The Chinese Eastern Railway: geostrategic heritage from the turn of the twentieth century in Northeast China

ABSTRACT The Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) is a 2,489 kilometers-long infrastructure network constructed by Russia in Northeast China at the turn of the twentieth century, which is still actively in use nowadays. A large number of architectonic structures, as important geostrategic heritages, are placed on both sides of the track. However, most of them had fallen into disrepair because the value of these diverse tangible elements remains under-appreciated through the years. By discerning and analyzing historical documents, this paper clarified and synthesized the background and construction process of the CER. Moreover, a full-scale field survey was conducted, from which nearly 2000 existing engineering facilities and buildings were discovered and documented. Based on systematic functional classification and distribution statistics, they were marked, analyzed, and mapped. This research provides a comprehensive understanding of the CER and reveals its heritage values. In addition to constructing the regional culture of Northeast China, as a living heritage, the heritagisation process of the CER may be able to facilitate and reflect the development of the current cultural heritage in China. Meanwhile, it is of significant importance to promote heritage use practically and improve the living environment for local people.


Purpose of study
The Chinese Eastern Railway (hereafter CER) is a transnational railway built in Northeast China during the period from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The construction and development of CER was a complete process of cultural transfer, which started the modernization of Northeast China and made this undeveloped frontier region undergo a leap in modern transformation. The urban system, the railways, and buildings generated by CER still function currently. Among all kinds of buildings and engineering facilities built to match the needs of railway construction and operation, more than 2000 have survived and experienced the "heritagisation" (Coomans, Th.; Identity Ambivalences of Monastic Heritage and International Networks 2011), or heritage-making process, from simple function facilities to protected cultural heritage. The process is a record of both the cognization of the cultural heritage concepts and the development of cultural heritage conservation in China. However, CER has not received the attention it deserves, has not been fully recognized as a cultural heritage, nor has it been fully protected and utilized. Instead, it had been neglected and destroyed in the process of urbanization. One of the key factors causing these problems is the backwardness of cognitive level on cultural heritage among Chinese official institutions.
Before the entry into the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1985, the concept of cultural heritage did not exist in official files in China. Since Temporary Rules on Prohibition against the Exportation of Precious Cultural Relics and Books (It was promulgated by Ministry of Cultural of the People's Republic of China 1951), promulgated in 1951, the Chinese government started to use the word cultural relics to represent tangible historical remains with special value such as antiquities, monuments, ancient architectures, and books, which has been in use in laws and decrees until today. Inherent in the concept of "cultural relics" were the shortcomings of China's cognition of heritage: focusing on entities while ignoring the relationship between people and things. Even if lots of reflections on this issue have been made by scholars in academic research, the adverse effects caused by such deviations at the social level have not been removed yet. The concept of cultural heritage has been introduced into Chinese academia systematically after joining the convention. In 2005, the Chinese government announced the Notice of the State Council on Strengthening Conservation of Cultural Heritage (It was promulgated 2005), which officially proposed the concept of cultural heritage for the first time in China and defined cultural heritage as what includes tangible and intangible parts. Tangible cultural heritage is a cultural relic with historical, artistic, and scientific value while intangible cultural heritage refers to all kinds of traditional cultural expressions that exist in non-physical form and are closely related to the life of the local people and are inherited from generation to generation. Although the content covered by the definition of tangible cultural heritage itself has not been expanded, the concept of substitution, from relic to heritage, did enrich its meaning. After more than a decade of academic research, the understanding of cultural connotations and human emotions in tangible cultural heritage has been improved. Even though the current cognition of cultural heritage in China is consistent with the world-recognized concept, in fact, for local governments, investors, operators, and the public, cultural heritages are still regarded as commercial resources. This kind of narrow vision is difficult to reverse over a long period of time, which will hinder heritage conservation in China.
On the other hand, from the perspective of identification and value evaluation of tangible cultural heritage, China holds a tradition that ancient heritage is valued while modern heritage, from the period between 1840 and 1949, is often neglected. Modern constructions with heritage value have not been considered cultural heritages in either the research field or the official departments in China until the twenty-first century. In this context, CER, as a negative legacy with colonial stigma, did not receive its deserved attention for a long time. The research and conservation undertakings are not sufficient. Studies of CER from the perspective of history, sociology, and anthropology are inadequate. Research that takes CER as cultural heritage is limited, and most of the previous research of this type is on the analysis of planning and construction of important cities along the railway (Hou et al. 1992;Sui et al. 1995;Chen et al. 1995;Liu 2003;Wang 2018;Liu and Wang 2016). The group from HIT led by Liu Daping and Wang yan published a series of books on the interpretation of towns, buildings types, techniques, and architectural culture along CER (Liu and Wang 2018;Liu and Bian 2018), among which Li Guoyou regarded CER as a cultural route and comprehensively sorted out its environmental background, technical form, management and construction mode, and characteristics of architectural style, and interpreted its cultural phenomena and characteristics (Liu and Li 2018). The identification and classification system of the material heritage of CER conducted by Li laid the foundation of this research, enabling us to establish a correct perception of the value of CER heritage. However, a comprehensive survey is still lacking in terms of the study of CER's tangible heritage, meanwhile, the holistic knowledge of the diversity of heritage type, quantity, and spatial distribution is insufficient. Throughout the theoretical interpretation, there is also a gap in interpreting the evolutionary process of heritage and its significance from a geopolitical perspective, which is one of the key influencing factors during the construction and evolution of CER. In addition, the issue of the administrative system and the regional social environment which affects the development of a holistic conservation strategy for CER has not received appropriate attention.
