Hello Everyone:
In light of yesterday's post on the real "Monument Man," David Finley, I thought I would share with you an excerpt from my thesis on Japanese historic preservation law. My thesis looked at the cultural influence on the development of modern Japanese preservation law. I focused on the period between 1868 and 1950. I picked this period because it was a time of great transition. In 1868, the Feudal period and the modern era began in ernest. The beginning of the modern period touched off a wave of often violent iconoclasm aimed at all things connected to the Samurai culture. In 1871, in response to the wholesale destruction and theft of cultural properties, the Japanese government began to enact a series of historic preservation laws. The most important of these early laws was the Ancient Temples and Shrines Preservation Law enacted on June 5, 1897. This law became the template for the 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, which, in turn, became the basis for all future laws. What follows is an analysis of how this law came into being and the role of the "Monuments Men" in Japan.
 |
Hōryū-ji
Nara, Japan
en.wikipedia.org |
The disastrous fire that struck in January 1949 at the Golden Hall at Hōryū-ji, in the Nara Prefecture and the near loss of precious its Buddhist murals were not the only catalyst for the passage of the 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties (the 1950 Law hereafter). The years following Japan’s defeat and the Allied occupation found Japan in an appalling state. Most of the major cities were in ruins; Japan’s fishing industry deteriorated, the economy had virtually collapsed, and the nation suffered from the devastating fall out of two nuclear bombs. Preservation certainly did not register in the consciousness of the people. While existing cultural property laws were not suspended during the occupation, the Japanese government reoriented them in compliance with basic occupation policies and was permitted to continue with normal power over domestic issues. In 1948, the agency began implementing a five-year reconstruction program. The tireless and dedicated work of the Arts and Monument Branch, a subgroup of the Religion and Cultural Resource Division of the Supreme Command of The Allied Powers (SCAP), helped pave the way for a new preservation law that would remain in force until contemporary times.
 |
General Douglas MacArthur with the members of SCAP
en.wikipedia.org |
Following Japan’s surrender, SCAP was placed in power over the country according to the terms of the Unconditional Surrender signed by the major allied powers. General Douglas MacArthur was selected to head SCAP on behalf of the Allies. Cultural matters within SCAP were the responsibility of the Civil Information and Education Section (CIE). The Cultural Resource division of CIE was merged with the Religion Division in 1947 to form the Religion and Cultural Resource Division. Its subgroup, the Arts and Monuments Branch (A&M; alternately the Division) became the primary force in protecting postwar Japan’s cultural resources. The A&M was responsible for:
...initiation and recommendations regarding management and finance of numerous projects for the protection, preservation, restitution, salvage, or other disposition of works of art, antiquities, cultural treasures, museums, archival repositories, historic and scenic sites, and historical and natural monuments.
The official stance of SCAP regarding the protection of cultural and ethnographic property during the occupation was, “...historical, cultural and religious objects and installations (including several Imperial Palaces) will be carefully protected.” The protection of cultural treasures was so paramount that it became policy:
The immediate postwar problem consists of the reconstitution of the artistic and historical heritage of occupied countries [i.e Japan, Germany, and Italy]...The protection of art in time of war is based upon the universally accepted principle that cultural property is inviolable...The artistic and historic treasures of a nation are regarded as that Nation’s patrimony, and the great public collections of the world as an international heritage. It is the preservation of this irreplaceable cultural heritage of all nations that is recognized,...
 |
Woman going shopping in post-War Japan
vimeo.com |
Why was the preservation of Japan’s traditional cultural heritage a priority for SCAP? After more than three and a half years of war, unreasonably prolonged in the final months by unbending fanatical rulers, Japan was morally and spiritually exhausted. The death and destruction rained upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs rendered the nation so physically and emotionally spent that surrender was the only option. The decision to make the protection of cultural property, in Japan and Europe as well, important was part of a larger program to keep cultural icons intact to reduce domestic tension in the short run. By extension, actively protecting cultural property would send a message to the Japanese people that SCAP respected Japan’s traditional culture. To accomplish this task, A&M was tasked as a liaison between the various agencies responsible for promoting similar policies. It was through A&M that new preservation policies were implemented and executed.
