Thank you for asking, because I think this is a really interesting question – not so much for a historian to answer, but for members of the public to consider. Essentially, you are asking what it means to preserve something historic. I think, outside of culturally specific habits, there’s no one answer.

I can’t speak to the specifics of Japanese historic preservation, although I’m familiar with the example you gave and a handful of others where the historic structure is periodically reconstructed but also considered to have historical continuity. There’s no squirming over the Ship of Theseus in Japan – go ahead and replace all the wood, it’s still the same old ship. It’s interesting by virtue of contrast, but again I’m not an expert in the socio/political theory behind Japanese preservation. Instead, I can give some insight into some of the ideas that underlie a ‘western’ theory of preservation and why we leave our old stuff looking old.

First, we can talk about ruins from an archaeological perspective. Fundamentally, the prime directive of most professional archaeologists is conservation for any site – be they above or below ground – within their original context. Context is undeniably important for data recovery of sites at the micro-level, but conservation of context at the macro-level for sites has become dogmatic by association. I would refer anyone interested to David Cooper (2012) – who has questioned a strict preservation ethic for all ruins. Cooper talks a lot about ‘value’ in association with ruins, and certainly ruins as archaeological data is one type of value. In that case, a site in stasis is a data set made safe for future researchers. His second kind of value has to do with ‘monumentality’ (the quality of big, old stuff that keeps us interested in places like the Parthenon) and heritage. In this instance, ruins are unique among other forms of heritage, they have that je ne sais quoi. There is an inimitable experience to seeing a ruin, and the decay (symbolic of its age) is an important part of that. However, in order for that unique heritage to be made widely available (as is the goal of most heritage agencies) the ruins must be protected as is. They can be neither allowed to decay further nor restored to lose their ruinous quality that makes them heritage.

Second, I think it’s important to know that ‘western’ preservation ethics is hierarchical in nature. One of the first scholarly works on professional historic preservation was by a French archaeologists, A.N. Didron (1839) who laid out this order of priorities for historic structures: “it is better to preserve than to restore, and better to restore than to reconstruct”. Truth be told, 180 years later historic preservation professionals still consider this gospel. Best practice is to preserve in place. If it isn’t stable, do restoration where needed. Reconstruct only when necessary. Keep in mind that reconstruction here usually refers to something like rebuilding a gable for a historic house, it is another ordeal entirely to reconstruct a site or building from nothing.

I have some things to say about this, and some that apply directly to your question, but I also have to play devil’s advocate with a case study.

A few years ago, I was getting a tour around one of the major forts along Hadrian’s Wall where there was a mix of reconstructed buildings and preserved ruins (mostly low, stone walls). There is a community group involve with the active excavation of the fort, and one of their primary interests was to commission a reconstruction of the fort’s entry gate. The logic being that these gates were usually very impressive (still standing versions can be seen at sites in North Africa if you’re interested) and would be great for educational interpretation at the site, not to mention the wow-factor to bring in more visitors.

Meanwhile, many archaeologists were strictly against the idea, particularly on the principle that there was no way to guarantee the accuracy of the reconstruction. All that was left of the gate was its base foundations. It’s design, shape, and height were totally unknown at the time based on available data. They could take a stab at a reconstruction based on other known gate designs, but it had to be considered that future archaeological work might discover more about the gate. That new information might be contradictory to the reconstructed design. What then?

Essentially, accuracy and the potential for future data outweighed the short-term benefits of a reconstruction. I think the opinion of the professionals in this case is fairly common for many ‘western’ heritage managers and preservationists.

With that said, I have to throw in my two cents. The Didron model of preservation has an extreme bias for monumental architecture. Preservation in place works fine for Roman forts, Stonehenge, Mount Vernon, Grand Central Station, etc., but the priority given to preservation has limited to degree to which other types of sites or cultural places can be considered significant. There are plenty of places in the western world that lack the kind architectural history that can be preserved in context, and as a result, seem to lack the same degree of heritage development. Those same places would benefit from adopting, adapting, or inventing new ways of interacting with heritage sites (ruins or otherwise). This is not an endorsement that the Japanese model is holistically better – just that it is better suited to a site like the Ise Jingu grand shrine, and that more places should be looking to heritage management practices that best suit their own history.

​

Cooper, D.E.

2012 ‘Should Ruins be Preserved?’, in Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology, Scarre, G. & R. Coningham (eds.) Cambridge University Press

​

For the Didron quote in context and further reading:

Murtagh, W.J.

2006 Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America, John Wiley & Sons Inc.