The heritagization perspective refers to the process of turning tangible or intangible "objects" into heritage (Juan 2018), which can be divided into two parts. The first part is the formation process of the material ontology, which can be called pre-heritagization. In this process, the values of the relevant people keep accumulating, and finally, group identity is formed. The second part is the process of giving meaning to the ontology (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004). Within the framework of this process, it acquires a higher heritage value (Criado-Boado and David 2013). A central point of the heritagisation process is its material consequences on the heritagized objects. It is a productive process in which heritages are regarded as cultural and economic resources that are produced and consumed externally by government agencies, foundations, academic authorities, and cultural elites through an "authorized heritage discourse" (Smith 2006). In the process of heritagization, when people focus excessively on the loaded meaning, the heritage ontology becomes a secondary issue (Juan 2018), which may also trigger conflicts among the residents. Heritage critics have pointed out four possible disadvantages of falsification, petrification, desubstantiation, and enclosure (Brumann 2009). The core meaning of the concept of heritagization is to consider heritage as a dynamic ongoing process, to define it in an appropriate perspective for the specific situation it faces, and to avoid these negative effects as much as possible.
The conservation of CER's tangible heritage has been undergoing multiple problems. Firstly, CER is located in the northeast area of China, a region with less developed economic and cultural levels; it significantly restricts the practical implementation of conservation approaches. The immaturity of heritage concepts and the inadequacy of heritage research have caused the process of CER heritagisation to be incorrectly recognized, which will lead to confusion in conservation management. Secondly, compared with other types of linear heritage, CER tangible heritage contains bigger quantities, with more concentrated and integrated distribution. Meanwhile, CER spans four provinces, and it is difficult to achieve unified planning and management under the existing administrative system, which leads to a serious conflict with its demand for holistic and consistent conservation. Considering the indisputable population loss and economic decline in northeastern China in recent years, during the conservation process of CER, it is necessary to take both the economic development of the region and the needs of residents into account. The strategy of preserving the tangible heritages as "exhibits" adopted within the CER region is rigid, flawed, and risky. Introducing the proper concept of heritage into the conservation of CER, exploring the formation process of tangible heritages, revealing their heritage values, and conducting a comprehensive and specific investigation of their existing situation can effectively support future conservation and utilization.

Research target and methodology
The research object should be clarified here. When the railway construction plan was proposed, the Russians intended to name it Manchuria Railway (Manzhou tielu 满洲铁路). As emphasizing the localized title may lead to confusion about the ownership of the railway, the Qing government insisted on the name of East Province Railway of the Great Qing Dynasty (Da Qing dongsheng tielu 大清东省铁路), also known as East Province Railway of China (Zhongguo dongsheng tielu中国东省铁路), referred to as East Qing Railway (Dongqing tielu 东清铁路) or East Province Railway (Dongsheng tielu 东省铁路). After the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese took over the southern branch from Kuanchengzi 宽城子 (presently Changchun 长春) to Lǚshun, which was later known as the South Manchuria Railway (Nanman tielu 南满铁 路), while Russia still controlled the main railway line from Manzhouli to Suifenhe. After the Revolution of 1911 (Xinhai geming 辛亥革命), the railway name was changed to the Chinese Eastern Railway. From 1935 when Japan occupied all the routes, the whole railway was called Manchuria Railway (Mantie 满铁), and the main line was called the North Manchuria Railway (Beiman tielu 北满铁路). In 1945, Japan was defeated and the railway was reclaimed and renamed the Chinese Changchun Railway (Zhongguo Changchun tielu 中国长春铁路) (Li and Li 2010). Therefore in this paper, CER refers to the entire railway route during the period from 1898 to 1905 when Russia dominated, and the main line during the period from 1905 to 1935 apart from the southern branch controlled by the Japanese. The cultural heritage of CER covers the architecture and engineering facilities along the railway during these periods ( Figure 1).
In this paper, CER is regarded as a cultural heritage that plays a significant role in the construction and cognition of the culture in Northeast China. As a largescale and clustered cultural heritage, CER is characterized by a distinct cultural diversity, which gives it a special value and significance and will be interpreted in this paper through two levels of research work. First, the historical information is mined and interpreted.
Current historical research and cultural interpretation of CER are based on the initial documents of railway engineering and management. The most reliable literature is the historical accounts and records of medical treatments, military operations, business activities, etc. which have been translated, organized, and compiled by Chinese scholars (Zheng 1987;Li 1996;Голииынъ 1984;Institute of History 1979). The History of CER (1896-1923) edited by Е. Х. Нилус since October 1921 is an official historical file. The first volume was published in 1923 in Harbin, and the second volume had not been published (Peng and Shi 2016). The Engineering of Chinese Eastern Railway (1897)(1898)(1899)(1900)(1901)(1902)(1903) published in 1904 and The Construction Album of Chinese Eastern Railway (1897)(1898)(1899)(1900)(1901)(1902)(1903) published in 1905 contain pictures and blueprints of buildings and facilities, including the construction process of the railway which are the most important biographies for understanding the original property of technology and art during that period (Engineering Bureau of CER Альбом сооружений и типовых чертежей Китайской Восточной железной дороги 1904; Engineering Bureau of CER Альбом сооружения Китайской Восточной железной дороги 1905). Japanese scholars have interpreted almost all of the buildings built by Russians along the railway, which had been collected in the Journal of Manchuria Architecture (Manchuria Architectural Association, 1924-1944 and Journal of Manchuria Technical Association (Manchuria Architectural Association, 1925-1941. Second, under the guidance of historical information, a complete field investigation on the status quo of CER was conducted. The railwayrelated buildings and engineering facilities along the route are classified according to their functions and recorded, observed, and analyzed through the mapping method. Information obtained from the field survey has verified the historical interpretations, and on the other hand, the current situation and potential problems of CER, as a valuable cultural heritage, were detected through the survey.