A&M concluded that it was necessary to use a firm hand in guiding the course of preservation activities at the administrative level. CIE documents record directed efforts by SCAP to reeducate the Japanese people about the value of their culture and instill an understanding of cultural property preservation. While this may seem condescending and ironic, it should be noted that SCAP did engage in significant ideological reorientation and censorship. The Americans hoped to instill the political values of freedom, individualism, and democracy in the minds of young Japanese.218 One influence that led to the 1950 Law was the staff of A&M.
The staff was composed of an advisory committee of American officers with backgrounds in museum work and art history. Two individuals are worth particular mention: Langdon Warner (figure 31) and Sherman E. Lee. Warner (figure 32), a professor at Harvard University and head of Oriental Art at the Fogg Museum. He was an acquaintance of Okakura Tenshin from the time when they worked at the Boston Museum. Lee was a Curator of Oriental Art at the Detroit Institute of Arts. Their empathy for the Japanese people and its art was demonstrated through their commitment to the protection of cultural treasures. Their helped expose the West, particularly the United States, to traditional Japanese culture.
 |
Food stall in post-War Tokyo
picstopin.com |
It appeared that the A&M felt the existing preservation scheme in Japan was inadequate and that the government was less than cooperative in securing and promoting the protection of cultural properties stolen during the War. According the 1929 Law, Article 2, the minister responsible for designating a treasure was required to publish his decision in the official gazette. This register was supposedly burned at the time of surrender. The ministry was also required to keep a record of Important Art Objects but did not exercise due diligence in this task. Some records did survive however and were accessible to the A&M. Further, in accord with an order issued by SCAP, the Japanese government was given the job of inventorying foreign cultural assets in its possession. A report issued by Charles Gallagher, the A&M Fine Arts Advisor to the Chief, Religion and Cultural Resources in 1949 suggested that efforts by the Japanese government,... Did not make “an honest effort” to comply with SCAPIN 1774. They were dilatory, evasive, haggled over questions and finally produced two institutions out of a total of 800 that had objects coming under the definition of SCAPIN 1774. The fact that only four looted items were reported from private collections of individuals (the basis for the directive) is highly suspicious. It is also the firm opinion of the undersigned that there is a great deal of looted property still around, but that much stronger methods than those heretofore taken will be necessary if it is to be uncovered.
In addition, the statutory structure of existing preservation laws were considered insufficient by the A&M. As part of the effort to improve existing preservation laws, it attempted to create a category between National Treasures and Important Art Objects called Important Cultural Property. The point was to restrict the group of Important Art Objects and make administrative changes between categories less frequent. The Agency for Cultural Affairs abided by the recommendations of the A&M. However, it held views that were opposed to the Japanese government, regarding the government’s relation to the people and their property.
 |
Tokyo bombed
tofugu.com |
The Japanese people had reservations about the postwar preservation efforts of the Ministry of Education. In an article appearing on January 28, 1946, “...[s]trange to say the Ministry of Education which was full of formality and bureaucratic egotism has for a long time been nothing but a sort of state organ hindering the elevation of culture and the arts.” As we can conclude from this quote, the Japanese people wanted a change in the way cultural resources were dealt with. The 1950 Law provided a new structure for dealing with historic and cultural assets. The A&M was extremely active in the promotion of cultural property protection. The A&M’s regular involvement with such activities was part of the sweeping actions taken by SCAP to demilitarize and democratize Japan. There was evidence that suggested the A&M had intimate knowledge of plans to modify and improve previous cultural protection laws during the Occupation.
 |
Post-War reconstruction
idemitsu.com |
For example, during early attempts to reform existing preservation laws concerns
arose within the Ministry of Education regarding the classification of objects.226 A&M noticed that the categories could be manipulated in such a way that made locating and identifying cultural property immensely difficult. The A&M archives contained a handwritten document, “A Private Draft Concerning the Revision of the National Treasure Laws,” in which recommendations in consultation with the Agency for Cultural Affairs were given with explanations and analysis for suggested for changes to the 1929 Law. 227 The ministry did prepare revisions of the 1929 Law which included:
1) A shift of emphasis of ownership [private] as a foundation for preservation as found in existing law to state control of cultural assets;
2) Clarification of state subsidies for the repair of national treasures;
3) Measures that would allow the government to purchase national treasures from temples and shrines if preservation could not be properly carried out;
4) Significant government control over cultural property;
5) The curtailment of the export of cultural treasures;
6) Exemption of certain transactions concerning cultural property.
 |
Kagoshima following an American bombing raid
ww2db.com |
In its own analysis, the A&M found the Ministry’s proposals contrary to the 1946 SCAP- manufactured Constitution, declaring that it violated Article 29, “1) The right to own or to hold property is inviolable. 2) Property rights shall be defined by law, in conformity with the public welfare.
