Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura

RESCUING, RELOCATING, AND RECONSTRUCTING MEIJI ARCHITECTURE IN POSTWAR JAPAN: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSEUM MEIJI-MURA

LUN JING1

DUKE UNIVERSITY

Starting point: the demolishment of the Rokumeikan

One day in 1940 during the Second Sino-Japanese War, a tram slowly passed the Imperial Hotel in downtown Tokyo. On his daily commute, a man was looking out the window of the tram as usual, yet suddenly, he found that the sumptuous Rokumeikan, which should have been right adjacent to the Imperial Hotel, had suddenly disappeared without notice.

Designed by British architect Josiah Conder, the Rokumeikan (鹿鳴館) was a two-storey French-Renaissance-style building that was designed to house foreign dignities in the Meiji Period (1868-1912). Although once celebrated as the symbol of Japan’s progress and westernization during the Civilization and Enlightenment movement in the early Meiji Period, as Japanese-American and Japanese-British relations deteriorated in the late 1930s, the Rokumeikan came under harsh criticisms as waste of land and money as well as being a symbol of moral decadence under the ideological swing to “overcoming modernity” and anti-Westernism. Eventually, it was demolished without leaving even a memorial tablet on the original site.

After this abrupt destruction, the astonished man on the tram submitted an article titled “Meiji no Aiseki” (明治の愛惜 , “Yearning for Meiji”) to the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun on November 8, 1940. He earnestly expressed his nostalgia for the Meiji Period and remarked that old buildings of historical and aesthetic value like the Rokumeikan which were no longer being used could well be converted to memorial sites instead of being demolished. This declaration was a bold opposition to the social trends of the time.

The name of this man was Taniguchi Yoshiro (1904-1979), an architect and professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Taniguchi believed that architecture was the “witness of history,” as “every piece of architecture has not only techniques but also cultural characters contained in its building style, which is just like the soul generated in its historical time”. 2 This argument formed the very ideological basis of his attachment to Meiji architecture, and the demolition of the Rokumeikan became the starting point for his dream of preserving it. The dream, eventually, crystallized as the Museum Meiji-mura, one of the largest open-air museums

1 Lun Jing holds a MA degree in East Asian Studies from Duke University. His research interest is postwar Japan's cultural and social history, especially the history of mass and popular culture as well as social media. (He is keen on postwar Japanese music and historical TV dramas.) He is recently appointed as a Nippon Foundation Fellow at the Inter-University Center for Japanese Language Studies in Yokohama, Japan, and will begin a 10-month study there.2 Taniguchi Yoshiro, Meiji-mura Hyobancho V, p.5.

134

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Murain Japan.

What is “Meiji-mura”?

It will be helpful to start from interpreting the denotations and connotations of the very name “Museum Meiji-mura”, which is better known in its abbreviated form as simply “Meiji-mura”. Meiji-mura is an artificially created cultural site on which authentic Japanese modern architectural structures, especially buildings and artefacts from the Meiji Period, are collectively preserved, restaged, and thus able to perform as a brand new entity in a specific historical framework. It is located on the outskirts of Inuyama City, which is in the northwest of Aichi Prefecture in central Japan. Its geographical location is quite remote from the rapidly growing urban areas, and there are few inhabitants residing nearby. The open-air museum is constructed by a large reservoir called Pond Iruka, which was constructed in 1633 in the Edo period. Far away from industrial encroachment, its vicinity is rich in beautiful natural scenery, as plum blossoms and peach trees bloom in springs, and maples leaves tint the tranquil hills red in autumn.

Meiji-mura has an area of 1 million square meters (or 100 hectares). It includes 68 exhibition blocks divided into five areas.3 As of March 2018, 13 buildings and artefacts in the exhibition blocks had been designated as important cultural properties (重要文化財 ) by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (MEXT), while almost all of the remaining architectural structures have been recognized as registered tangible cultural properties (登録有形文化財 ). Meiji-mura has gained national fame today as a location spot for TV dramas and movies featuring Japan’s modern history, and it welcomes tens of thousands of tourists every year from home and abroad.

“Meiji” is the historical theme of the open-air museum. Preceding Taisho and Showa, it is the title of the first Japanese emperor in Japan’s modern history. It also serves as an era name indicating the reign of the emperor as well as an authoritative way of periodizing modern history.4 The Meiji Period is characterized by tremendous domestic social, economic, and cultural changes as well as comprehensive and extensive exchanges with the West. It has also become the widely accepted point of origin of Japan’s modernity. Nevertheless, it took a fairly long time for Japanese people to rediscover the significance of the Meiji Period and its culture in the mid-20th century, and it is this matter of fact that provided the very agency which exterminated the Rokumeikan, and brought about the establishment of Meiji-mura.