As a cultural heritage, CER recorded the information and the process of social development of the whole era, including national conflicts and political games, cultural communication and integration, the expression of immigration and colonial culture, the exploration of modern technology and art, the regional characteristics of a particular geographical environment. Through historical interpretation, this paper starts by revealing the reasons for the construction of CER in the social context and interpreting its construction process under the influence of the geopolitical environment during that time. This changeable historical environment is one of the main causes of the diversity of the cultural heritages along CER. Then, combining historical data and the current situation, the physical content of the tangible cultural heritages along CER, including their types and quantities, are presented. As a modern cultural heritage in China, the unique value of CER is summarized. Finally, this article offers a brief reflection on the evolution of the heritages and the problems they are facing. A proper understanding of the authenticity of CER heritage and its value can be achieved through these interpretations, and based on this, a reasonable conservation strategy for CER can be explored and more social attention and deliberateness can be aroused.

The origin and conditions of CER construction
CER was part of the world-famous Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR). In the 1830s, because of the deep development of capitalism (Cho 2011;Yun 2005;Steven 1991), tsarist Russia urgently needed to open its own market and acquire more raw materials, as well as the idea of building a large railway throughout the eastern region was brought forward (Chen 2011). In 1891, the TSR began a construction project by digging foundation works on both ends of the line, at Vladivostok and Chelyabinsk (Black 2004;Alexander 2013;Liliopoulou, Roe, and Pasukeviciute 2005;Christian 2014). The original plan needed to be revised in the operation of the railway construction project because of difficulties in surveying the route, far distance, and a long period of investment return. It was then found that a more economical and advantageous way was to join Vladivostok and the Siberia railway through Manchuria. Thus the Russian government decided to "borrow land (for building railroads)" from the Chinese government, in order to connect Vladivostok via Northeast China (Li 1989), which was the prelude to the construction of CER ( Figure 2).
The construction of the TSR caused the Japanese strategic crisis in northeast Asia and triggered the First Sino-Japanese War indirectly. China suffered a setback in the War in 1895 and signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki that cut the Liaodong Peninsula (Liaoning) from China, which also affected the benefit in the Far East area of Russia. In the same year, Russia united with Germany and France forced Japan to surrender the Liaodong Peninsula. Furthermore, in order to enhance its influence on China, Russia extended loans to China and signed a Four-percent Loan Contract. As far as concerned, Russia arranged the plan of connecting the Siberian railway via China; so the intervention was preparatory work for the construction of CER. It also meant, however, that the imperial plans to expand to Russia's easternmost territory threatened the Japanese interest and foreshadowed the conflict between Japan and Russia. For China, the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War made Japan the chief enemy of the Qing government that turned to the Russians for the formation of the nominal League for Mutual Aid. Taking this opportunity, Russia began to negotiate with the Qing government to borrow lands and build railways. On 3 June 1896, Li Hongzhang李鸿章 as a representative of China signed the Sino-Russian Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Moscow, which indicated that China and Russia became allies against Japan: mutual assistance was assured if there was any war with Japan, and China allowed Russia to build railways in Heilongjiang and Jilin to connect Vladivostok. So Russia obtained the privilege of railway construction and management, as well as the political and economic privilege on the dependent territories. The doors of Northeast China were open to the construction of CER. Furthermore, China and Russia signed the Convention for the Lease of the Liaotung Peninsula and the Extension Convention in 1898. In the same year, Russia occupied the Liaodong Peninsula, turned Lǚshun旅顺/ Port Arthur (Liaoning) into its naval base in the Pacific, and was allowed to build the southern branch of CER (Zheng 1987).

Preparation and construction process
In order to prepare for the construction and operation of CER in terms of organization and capital, Russia united with four French banks in 1895 and set up the Russo-Chinese Bank. The Contract of Russo-Chinese Bank signed in 1896 stipulated that all matters for CER Construction and management must be undertaken by the Russo-Chinese Bank. Subsequently, the Contract of CER and the Contract of CER's Branch Line signed by the Qing government and the Russo-Chinese Bank confirmed the specific principles of construction and management (Zheng 1987). It stipulated that all land related to the railway construction, operation, and protection could be used by Russia and were dependent territories of CER. The site area, however, was determined according to requirements because the range of the land area was not stipulated in the contract. The Russo-Chinese Bank set up the CER Company and there under the Engineering Bureau of CER to provide technical support for railway projects. The chief engineer of CER was responsible for the construction period control, construction organization, responsibility division, railway land management, capital allocation, human resources, technical dispatch, etc., with highly specialized ways to direct the entire line of the huge construction project and ensure that the railway construction works would be completed in an orderly manner.
The engineering technical preparation of CER was a simultaneous process with the political and economic preparation. In September 1895, Russia sent technicians and railway engineers to China to begin the survey without Chinese official permission. After permission from the Chinese government was gained, Russia sent technicians again, including railway, bridge, building, mining, military, and surveying professionals, to conduct a detailed survey in Northeast China. In January 1898, the CER Company had complete the initial line map of the main railway line from Manzhouli满洲里 (Inner Mongolia) to Suifenhe绥芬河 (Heilongjiang), basically defining the direction of the railway (Zheng 1987). The preliminary survey results supported the work of site classification and positioning, construction scale, bridge form and span, tunnel volume, possible problems, and predetermined scheme. In fact, to reduce the duration of the project, CER implemented the method to design, survey, and construct concurrently. Survey activities, including the southern branch line, continued until the railway works began, and the engineering design of the specific environment was also constantly adjusted ( Figure 3).