3) Private property may be taken for public use upon just compensation therefore...”
The A&M was genuinely committed to protecting Japan’s cultural property and held fast to the belief that the people had a right to protection of their heritage. In essence, the concern was that the ministry’s suggestions appeared as government overreach and create a compulsory designation system that infringed on the personal rights of property owners.
The work on legislation that would become the 1950 Law began in earnest in February 1949. To say that that the fire at Hōryū-ji and post war looting by the American and Allied soldiers were the catalysts for the 1950 law would mean dismissing more urgent factors regarding the protection and administration of cultural resources that required legislative attention. These factors were:
1) The pressure of the Japanese tax scheme, including the property, estate, and sales tax;
2) The sale of objects in response to other needs perceived by the indigenous population;
3) The fear of export of cultural property following any form of transfer;
4) Theft;
5) Vandalism affected upon objects and monuments;
6) Risks of fire;
7) The use of objects by occupation forces;
8) Perceived Japanese perspectives, including gender attributions, concerning the place that art should occupy in the life of the Japanese people; and
9) Perceived Japanese perspectives, concerning the role that government should play in protecting such goods.
 |
Seventeenth century Kabuki theater
www3.northern.edu |
Of the nine factors listed above, the last two stem from purported trends suggesting that protection and administration of cultural resources was not a priority in the immediate postwar year.232 The 1950 Law was passed unanimously in the Japanese House of Representatives on May 30, 1950, and became effective on August 29, 1950, by Cabinet Order Number 276 of August 1950.233 Chapter One, General Provisions (Purpose of this Law) states,
Article 1. The purpose of this Law is to preserve and utilize cultural properties, so that the culture of the Japanese people may be furthered and a contribution made to the evolution of world culture. Article 2. “Cultural properties” in this Law shall be the following:
1) Buildings, pictures, sculptures, applied arts, calligraphic works, classical books, ancient documents, and other tangible cultural properties, which possess a high artistic historical and/or artistic value in and for this country...archeological specimens and other historical materials of high scientific value...
2) Art and skill employed in drama music, and applied arts, and other intangible cultural products which possess a high historical and/or artistic value in and for this country...
3) Manners and customs related to food, clothing and housing, to occupations, religious faiths, etc., to folk-entertainments and clothes, implements, houses and other used therefor[sic], which are indispensable for the understanding of changes in our people’s mode of life...
4) Shell mounds, ancient tombs, sites of palaces, sites of forts or castles, monumental dwelling houses, and other sites which possess a high historical and/or scientific values in and for this country; gardens, bridges, gorges, seashores, mountains, and other places of scenic beauty, which possess a high value from the point of view of art or visual appreciation in and for this [sic]; animal...plants...and geological features and minerals...which possess a high scientific value in and for this country...
5) Groups of historic buildings of high value which form a certain antique beauty in combination with their environs...
 |
Ryoan-ji gardens
flickr.com |
Upon effective date, some of the prior laws were abolished and all previously identified designated cultural resources were covered by the new law. Pursuant to Article 116, “...With respect to the objects classified under the provision of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the Law Concerning the Preservation of Important Objects [the 1933 Law], etc. Up to the time of enforcement of this Law, the old Law shall continue to be in force...”
The next article states, The designation of historic sites, places of scenic beauty and/or natural monuments made prior to the enforcement of this Law, in accordance with the provision of Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Law for the Preservation of Scenic Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments...shall be regarded as the designation made in accordance with the Article 69 paragraph 1 of this Law,...The new law collapsed the 1919, 1929, and 1933 laws into an all-inclusive cultural heritage package and went further by including designation for intangible cultural properties, defined as manners, customs, clothes, and folk-entertainment. This was expanded by a 1954 amendment that set up three new categories of cultural properties: intangible cultural properties, buried cultural properties, and folk materials. The 1954 amendment also created a designation system for Important Intangible Folk Materials separate from Tangible Cultural Properties and established a method of documenting selected Intangible Folk Materials.
