览的遗产得到了丰富，共有62个民间建筑群（1936年为33个），223座建筑物（40栋房屋、165座附属建筑、3座教堂、15个技术设施和工艺作坊），共有17000件文物，从实地获得的古迹包括suceAwA、Vaslui、V-lcea、Constan A、Alba、Hunedoara、Maramure等地区的家庭和房屋。 博物馆专家在此期间承担的其他目标是使该机构的活动多样化，对遗产和研究成果（实地和藏品）进行科学的资本化，以及博物馆实验，制作定期出版物，以及文化和教育活动，重点是与不同类别的参观者对话（临时展览、民间传说和节庆、传统服装展示、研讨会、目录、传单、指南、明信片、幻灯片等），老化的古迹，微生物攻击和固有的自然退化造成的保护和修复问题，导致建立了一个专门的遗产资产处理服务：[保护-修复实验室]，1978年，乡村博物馆与苏联民间艺术博物馆合并，名称为乡村和民间艺术博物馆。它将一直运作到1990年3月。 在1989年革命前的时期，博物馆数次受到搬迁到布加勒斯特以外的另一个地点的威胁，计划在那里扩大共产党领导层的住宅区。它逃脱了这场灾难，但是，像所有其他博物馆一样，它将不得不遭受，特别是在8世纪末，缺乏研究、收购和修复古迹的资金，以及实行“自负盈亏”政策的有害后果。尽管有这些可怕的条件，博物馆专家们还是设法找到了“界限”与该国各文化和科学机构合作开展的人种学研究合同提供的资金。 随着1989年12月的革命，乡村博物馆从与它合并的博物馆--现在的罗马尼亚农民博物馆分离出来，恢复了它的个性。为此，制定了一个系统的优先事项方案，涉及遗产的发展和常设室外展览和藏品中没有代表的专题部分的覆盖面，以及新的研究方向和基础，确保博物馆的所有其他活动有科学依据，启动和实施连贯一致的博物馆教学法项目以及与公众交流的互动形式。 除了露天展览和藏品外，博物馆还收藏了丰富的文献典藏，具有不可估量的历史和民族志价值。这些藏品包括手稿、研究、素描、图纸、测绘、木板、玻璃陈词滥调、胶片、黑白和彩色底片、照片，这些都来自帮助建立乡村博物馆的专题研究小组的实地研究和随后的调查。 2002年11月落成的一座多功能大楼解决了存放文物藏品、图书馆、文献藏品和博物馆具体活动的空间问题。用现代设备创造了空间，用于保护-修复实验室和文化和教育活动：专题展览和各种形式的“动画”，展示罗马尼亚村庄的活宝藏的遗产或使用。 1989年以前，博物馆较少参与国际科学和博物馆生活，近年来，博物馆成功地成为与欧洲和其他地方具有类似使命的各种机构建立联系的积极伙伴。外国专家出席了国家乡村博物馆“Dimitrie Gu sh sh ti”组织的国际座谈会，出席了露天博物馆协会的会议，该机构的研究人员和博物馆学家参加了其他国家该领域机构组织的科学活动，以及与各欧洲伙伴的研究合作。 我们还不能忽视这样一个事实，即多年来，国家乡村博物馆“Dimitrie Gu sh sh ti”为在该国组织新的博物馆和人种学部门（亚历山大博物馆人种学部门、阿尔巴尤利亚统一博物馆等）提供了支助。他还在罗马尼亚发展露天博物馆网络和在摩尔多瓦共和国（基希讷乌）建立第一个具有同样性质的博物馆方面发挥了重要作用。 不幸的是，博物馆最近的历史也记录了两个戏剧性事件：1997年9月5日（特兰西瓦尼亚区）和2002年2月20日（摩尔多瓦和多布罗吉亚区）的火灾，破坏了一些古迹和相关库存物品。由于全体博物馆工作人员的努力、国内几家博物馆的支持以及文化和国家遗产部以及一些赞助者的资金支持，对遭受灾难的建筑物进行的修复工程在较短时间内完成，古迹恢复至供游客游览。 HISTORICAL BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL VILLAGE MUSEUM "Dimitrie Gusti" On the shores of Lake Herastrau, right in the middle of Romania's capital, visitors from all over the world have the joy of encountering a real "village", with monuments and artifacts from the 17th century to the early 20th century. Representative buildings from important ethnographic areas have been given a second life at the National Village Museum "Dimitrie Guști". The idea of an open-air museum in Romania has been around since the second half of the 19th century. In 1867 Alexandru Odobescu, an eminent man of culture, proposed the presentation of monuments of popular architecture in a specially designed pavilion at the Universal Exhibition in Paris. Sometime later, the scholar Alexandru Țzigara Samurcaș was to envisage bringing to the Ethnographic Museum of National Art, Decorative Art and Industrial Art in Bucharest, founded by him in 1906, some "authentic and complete households from all the most significant regions inhabited by Romanians", a project that materialized in 1909, with the exhibition in this museum of a peasant house from Gorj county. In the 1930s, there were only two open-air museums in Europe: Skansen Museum in Stockholm (Sweden, 1891) and the Bygdoy Museum in Lillehamer (Norway). In our country, at that time, the Ethnographic Museum of Transylvania in "Hoia" Park of Cluj, founded in 1929 by Professor Romulus Vuia, with regional specificity, and the Romanian Village Museum (today the National Village Museum "Dimitrie Guști") in Bucharest, since 1936, with a national character. The creation of the Village Museum is the result of intense and sustained theoretical and field research, of museographic experiments, for over a decade, coordinated by Professor Dimitrie Gusti, founder of the Sociological School in Bucharest. As head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Bucharest, Gusti organized between 1925-1935, with specialists from various fields (sociologists, ethnographers, folklorists, geographers, statisticians, physicians) and his students, monographic research campaigns of an interdisciplinary nature in a relatively large number of villages (Fundu Moldovei - Suceava county, Nereju - Vrancea county Dragus - Brasov county, Dragomiresti - Maramures county, Clopotiva - Hunedoara county, Runcu - Gorj county, Rusetu - Buzau county etc.). On the basis of these experiences, of a hard work of conception and of the moral and material support of the Royal Foundation "Prince Charles", in March 1936, in only two months, it was possible to build an exceptional museographic work. In this short period of time, the teams of specialists and students (the same ones who had participated in the field campaigns), led by Professors D. Gusti and H. H. Stahl, acquired peasant buildings (houses, outbuildings, churches, technical installations) and interior objects (furniture, ceramics, fabrics, tools, etc.) from the villages surveyed, which were considered representative of their places of origin. In accordance with the criteria of authenticity and respect for local building traditions, which are still in force today, the construction of the museum was reassembled under the careful supervision of specialists, primarily Henry H. Stahl and Victor Ion Popa, craftsmen brought from the villages where the monuments originated. The official opening of the Village Museum took place on 10 May 1936, in the presence of King Charles II, and a week later, on 17 May 1936. In its early stages, between 1936 and 1940, the Village Museum had 4.5 ha of land. On this land there are 33 authentic complexes, transferred from the researched villages: houses with annexes, a church (from Dragomirești, Maramures county), troughs, technical installations, fountains and a spire. Their layout was based on a plan drawn up by