On 9 June 1898, the Engineering Bureau of CER officially announced the start of the construction of CER. The works began with the center of Harbin 哈尔 滨(Heilongjiang) and extended simultaneously towards the east, west, and south (Zheng 1987). The trunk line of CER was divided into 13 engineering areas and the southern branch, which is from Harbin to Lǚshun, was divided into eight engineering areas. As the construction of CER was organized in stages, the partially completed sections would be temporarily operated for transporting material and equipment to support construction activities before the formal connectivity. On 3 March 1901, the tracks between Harbin and Suifenhe were connected near Hengdaohezi横道 河子 (Heilongjiang). On 3 November 1901, there was a successful connection between Harbin and Manzhouli, which meant that the mainline of CER was connected. On 14 January 1903, the Southern branch line of CER began trial operation. CER was fully completed and officially operated on 13 July 1903 (Zheng 1987), and also combined with the Russian Railways networks on that day. In 1904, the whole line of TSR opened to traffic, but the tail-in work continued until 1916 (Chen 2011). From then, the distance between Moscow and Vladivostok could be spanned in only seven days.
The length of CER is 2489.2 kilometers. The main line begins at Manzhouli (exits China and connects with Aotepuer奥特普耳 station in the Baikal section of the TSR), then passes through Harbin to Suifenhe from west to east (exits China and connects with Shuangchengzi双城子 station in the Ussuri section of the TSR) (Li 1994), the length of which is 1514.3 kilometers. The southern branch line, from Harbin to Lǚshun, is 974.9 kilometers long. The whole project was highly efficiently organized and only took five years to be operational. The railway track, its construction, and engineering facilities maintained a fairly high level of construction quality, which was a remarkable achievement given the environment and technical conditions in Northeast China at that time. This had been possible thanks to the overall macro-scheduling of the early planning and construction process, the technical support from Russian engineers and skilled workers, also due to the rich wood and mineral resources of Northeast China and the hardworking of no less than 170,000 Chinese laborers, most of whom were recruited from Shandong and Hebei provinces (Li 1989(Li , 1994.

Geopolitical context
CER had experienced the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China, Russian and Japanese Domination, Puppet Manchuria, the KMT-CPC civil war, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The geopolitical impacts on CER were mainly from two aspects. First, the martial attributes of the construction of CER in the early stage had been strengthened. Second, the adjustment of the railway had been conducted time after time, including route changes, and increases or decreases in construction activities.
Impacted by military activities at the beginning, to deal with possible conflicts and ensure the progress of road construction, the CER Company established the CER guard group in 1897 (reorganized into Outer Amur Military Region in 1901) (Zheng 1987). In 1899, the Boxer Rebellion in China temporarily stalled the construction of CER because of railway destruction and the expulsion of Russian workers. Therefore, Russia began to increase its road guard and sent more infantry, cavalry, and artillery, the number of which was up to 100,000 and more. At the end of the same year, Russia captured much of the railway and succeeded in eradicating the Boxer Uprising. The incident caused great damage to CER: 1000 kilometers of the built railway was completely destroyed, stations and staff residences were burned down. Russia suffered huge economic losses and had to postpone the scheduled completion date. Enhancing the military attributes of CER was the main consequence of these events. Although the Boxer rebellion slowed down the railway construction speed, it enhanced the power of Russia in controlling the railway and CER Zone. Moreover, the Engineering Bureau took the opportunity of the Boxer's attack on the railway to adjust the route in a reasonable way (Percy 1907).
The Russo-Japanese war broke out in February 1904 (Mendonca, Papini, and Price 1904;Arthur, 2010). Russia was defeated in 1905 and signed the Treaty of Portsmouth with Japan (Zheng 1987). The southern branch of CER from Kuanchengzi to Lǚshun was handed over to Japan and became the South Manchuria Railway. The line north of Kuanchengzi and all the main lines remained under Russian control. The Russo-Japanese War broke the development process of the unification of the southern branch and trunk line of CER. Dominated by different cultures, the South Manchuria Railway, which was transformed and constructed under the control of Japan, was very different from CER built by Russia. In addition, the Treaty of Portsmouth also established an open-door policy, allowing CER to open to Western countries. Shortly after the signing of the treaty, goods, and funds from Europe, America and Asia flew to Harbin, which made the city an important trade and cultural hub in Northeast Asia. Before 1917, many cities along the railway had already been taking shape considerably. Moreover, Harbin had become the leading modern city in Northeast Asia, known as a "Little Paris in China", when the urban development in the CER subsidiary had entered a high stage. The February Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 caused the swelling tide of "White émigrés". Different from the usual phenomenon of political refugees, the dissolution of the czarist regime led to the flight of tens of thousands of noblemen, landlords, capitalists, and skilled people. Many came to Northeast China and brought a huge amount of capital into the dependent territories of CER which stimulates a second construction climax. Along with this, the life patterns, ideas, and habits of the Russian upper class, as well as the cultural development within the dependent territories of CER reached a heyday.