 |
Byōdō-in
Uji, Kyoto, Japan
flickr.com |
The process of designating Important Cultural Properties was codified and incorporated the proposed revisions by the Ministry regarding more government control over cultural property. The 1950 Law gave authority to the Ministry of Education to designate tangible important cultural properties as important cultural properties. From these properties, the Minister may designate those which are especially high value from the context of world culture and unrivaled national treasures.238 This differs from Article 1 of the 1929 Law which places the responsibility of designation in the hands of the National Treasures Preservation Committee and the appropriate Minister. Upon designation, an announcement was placed in the Official Gazette and formal written notice was given to the owner of an asset in a manner similar to the second article in the 1929 Law. Designation can be annulled in cases when an important cultural property has lost its value or for other reasons. In this case, an official announcement is made in the Gazette, the owner receives official notice, and is required to return the certificate within thirty days.240 This is based on Article 11 of The 1929 Law, which permits the responsible minister to abolish the designation of a national treasure through the consent of the NTPC when it was deemed necessary for the public benefit or other special reason.
Custody of important cultural properties and national treasures is addressed in Subsection of the 1950 Law. The Agency for Cultural Affairs is directed to give the owner instructions regarding the stewardship of important cultural property, when necessary. Specifically, “The owner of an important cultural property shall undertake custody therefor in accordance with, this Law, as well the Ministry of Education Ordinances and instructions of the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, issued thereunder...” The owner may appoint a surrogate if extenuating circumstances exist and must notify the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs within twenty days. However, if the owner is found to be unacceptable or untraceable, a provision in the 1950 Law allows the Agency for Cultural Affairs to appoint a custodial body to manage the resource. This differs from the previous laws which appeared to put primary custody of a cultural asset in the hands of the property owner but allowed the ministry to impose tight restrictions on use and movement.
 |
Samurai with sword
it.wiki[pedia.org |
The 1950 Law places the responsibility of repair in the hands of the custodial body. In particular, “The repair of an important cultural property shall be conducted by its owner. It shall, however, be conducted by the custodial body, if such has been appointed.”243 The 1950 Law also provides for government subsidies for repair and maintenance costs in a similar manner to the 1929 Law, “Subsidies shall be given according to the amounts estimated for maintenance repairs, but the surplus balance after exact expenses shall be returned.”244 The difference is that under the 1929 Law, repair and maintenance subsidies were used as a reward for compliant owners, whereas, under the 1950 Law, subsidy allocation appear to be based on need. This is consistent with ministry proposals to clarify state subsidies for repair. When a National Treasure requires repair, the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs can act in advisory capacity regarding the work. Finally, under the new law, penalties were considerably strengthened. For example, according to Article 106,
Any person who has, in contravention of the provision of Article 44, exported any important cultural property without obtaining the permission of the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for a term not exceeding five (5) years or to a fine not exceeding one million (1,000,000) yen. Further, the 1950 Law proscribes penalties of imprisonment or fines for individuals who damage, destroy, or alter cultural properties without consent of the Agency for Cultural Affairs.246 There are also administrative penalties, such as fines for individuals who are negligent in their custodial
responsibilities. The influence of A&M can be felt throughout the 1950 Law. The irony is that at the same time A&M was exerting pressure on the Japanese government to reform its historic preservation laws, the United States still did not have a comprehensive national historic preservation program.
The tireless activities of the Arts and Monument Branch and the near catastrophic fire at Hōryū-ji prompted a reconsideration of Japan’s relationship to its heritage. The 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties and its subsequent amendments are the enduring legacy of the Arts and Monuments Branch. The protection of cultural property was an important was part of a larger program of reeducation, preservation of cultural icons, and demonstrate SCAP’s respect for Japan’s traditional culture. The new cultural properties protection law combined the previous laws into a more comprehensive law, and was refined with a 1954 amendment that set up three new categories of cultural properties. The provisions of the 1950 Law put more control of cultural properties in the hands of their owners. This could be considered proof of the A&M’s concern about the careful balance between private property ownership and the central government’s need to control the stewardship and movement of cultural property. Further, the 1950 Law collapsed the 1919, 1929, and 1933 laws into a comprehensive piece of legislation that was expanded upon in 1954 with additional categories for intangible cultural properties, buried cultural properties and folk materials. In the years following the Occupation, the 1950 Law continued to expand incorporating new categories that signaled Japan’s readiness to contribute to world culture.
Just one quick note, please make sure you go to http://www.lafoodbank.org and help RTKL/JAMA build their canned food sculpture. When they finish, the "sculpture" will be donated to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. Thanks
Google+ and Instagram
