From the Front Lines of Cultural Property Protection

2018/08/16

After the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties was enacted in 1950, the first tangible cultural property to be repaired with national funds was the Tenjukoku Shucho (Tenjukoku Embroidery) from the Asuka period. Under a system where the method of protecting tangible cultural properties is preservation and the means is repair, kosode (kimono) have been dismantled and repaired under the jurisdiction of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, using the traditional "remaking" of kimono as the basic technique. "Repair" is an administrative term referring to a preservation method involving dismantling and reinforcement carried out every 50 to 100 years, or the replacement of reinforcing materials to maintain the original state. While "designated" cultural properties such as National Treasures and Important Cultural Properties receive generous protection with the state subsidizing part of the repair costs, a period continued until the late 1990s where even the collections of national museums could not be preserved if they were undesignated. Furthermore, while designated items are made public after repair, the increased frequency of exhibition leads to damage, creating a harmful "repair cycle" where they must be repaired again with subsidies.

Preservation methods through environmental management based on the concept of "preventive conservation" developed primarily in North America from the late 1980s and were introduced to Japan in the early 2000s. As preventive conservation spread in museums, practices such as minimal treatment to allow exhibition without full-scale dismantling and repair, as well as exhibitions utilizing creative display fixtures, began to be implemented. Over the past 15 years, the concept of conservation and restoration that minimizes direct treatment of cultural properties has become widespread. In particular, the damage to cultural properties during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and the experience of cultural property rescue and reconstruction led to a recognition of how cultural properties serve as vital anchors for communities. The need for local bases for cultural property protection, cooperation from residents, and inter-regional collaboration was also understood. Seismic retrofitting and renovations of museums have increased, and the assignment of curators in charge of preservation and the establishment of conservation and restoration rooms are beginning to take place nationwide with the aim of making museums local hubs for cultural properties. In other words, the nature of the cultural property protection system, which provides intensive protection to specific cultural properties, is reaching a turning point.

The main purpose of the current discussion on amending the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties is to protect local cultural properties within the region and promote their public display to lead to regional revitalization. I would like to introduce an experience from the field that served as an opportunity for me to think about how protection should be carried out, with the successors of cultural properties taking the lead and reflecting their intentions.

The Chi-ukaukapu (meaning "something I sewed and sewed" in the Ainu language) is an Ainu ethnic vest that I "repaired" in 2005 at the request of the Tokyo National Museum. However, what was implemented was a "conservation treatment" based on Western concepts, not a dismantling repair. Although the Chi-ukaukapu was not a designated item, it was the first project for an Ainu cultural property using national funds, and an Ainu expert from the Agency for Cultural Affairs provided guidance as a spokesperson for the Ainu people. At that time, since the Chi-ukaukapu was used by the Ainu chief of Abuta in Hokkaido, Akashiwakka (Wakasuke Akashi), and was likely "sewn and sewed" by his family, a request was made not to dismantle it by undoing the sewing threads as is done in the repair of kosode. Furthermore, the head of the Conservation and Restoration Section at the Tokyo National Museum explained that the reason for selecting it for repair was a new judgment based on its conservation science value—specifically "damage caused by iron mordant"—rather than its conventional historical value. I believe that the discussion surrounding the preservation policy for the Chi-ukaukapu became a turning point in the conservation and restoration of Japanese textiles. First, it was groundbreaking that an Ainu garment was chosen based on its "damage" as a museum collection item, regardless of whether it was "designated" or its historical value. The Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties is, so to speak, a law for protecting "Yamato" culture, and it assumes the preservation of tangible cultural properties through repair techniques inherited within Yamato culture. How to consider the preservation of cultural properties that fall outside of that scope had not been discussed, at least in the field of textile cultural properties. The method adopted after consultation between the cultural property administrator, the museum preservation officer, and the conservation specialist for this unprecedented case was a compromise. It combined the Western conservation method of reinforcing the entire deteriorated part with cloth and sewing it with thread so that it could be returned to its original torn state by undoing the thread, with the Yamato-style repair concept of creating the reinforcing cloth using traditional weaving techniques as is done in the dismantling repair of kosode.

While a new door was opened in the preservation fields of Ainu cultural properties and textile cultural properties, the thought "How would the Ainu people want to leave the Chi-ukaukapu behind?" remained in my heart. I hope that one day, people who perform conservation and restoration of textiles will emerge from among the Ainu people, and an era will come when they can perform preservation treatments themselves in a way that reflects their intentions as successors of the culture.

The way cultural property protection is carried out reflects who we were, who we are, and who we want to become. While reading the discussions on the amendment of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, I felt that we are moving into an era where local people will play the leading role in cultural property protection, reflecting their own intentions and protecting and utilizing cultural properties in ways suited to their regions. With the current legal amendment as a tailwind, I hope that diverse and distinctive cultural property protection projects will be developed in various regions.