From 1922 to 1935, there were many discussions and conflicts between the Soviet Union and China about the ownership of CER. The signing of the Sino-Russian Framework Agreement to Resolve Outstanding Issues, the Agreement of Interim Administration of CER in 1924, and the event of CER in 1929, etc. made the management and division of rights of CER more chaotic, and construction activities reduced. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in September 1931 and the subsequent proclamation on 18 February 1932 of Manchukuo伪满洲国, a puppet state controlled by Japan, complicated the situation. On 24 March 1935, the Soviet Union sold CER and its branch lines that were effectively controlled by Japan. All the Russian-related political and military forces withdrew from Northeast China. From then, CER entered a decline phase because of the economic blockade and frequent wars. The construction activities basically stopped. The Yalta Agreement and the Agreement on the Changchun Railway in China关于中 国长春铁路的协定 signed in 1945 stipulated that CER should be controlled by China and the Soviet Union together. China ended this history by reclaiming the entire CER in 1952 (Liu and Li 2018).
CER built by Russia was a Single-track railway with a track gauge of 1520 mm as same as the Siberian Railway. On the other hand, Japan had already adopted a narrow-gauge railway that was compatible with its domestic locomotives in their previous construction in Liaoning province. After receiving the southern branch, Japan transformed the South Manchuria Railway into a standard track with a gauge of 1435 mm and changed the railway into a Double-track railway between 1907 and 1908 (Percy 1907;Ma, Lu, and Wang 1983). The same work was carried out on main lines after 1935 and was completed in 1937 (Jin and Xu 1986;Yang 1997). As Russia constructed a little along the South Manchuria Railway, the Japanese utilized the limited buildings and then carried out large-scale construction projects. By the time the Japanese took over the main lines, architecture, engineering facilities and urban areas along the railway had been much more developed. Therefore, the Japanese transformed the existing buildings to suit their life and work habits and conducted little construction after 1935. Railways in the northeast were in the highest density compared with other regions after the foundation of PR China, parts of which had been interrupted by wars and were renovated and resumed afterward (Jin and Xu 1986). Some of the routes are still in operation today.

Types of CER heritage
(1) Engineering Facilities Railway engineering facilities mainly included railway tracks, bridges, tunnels, and culverts. Russian abbreviations of CER, place of production, and date of manufacturing are mentioned on the steel rails of CER. Most steel rails were customized and purchased by the Engineering Bureau of CER from European countries and the USA--iron and steel companies in Chicago and Maryland for instance. According to the historical data, 668 bridges of different forms were built along CER: 242 bridges in the western part from Hailaer海拉 尔 (Inner Mongolia) to Longjiang龙江 (Heilongjiang) through the Great Hingan Mountains大兴安岭, and 354 bridges in the eastern part from Acheng阿城 (Heilongjiang) to the stretching branch of Changbai Mountain长白山 section combined by Zhangguangcai Mountain张广才岭, Laoye Mountain 老爷岭, and Taiping Mountain太平岭. The other 72 bridges are distributed in the central part of the Songnen Plain松嫩平原from Longjiang to Harbin and the western Hulunbeier plateau area from Manzhouli to Hailaer. There are four types of bridges, including 256 stone arch bridges, 391 steel I-beam bridges, 15 steel truss bridges, and 6 reinforced concrete bridges. The stone arch bridges are mainly distributed in the east, the metal ones are most centrally distributed in the west, while there is no obvious distribution pattern for reinforced concrete bridges. Stone arch bridges are divided into small and large types according to the size of their span. 1 The common length of the single-span size of steel I-beam bridges varies between 4 and 21 meters. 2 The large span bridges are all-steel truss bridges made of metal components from Europe and America. 3 The middle span of a single steel truss bridge is large while the spans on both sides are small. Although the technology and design of reinforced concrete bridges were mature enough, their application was relatively less due to climate and the limitation of materials (Engineering Bureau of CER Альбом сооружения Китайской Восточной железной дороги 1905).
There are four tunnels of CER, all on the mainline pass through the outer Hinggan Mountains外兴安岭 and the stretching branch of Wanda Mountains完达山 脉. The tunnel construction was the most timeconsuming work. The Engineering Bureau of CER hired Italian tunnel engineers and 500 Italian masons to ensure smooth and errorless work. The longest tunnel is the Great Hinggan Mountains tunnel, 3078 meters long. To elevate the normal-level tracks to the east entrance in a limited space, the engineers designed a 2-km spiral extension that fixes the slope of the line before entering the tunnel under 15% (Liu and Li 2018) (Figure 4). Because of the limited capacity of steam locomotives at that time, several other annular routes were required. Engineers designed spiral annular routes in some relatively steep slopes, where the location was not suitable for the traction station setting. To adapt to the topography, culvert and short bridge were generally set up to cooperate with a spiral annular route. In addition, there are 241 culverts along CER without a special distribution pattern. The types of railway bridges, tunnels, and culverts of the CER are shown in Table 1. During the construction of the railway line after the founding of the People's Republic of China, most of the original bridges were abandoned or demolished as they did not meet the needs of the new tracks, and only a small number of them remained in use. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the existing bridges and tunnels based on the field survey.
(2) Architectural Heritage During the planning process of CER, 92 stations in five levels were set up according to each location, geographical environment, resource condition and, also based on distance, function and importance, among which there were two first-class stations, nine second-class stations, eight third-class stations, thirty-four fourth-class stations, and thirty-nine fifth-class stations. A number of passing stations were also set up according to the requirements of the railway. The two first-class stations were the c Harbin station and Dalian大连station at the end of the south branch. The second-class stations were set up every 200 versts (1verst = 1.06 km) starting from the railway terminals. The third-class stations were generally located halfway to higher-grade stations. The fourth-and fifth-class stations were distributed at intervals of about 50 versts (Qu and Liu 2017). Furthermore, the largest part of CER's main crossed unpopulated territories. When the railway became operational, many stations along the route developed into cities and towns due to the exploitation of resources, industrial and mining enterprises, and trade. Manzhouli, Suifenhe, Yimianpo一面 坡 (Heilongjiang), Zhalantun扎兰屯 (Inner Mongolia), Henghedaozi, and many other places developed prosperity until today. In the early stage of construction, stations along the railway had different functions, such as important military space, tourism convalescence, resource mining, etc., which generated different forms of urban development.