the playwright and set designer V. I. Popa. Conceiving the Romanian Village Museum as a sociological museum, Professor D. Gusti and his collaborators considered that its mission was to show visitors the reality, the life of the village, as it was lived by the Romanian peasant. That is why, periodically, peasant families from the villages of origin of the monuments will live in the houses of the museum, at first even the former owners. These "inhabitants" came to Bucharest with everything they needed to live, including birds and animals. The great merits of the Sociological School led by the scholar Dimitrie Gusti can never be disputed, but equally true are the situations that led to the deterioration of monuments and museum objects, through their intensive use in conditions where, at the time, there were no appropriate treatments for the conservation and restoration of heritage. In 1940, following the incorporation of Bessarabia, part of Bukovina and Herzegovina into the Soviet Union, the Bucharest municipality decided to house families of refugees from Bukovina and Bessarabia in some of the households in the museum. The fact that, subsequently, no other solution could be found meant that they remained in the museum until 1948. Under these conditions, the museum was put in a situation where it could no longer continue its activity. In addition, the improper use of the monuments, through their occupation, led to the destruction of a significant number of household inventory. In the chapter of losses we should also mention the monuments dismantled in 1937 (six windmills from Bessarabia, a Macedonian house, a dwelling from Caliacra, a floating mill and a cherhana), as a result of the opening of construction site for the construction of the Elizabeth Palace. The year 1948, when the Village Museum reopened its doors to the public, and Gheorghe Focșa, a former student of Professor D. Gusti and member of the monographer teams, was appointed as its director, marked the beginning of a second stage in the evolution of the institution. The first task that Gheorghe Focșa undertook, at the beginning of his directorship, was to evacuate the remaining tenants of the museum, in order to stop the process of deterioration of the patrimony. At the same time, his efforts were also directed towards equipping the museum with its own staff of specialists, as before the war the institution had only one administrator. Beyond the vicissitudes of the communist regime, through which our country has passed and which the museum has felt in full, thanks to the professional capacity of the director Gheorghe Focșa and his refusal to make concessions to the constraints and pressures of the old regime, the museum has managed not only to survive, but also to record important achievements. The museum development directions were based on multiple criteria: historical (representation of the traditional habitat - and implicitly of popular culture - in its spatial development, between the 17th and 20th centuries), social (today questionable, due to the way in which it was approached, the exhibition is also expected to reflect the situation of the exploited peasant), geographical (grouping of monuments by historical provinces) - this plan, which to a large extent is still valid today, tends to reproduce the map of Romania, by grouping monuments of architecture and popular technique according to the criterion of geographical proximity of the localities of origin, in sectors representing the great historical provinces of the country, economic (typology of the household depending on the occupations and crafts), artistic (the presence of aesthetics as an implicit or explicit value), authenticity and typicality. On the basis of these criteria, which implicitly led to systematic research and acquisition campaigns, and by eliminating the sociological component, the presence of the peasant alongside the exhibits - objects, the open-air exhibition changes its profile, transforming itself from a "sociological reserve" into an ethnographic museum. Through its exhibition of architecture and popular techniques, and implicitly, through the specific inventory of ethnographic objects, as well as through the new museographic concept of organization, the museum succeeds in presenting to the public, in a more systematic way than in the past, the image of a village - synthesis of Romania, in its originality, representativeness, unity and diversity. At the same time, the consistent respect and application of the principle of unity in diversity has allowed to capture ethnic differences and interferences between Romanian folk culture and that of other nationalities in Romania, a Szekler household of Bancu, Harghita county being transferred, and another one of Russian-Lypovians from Jurilovca, Tulcea county. The elaboration of new strategies for the development of heritage, together with the need to increase the exhibition space of museum, led to the expansion of the area dedicated to the display of monuments, from 4.5 ha, as it was in 1936, to 9 ha, and to the growth and diversification of the collections. The heritage in the open-air exhibition is enriched, reaching a total of 62 complexes of folk architecture (compared to 33 in 1936), with 223 buildings (40 houses, 165 outbuildings, 3 churches, 15 technical installations and craft workshops), totalling