There is an issue regarding the use of the word “mura”, which is basically translated as “village” in English, in the official English translation. The original Japanese name of Museum Meiji-mura reads Hakubutsukan Meijimura (博物館明治村), which has the hakubutsukan part translated to “museum” as a convention, while the mura part is kept in its original form. This 3 The No. 22 block is erased from the official guidebook as of 2015.4 If to ignore the reigning Akihito enthroned in January 1989, whose reigning period is called Heisei. Emperor Meiji reigned from September 1868 to July 1912, Emperor Taisho reigned from July 1912 to December 1926, and Emperor Showa reigned from December 1912 to January 1989. The current emperor, Akihito, will abdicate in April 2019 in prospect.

135

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muramanipulation, in fact, reflects the complexity of the connotation of the word “mura”. According to Taniguchi, the reason for adopting the word “mura” (村) in the title is that it indicates a unique space which features remoteness and isolation from urban areas, possession of natural environment as well as historical atmosphere, and absence of substantial residents.5 In essence, “mura” is a virtual village which is detached from real life, so it is by no means authentic.6

Correspondingly, the concept of “villager” turns out to be more of a sentimental appeal than an economic and demographic index, corroborating the fictitiousness of “mura”. As is shown by the noticeboard set right at the entrance of Meiji-mura, which reads “Meiji-mura welcomes you earnestly. Standing right here, you have already become a member of Meiji-mura. Meiji-mura is your village.”7 Consequently, the term “Meiji-mura”, rather than “Meiji Village”, is preferred by Taniguchi and other initiators of this cultural preservation enterprise.

Prehistory of Meiji-mura

Yet Taniguchi waited for another 25 years to realize his dream after the demolition of the Rokumeikan and the submission of his sentimental article. During this period of time, Japan was defeated in World War II, and the nation subsequently experienced a rapid social resurrection. Beginning in the early 1950s, Japan witnessed miraculous economic growth, an impressive urban recovery, a swift expansion of the public transportation system, and more. In the White Paper on the Japanese Economy (Keizai hakusho) published by the Economic Planning Agency8 in 1956, it was declared that “it is not postwar anymore”9, indicating that Japan had promptly completed its purpose of economic revival after its great destruction during the war. However, on the other side of this picture, severe social problems emerged one after another. On the rural side, increasing (re)construction projects caused a labor influx from small towns and the countryside to big cities, thus depleting the rural population. On the urban side, instigated by the potential of profit-making in setting new construction projects, land prices soared in response to escalating urban expansions and urgent land demands for bustling city blocks.

As a result, under the banner of social revitalization and industrial development, countless Meiji buildings fell into yet another round of survival crisis since Japan embraced its modernity. Many of the architectural structures from the Meiji Period had already been destroyed in the fierce, large-scale air raids conducted by the Allies during World War II, which included a good many that had been lucky enough to survive the ordeal of natural disasters such as the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. But, obviously, this is not the end of the story. The remaining Meiji buildings were threatened by not only the increasing need for land, but also postwar ideological

5 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.393. Since the 2000s, Meiji-mura has been propelling the execution of the “resident registration” (jumin toroku) policy to encourage tourism. Since its essence is the selling of yearly passports/tickets, “residents”, which have grown to more than 10,000 by 2010, are still nominal.6 This connotation has made “mura” later become a popular suffix applied to a number of open-air museums and theme parks in Japan, such as the Nihon Taisho-mura as well as the Nihon Showa-mura in central Japan, and the Toei Uzumasa Eiga-mura (Toei Kyoto Studio Park) in Kyoto. However, not all the successors are necessarily following the connotation of “mura” as shown in the case of Meiji-mura after their adoption of this very word.7 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.398. The time of the setting of the noticeboard cannot be precisely investigated at this point, but the earliest time should be no later than the 1970s when Taniguchi wrote his memoir.8 Now the Cabinet Office (Naikakufu).9 The original sentence is “もはや「戦後」ではない”, which became a catch phrase in Japan thereafter.

136

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Murahostilities from both the government and the masses. After “embracing defeat”, it became the mainstream consensus in Japanese society that “Meiji” acted as the initiator of the evil wars in East Asia from

the time of the Restoration. Therefore, it should be viewed as an obstacle to the zeitgeist of Americanization, and Meiji material culture should be harshly criticized and disregarded.

Moreover, the voices of the architects who were in favor of uprooting Meiji architecture should not be ignored. Facing poverty and material shortage right after the war, modernism, functionalism, and rationalism soon surged in Japanese architectural circles. Capable of providing the simplest and the most economical (re)building plans for the numerous cities which just experienced the calamity of warfare, those novel, practical architectural ideologies soon gained strong influence in Japanese society, setting off cultural movements such as the Metabolism movement from the late 1950s. Given this background, it was not surprising to see some supporters of this new trend going to extremes, asserting that the old architecture was useless and should be wiped out. Under this circumstance, the aesthetic value of Meiji architecture, together with its historical value, was ignored, disparaged, or denied. It seems that the tragedy of the Rokumeikan was going to be restaged elsewhere, or possibly everywhere, in Japan.