The railway industry has a comprehensive demand that required large numbers of buildings with different functional types along the railway (Table 2). According to statistics from our survey of nearly 2000 existing Table 1. Types of bridges, tunnels, and culverts (Engineering Bureau of CER Альбом сооружения Китайской Восточной железной дороги 1905). Culvert architectural heritage sites, there are four functional classes of buildings along CER: 559 railway traffic and industrial architecture, 117 buildings for military and police stations, 89 public buildings, and integrated service facilities, and 1147 railway community residential buildings. Each class contains specific functional types. Because traffic and industrial buildings served railway construction and operation directly, they were the first batch of buildings built. For instance, 87 stations provided transportation-related services for passengers and freight, the scale of which was proportioned to the grade of the station; 13 mechanical garages, with rectangular or the fan-shaped plan, were used for storage, maintenance, and inspection of locomotives; 24 water towers for steam locomotives, etc. The Road guard barracks are the most numerous military buildings (35 on 84). There are 15 cavalry barracks equipped with stables, 9 fortifications located near tunnels and important bridges, and 3 prisons in Manzhouli, Lǚshunand Hengdaohezi. Public service buildings provided an excellent environment for railway staff in terms of life and work. There are 30 hospitals and sanatoriums, in which the number of hospital beds was defined according to the population in the region, 6 churches and church schools, and 12 clubs, most of which were distributed in the grade 3-stations. There were no independent bath facilities for the general staff, but 32 public bathing pools and 5 public toilets. In addition, the function of some buildings on the 2000 surveyed sites could not be identified. The distribution of the existing old buildings along the railway is shown in Figure 6.

A complete record of the process of communication and integration of culture
Cultural heritage is the carrier of information, which is one of its basic values. CER is a comprehensive and complete record of the process of cultural development in Northeast China. Today, CER is considered a cultural route that results from a complete process of cultural evolution over more than one century. It contains two major aspects: firstly, the transplantation of Western foreign culture from Russia, mixed with the influence of Japan, European and American countries; secondly, the integration of Chinese and Western cultures in the process of cultural communication. Starting from nearly scratch, the Russians defined the course of the railway line, delineated the land along the railway, and worked out concrete management systems and development plans in the name of a subsidiary. During the construction of the railway, Russian immigrants were encouraged to colonize the area, by settling down or trading by rail. Gradually, the barren land developed into towns and cities with a diverse range of activities. Towns and villages along CER practically showed the complete landscape of Russia, while the important cities were planned and built according to modern Western urban form. After the implementation of the open-door policy, CER was influenced by the world economy, politics, and culture. There were more than 20 consulates in Harbin (France, Britain, Germany, USA, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Japan, Czech Republic, etc.) (Liu and Li 2018), which became an international city with more than 150.000 permanent foreign residents (Li 1997). Western culture was transplanted into every corner of society, including the urban landscape, lifestyle, entertainment and leisure, and religious beliefs (Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.). If there was no doubt that CER was in China, most railway businesses of subordinate land had little relation with the Chinese native residents (mostly Manchus and Mongols). The social culture and the main body of the population had been replaced by foreign people and completely westernized.
In the process of the strong spread of Western culture, the fusion with native culture is inevitable. On the one hand, Russians took the initiative to learn from Chinese architecture and included in the design of early station buildings some elements from the traditional Chinese roof image (Figure 7). From the 1920s, some Russian architects developed a better understanding of traditional Chinese architecture technology and designed Chinese-style buildings in combination with modern construction materials (Figure 8). On the other hand, native inhabitants quickly absorbed the foreign culture. Chinese merchants and workers from other regions were attracted to Northeast China by the economic benefits brought   by the operation of the railway. Chinese soon accepted the foreign culture, began to run industries, opened stores, etc. This means that a new Chinese society developed toward modernization. From the Japanese invasion of 1905, Japanese factors began to infiltrate the architectural culture in the southern branch of CER. After 1935, this phenomenon increased strongly along all the lines of CER. The coexistence and integration of Chinese, Russian and Japanese architectural cultures are a unique feature and the highest cultural value of the built heritage along CER.

Heritages with morphological diversity form a regional architectural culture
The diversity of content is significant for cultural heritage. As a cultural heritage, CER has a diverse range of technological features and artistic forms, which constitutes an architectural culture with regional characteristics. Because the natural and social conditions were complex along CER, a diversity of heritage categories, structures, and morphologies were needed to answer the functional requirements of railway construction, operation, and urban daily life. Firstly, the natural landscapes along the railway lines (mountains, rivers, oceans, vegetation, etc.) interweave with railway tracks, bridges, tunnels, and architectural settlements to form diverse cultural landscapes. Secondly, in order to cope with complex functional needs, the spatial scale and layout of buildings are also varied. For example, there are locomotive garages in which several locomotives can be overhauled at the same time, factories can run large machinery, barracks have the capacity to accommodate hundreds of people, dwellings have multiple levels, etc.