an inventory of 17.000 objects, among the monuments acquired from the field were households and houses in the areas of Suceava, Vaslui, Vâlcea, Constanța, Alba, Hunedoara, Maramureș, etc. Other objectives, which the museum specialists have assumed during this period, have been aimed at diversifying the institution's activities, scientific capitalization of the heritage and research results (in the field and in the collections), as well as museographic experiments, the production of periodical publications, as well as cultural and educational activities, focusing on dialogue with different categories of visitors (temporary exhibitions, folklore shows and festivals, presentations of traditional costumes, seminars, catalogues, leaflets, guides, postcards, slides, etc.).), ageing monuments, conservation and restoration problems resulting from microbial attack and inherent natural deterioration have led to the creation of a specialized service for the treatment of heritage assets: “Conservation-restoration laboratory”, in 1978, the Village Museum merged with the Museum of Folk Art of the R.S.R., under the title of the Village and Folk Art Museum. It will operate as such until March 1990. During the period leading up to the 1989 Revolution, the museum was several times threatened with relocation to another site outside Bucharest, where it was planned to expand the residential area of the communist leadership. It escapes this disaster, but, like all other museums, it will have to suffer, especially at the end of the 8th decade, the harmful consequences of the lack of funds for research, acquisitions and restoration of monuments, and the application of the policy of "self-financing". Despite these dire conditions, museum specialists have managed to find "lines" of funding from ethnographic research contracts carried out in partnership with various cultural and scientific institutions in the country. With the Revolution of December 1989, the Village Museum regained its individuality by separating from the museum with which it had merged, the current Museum of the Romanian Peasant. To this end, a systematic programme of priorities has been drawn up, relating both to the development of the heritage and the coverage of thematic segments not represented in the permanent outdoor exhibition and in the collections, and to a new orientation and foundation for research, ensuring a scientific basis for all the museum other activities, the initiation and implementation of coherent museum pedagogy projects and interactive forms of communication with the public. In addition to the heritage in the open-air exhibition and collections, the museum also has a rich documentary collection of inestimable historical and ethnographic value. This collection is made up of manuscripts, studies, sketches, drawings, mapping, boards, glass cliches, films, black and white and colour negatives, photographs, which come both from the field research of the teams of monographers who helped found the Village Museum and from subsequent investigations. A multi-purpose building, inaugurated in November 2002, was the solution to the problem of the spaces for housing the collections of heritage objects, the library, the documentary collections and the specific activities of the museum. Spaces were created, with modern equipment, for conservation-restoration laboratories and for cultural and educational activities: thematic exhibitions and various forms of "animation" of the heritage or use of the living treasures of the Romanian village. Less present before 1989 in international scientific and museum life, the museum has succeeded in recent years in being an active partner in relations with various institutions with a similar vocation to its own, in Europe and elsewhere. Proof of this is the presence of foreign specialists at international colloquia organized by the National Village Museum "Dimitrie Guști", at the sessions of the Association of Open Air Museums, as well as the participation of researchers and museographers of the institution at scientific events organized by institutions of the field in other countries, as well as research collaborations with various European partners. We also cannot overlook the fact that, over the years, the National Village Museum "Dimitrie Guști" has provided support for the organization of new museums and ethnographic sections in the country (the ethnographic section of the Museum of Alexandria, of the Museum of Unification in Alba Iulia, etc.). He also played a fundamental role in the development of the network of open-air museums in Romania and in the creation of the first museum of the same profile in the Republic of Moldova (Chisinau). Unfortunately, the recent history of the museum has also recorded two dramatic events: the fires of 5 September 1997 (Transylvania sector) and 20 February 2002 (Moldova and Dobrogea sector), which damaged a number of monuments and related inventory objects. Thanks to the efforts of the entire museum staff, the support of several museums in the country and the financial support of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, as well as some sponsors, the restoration works carried out on the buildings that suffered from the disaster was completed in a relatively short period of time and the monuments were restored to the visitor circuit.
