From the Front Lines of Cultural Property Protection

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 in 50- to 100-year cycles, or the replacement of reinforcing materials to maintain the original state. While the government provided generous protection for "designated" cultural properties such as National Treasures and Important Cultural Properties by subsidizing part of the repair costs, a period continued until the late 1990s where even items in the collections of national museums were not provided with preservation measures if they were undesignated. Furthermore, while designated items are exhibited after repair, the increased frequency of exhibition leads to damage, creating a negative cycle where they must be repaired again using 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 specialized display fixtures, began to be implemented. Over the last 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 subsequent experiences with cultural property rescue and reconstruction led to a recognition of how cultural properties serve as vital anchors for communities. The necessity for local hubs for cultural property protection, cooperation from residents, and inter-regional collaboration was also understood. Seismic retrofitting and renovations of museums have increased, and the appointment of curators in charge of preservation and the establishment of conservation and restoration rooms have begun 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 discussions regarding the revision of 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 involving Ainu cultural property using national funds, and an Ainu specialist 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 "sewed and sewed" by his family, a request was made not to undo the stitching and dismantle it 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 this item for repair was a new judgment based on its value in conservation science—specifically "damage caused by iron mordant"—rather than its traditional 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 selected 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 passed down 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. After discussions between three parties—cultural property administrative officers, museum preservation staff, and conservation specialists—the method adopted for this unprecedented case was a compromise. It combined the Western conservation method of reinforcing the entire deteriorated area with cloth and sewing it with thread without dismantling (so that the item can be returned to its original torn state by removing the thread) with the Yamato-style repair concept of using traditional weaving techniques to create the reinforcing cloth, similar to what is done in the dismantling and repair of kosode.

While a new door has opened in the fields of Ainu cultural property and textile preservation, the thought "How would the Ainu people want to leave the Chi-ukaukapu for the future?" remained in my heart. I hope that one day, people from among the Ainu will emerge to perform the conservation and restoration of textiles, 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. Reading the discussions on the revision 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 revision as a tailwind, I hope that diverse cultural property protection projects with local characteristics will be developed across the country.