Meanwhile, due to the diversity of spatial scales and forms, different structural types and construction methods were also needed. Both the mature Russian traditional practices and modern technology were applied in the constructions along CER. The traditional structural forms are masonry that mixes brick, stone, and wood, as well as Russian log cabins and wood frame construction. Take the masonry way of the wall as an example, there are brick walls, stone walls, wooden walls, mixed masonry walls, brick and wood mixed walls (wood inside, brick outside), infill walls (brick inside and outside facing, stone or wood masonry, sawdust or earth filling in the middle), etc. The new structural forms, such as steel frame structure, steel truss structure, and reinforced concrete, were generally used in industrial buildings.
Finally, the construction of CER reflects the coexistence of various architectural forms and styles. The latter can be divided into Russian traditional architectural style, "railway style", classical style represented by classicism and eclecticism, new trends represented by Art Nouveau, and the architectural blend of Chinese and Western cultures. It is worth focusing on the "railway style" (The definition of this style is based on an interview with Professor OlegSleptsov (Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture) 2017), which is a kind of building constructed according to the railway's standardization design method, whose space and forms are rational (Figure 9). These buildings were influenced both by Russian tradition and local situations. They are the best representative of CER's architectural heritage image.

To present the technological transformation and fashion trends
CER heritages record the industrial technology level and the trend of social art in a specific era. In the aspect of the organization, CER and the buildings along the line resulted from modern-rational construction organization and management with adequate pre-design and directed by engineers and technical workers on site. Meanwhile, CER showed an important design concept in mechanized mass production, which was standardized design. Each grade of the stations had predefined plans, as well as the corresponding station houses, etc. (Figure 10). According to the local environmental characteristics and construction habits, technicians adjusted the plans appropriately during the construction. The standardized design of barracks and stables was more flexible but modular: the depth of the building is constant, but the width of the space could be increased according to the number of garrisons ( Figure 11). In addition, a large number of building components, especially timber and metal, were processed in factories and transported to the site for assembly. This standardized manufacturing was highly efficient and resulted from rational-modern thinking.
The industrial technology of CER had reached a relatively high level. Taking the steel truss bridge as an example, the First Songhua River Bridge第一松花江 大桥 in Harbin is the first bridge in China's modern history to exceed 1,000 meters in length (Chorography Editorial Board of Harbin Railway Bureau 1996) (total length 1003.6 m, 19 spans, maximum length of a single span 78.48 m). There are eleven spans on the northern side and one span on the southern side, in which an upper-bearing Warren truss was used. The seven spans of the central channel used lower-bearing curved composite Pratt trusses. By 1903, all railroad stone arch bridges over 100 meters in length were located on CER (Editorial Board of History of Chinese Railway Bridges 1987). The Hinggan mountains tunnel was constructed using a two-way excavation method and achieved error-free docking, which was an innovative method at that time. Meanwhile, it is the first railway tunnel in China's modern history to exceed 1,000 meters in length (Su 1997). Moreover, steam locomotives were designed and assembled in the regions along CER. (Figure 12) At the same time, many technologies were still immature, such as the absence of reinforcement steel bars in concrete masonry, the use of masonry walls to support the columns and roof trusses of steel structures, too much phosphorus in the cast iron of the bridges, etc. Although the reinforced concrete bridge adopted a more advanced and reasonable reinforcement system, due to the limitation of the alpine environment, there were many problems in the construction, which led to the lack of strength   (Souponitski, Sniatkov, and Grigoriev 2001). Therefore, no reinforced concrete bridge is left. These limitations reveal the real state of the technical level at that time.
From the cultural point of view, the "Art Nouveau/ Jugendstil" movement was one of the most popular ideological fashions involving lifestyle, art, architecture, and applied arts, from the 1890s to the 1910s. This movement explored modernity and had a high international character. Today, its heritage is very popular (For example 2018). The architectural style of the Art Nouveau Movement reached the distant Northeast China thanks to CER constructions that originated from Western Europe. Art Nouveau was very popular in Russia's elite circles. Designers were commissioned to bring popular art to the new territory of CER. The highgrade railway stations in the early stage of railway construction as Manzhouli, Suifenhe, and Harbin were Art Nouveau buildings ( Figure 13). The interior space of advanced train carriages expressed luxury and modern comfort in Art Nouveau forms and colors ( Figure 14). Even some tunnel entrances were decorated with Art Nouveau motives ( Figure 15). Furthermore, the prosperity and development of the dependent territory of CER provided a huge field for the creation of Art Nouveau buildings. Harbin, the capital of Heilongjiang province and the central hub of CER is deeply influenced by Art Nouveau (Liu and Wang 2016). Its popularity lasted until the 1930s, however, mixed with Art Deco forms from the 1920s. Art Nouveau architecture is omnipresent in Harbin, as an identity bearer of CER's modernity (from the urban settings to the offices of the company, houses of the engineers, etc.), but also as an attractive expression of the lifestyle of the successful new city (hotels, shops, university building, churches, etc.).

A continuous process of ongoing heritagization
The construction and evolution of CER is an ongoing intact process. In the ever-changing geopolitical environment, the railway routes and architecture together with facilities along them are continuously being increased, demolished, renovated, and maintained, which is a typical "palimpsest" phenomenon in the process of heritagization 4 (Dillon 2005). The multi- layered culture accumulated in this process that continued for more than 100 years records industrial development and social change as well as traces of human life which is the most valuable information for cultural heritage. The heritage formation period without deliberate intervention which can be called preheritagisation lasted until the 1990s when the concept of cultural heritage was taken seriously at the national political level. In fact, from 1949 to the 1980s, with rapid economic growth, large-scale urban expansion, and ideology influence at that time, the physical entities of CER were seriously damaged in an even worse situation than in wartime. Large numbers of historical traces were erased from the palimpsest, which was also an inevitable part of the heritagisation in the special historical environment of China.
In the 21st century, with the rise of research on modern architectural heritage and industrial heritage, CER began to receive unprecedented attention and entered a new stage of heritagisation. The railway and its constructions are listed in the conservation roster and have been protected as heritage at different levels by the official institutions (Cultural Relics Protection Law of PRC 2017). During the same period, CER was the longest railroad built in China, and to this day, has the largest amount of preserved material heritage along its route. Even compared to the railroads already inscribed on the World Heritage List, CER has certain advantages in terms of social significance, historical context, and diverse physical heritage. All these factors make it of special and important significance.
Although both heritage worship and heritage abuse have been criticized (Hazen 2009;Harrison 2013), China is in a frenzy of heritage today. As for CER, the conservation system for heritages which gives them  identities of protection still has shortages even though it retains various tangible heritages. First, the authorities of value evaluation and identification of the heritage of CER are monopolized by experts and the government, which will cut off the connection between the heritage and the people living in it, though it is efficient. Second, the economic interests and political implications of heritages are excessively emphasized, which narrows their meaning and value. Finally, the concept of heritage authenticity is narrowly perceived, which makes people treat architectural heritage as exhibits in museums and ignore its social attributes. The concept of heritage conservation cut off the link between history and the future, and made the architectural heritages exhibits, thus causing vast damage to the regional development and the heritage itself. Such situations lead to a special consequence that buildings along CER can neither be demolished nor upgraded, and there is also no effective repair or utilization measures, which is actually a kind of "protected damage". In fact, the recognition of the concept of heritage and its conservation embodied in the process of the heritagisation of CER is also a typical reflection of China. It is imperative that the basic understanding of the concept of heritage should be clarified for current research on heritage conservation in China. Heritagisation is no longer a decision process conducted by multi-stakeholders, but an ongoing cultural process from the beginning to the end. Heritage is the result of cultural and social activities (Susan 2014), and understanding this concept well may give a proper way for conservation strategy and development plans for heritages.

Conclusions
CER, which originated in a specific historical context and extreme geographical environment, witnesses the process of geopolitical development, engineering technology, and social transformations in Northeast Asia. This contributes to its high shared heritage values and intercultural exchanges after decades of construction and operation by Russian, Japanese, and Chinese people. Railway routes, bridges, tunnels, and other engineering facilities, as well as all kinds of buildings, reflect the technological level and artistic trends at the turn of the twentieth century, which express the remarkable process of global modernization in one of China's border areas.
With the construction and operation of CER, cities, towns, and villages of different sizes were formed around the railway stations, which established a complete urban-rural system for the development of Northeast China. During the nationwide urbanization movement since the reform and opening up in the 1980s, although a considerable amount and various types of material heritages of CER were demolished in the construction activities in the important cities along the route, the towns and villages where small and medium-sized stations are located are still intact due to its slow and lagging economic development. Despite the replacement or extension of tracks on the new railway line, the railroad through the four provinces as a whole remains roughly in the same location as the original CER, making it possible to reach most of the important stations of CER by train until today. After one century of uninterrupted use, CER is going through a comprehensive process of heritagisation in the last decades, which is the epitome of the cognitive process of Chinese modern heritage protection and will also affect the future economic and social development of the regions.
The latest data from the seventh census in 2021 indicate that Northeast China is currently facing a serious population loss problem, accompanied by regional stagnation and economic contraction. CER has ideally created a heritage landscape of outstanding universal value and is a heritage asset of considerable value within the region. The protection of its tangible and intangible culture is 'regarded as a shared common good by which everyone benefits (Smith 2006). Therefore, through historical research, architectural surveys, and heritage value assessment of CER, further development potentials can be identified, such as assessing the possibility of its application for inclusion in the World Heritage List or promoting it through modern media to gain more attention from both official and private sources. It is imperative to use the heritage value of CER to create social value to slow down the decline of the region or even promote its revival. Whether it is to promote heritage tourism or initiate the reuse of buildings, the most important thing is to improve the lives of local people through heritage use. Anyway, CER creates its own narratives and will be able to significantly transform society by exposing itself to the rest of the world. The preservation of CER would be a cornerstone for historic continuity which is of great importance to the area that has always been defined as the marginal region of Chinese civilization.
This study conducted a comprehensive survey of the tangible heritage of CER and showed information on the type, quantity, and geographical location in spatial distribution. The results can be used for specific purposes such as developing conservation plans, facilitating restoration and renovation tasks, and carrying out maintenance. Taking the key element of geopolitics as an entry point, the evolution of CER heritage is sorted out and its four values are summarized. In future conservation planning, it is essential to consider these values and the needs of residents in order to balance the conservation of heritage and the economic development of the region. Numerous heritage properties in China are experiencing a similar situation to CER, and this resilient conservation concept would be a positive attempt.
There are some limitations in the study. Firstly, Because CER spans a huge geographical area and contains a large amount of heritage, and the purpose of this paper is to establish a holistic perception of the value of its tangible heritage, it is not possible to include all the details in the research findings. Secondly, the natural landscape made up of the mountains and rivers along the railway has not been emphasized. Thirdly, the specific construction process and conditions of construction are indeed important during the interpretation of CER heritage which encompasses a variety of factors and complex interactions. However, the main purpose of this paper is to focus on the evolutionary process of heritage in the historical context related to "geopolitics" and the current state of the tangible heritage. Therefore, due to the limitation of words, we will not elaborate on this content. Materials, technology, and constructional organization method utilized in the construction of CER will be studied separately in the future with a perspective on the history of technology. Finally, CER creates unique social, economic, and political relations as a form of intangible heritage that needs to be revealed and interpreted.