Interestingly, this social trend of demolishing architecture inherited from the previous historical period(s) has a typical precedent. In 1873 (Meiji 6), the Meiji Government issued the Castle Abolishment Edict, commanding that most of the castles and local administration structures built in the premodern era should be converted to “general properties” that would then be disposed of by the Ministry of Finance. In the name of “Civilization and Enlightenment”, nearly all castles throughout Japan were sold to local communities and schools by the ministry, and later they were ordered to be destroyed heartlessly, with only few exceptions that escaped removal. However, only decades later, the historical and architectural values of the castles and administration houses were reassessed owing to the surge of Japanese nationalism. Soon, the rest of the castles were promptly placed under preservation and designated as national treasures (国宝) or historical sites.

The Inuyama Castle, known as one of the only 12 original surviving premodern castles in Japan today, was designated as a national treasure in as early as 1935. Standing alone and proud in the northwest of Inuyama city, it forms a silent irony together with Meiji-mura in the southeast of the city, reflecting the aftermath of the trans-period nationwide frenzies of destruction-to-protection. Destruction enables development, denial of the past invokes progress to the future, and before long a strong backlash takes place, reversing all such radical ideologies. Just as Herrington remarks, “the city is continually oscillating between fits of destruction and moments of cultural veneration that raise the remnants of the former city to the level of art.” 10 History, indeed, sarcastically and ruthlessly repeats itself.

This paper, then, starts from this very point before the revival of Meiji architecture to investigate the overall history of Meiji-mura as a cultural preservation movement, and to assess

10 Herrington, p.408

137

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muraon the social and cultural significance of Meiji-mura in postwar Japan as well. Here, I take a macro, holistic perspective regarding the description of Meiji-mura. However, micro elucidations will not be ignored. This is to avoid listing all the historical and architectural details of its buildings and artefacts and analyzing them one by one; in fact, this task has already been completed by Museum

Meiji-mura Guidebook, the official handbook issued by Meiji-mura that caters to Japanese domestic visitors.

The encyclopedic guidebook has a simplified English version in which only large-size photographs and general brief introductions of the architectural structures are listed. Actually, this fact reflects the huge linguistic distribution imbalance in the academic sources related to Meiji-mura. Specifically, there is a striking lack of primary and secondary sources discussing the topic of Meiji-mura in English (except an article by landscape scholar Susan Herrington), while only a few Japanese materials provide substantial help for problematizing and systemizing Meiji-mura as a cultural achievement. English materials on architecture, visual studies, and cultural studies are especially helpful in supplying most of the theoretical framework for the specific topic, yet their utilization must follow a thorough investigation on Japanese primary and secondary sources. Therefore, by engaging a thorough bilingual study, I hope to fill the gap of the historical research on Meiji-mura in English.

Basically, I argue that the enterprise of Museum Meiji-mura is a postwar social and cultural movement which aims to preserve Meiji material culture and to pay homage to Meiji ethos. Originated from the friendship between two social elites, Taniguchi Yoshiro and Tsuchikawa Moto-o (1903-1974), the individual concerns of preserving Meiji architecture eventually developed to a full-scale nongovernmental collaboration. Backed by supportive networks both in business circles and in the intelligentsia, and propelled by the strong policymaking and actions of the initiators, the enterprise was successfully launched and smoothly operated, although not without financial challenges. Meiji-mura effectively rescued a large amount of historically and aesthetically valuable Meiji, or more exactly, modern architecture, which was once debased and even set in peril, by means of relocation. What’s more, by reconstructing while creating architectural spaces, the open-air museum, which also carries the characteristics of a theme park, offers a dynamic and interactive way of interpreting Meiji history in an organized logic of aesthetical and historical representation. Consequently, Meiji-mura helped initiate the social climate of rediscovering the value of Meiji and preserving Meiji, and in a larger sense, modern architecture, which makes it a monument in Japan’s social and cultural history.

Tsuchikawa’s effort in project initiation

The origin of the Meiji-mura project dates back to 1955, which was 10 years before its formal opening. At a party held by the alumni association of the Fourth National High School in Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Taniguchi had a reunion with his classmate and old friend Tsuchikawa Moto-o, the vice-president of Nagoya Railway Company (also known as Meitetsu) at that time. Sighing over the miserable situation of Meiji buildings in the midst of their cordial

138

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muradialogue, Taniguchi explained to Tsuchikawa his long-considered move-and-rebuild plan for preserving Meiji architecture. To his great delight, Tsuchigawa immediately and enthusiastically agreed to offer him full financial support to realize the plan.

Tsuchikawa’s agreement was based on not only his friendship with Taniguchi as well as his personal approval of Taniguchi’s idea, but also his insights into developing the cultural market

for his company. Naturally, as a profit-making organization, Meitetsu took commercial considerations into account from the very beginning. In Japan, the railway system and the tourist industry – sometimes the broader cultural industry – are mutually dependent. In as early as the 1910s, Hankyu Corporation, one of the most powerful private railway companies in the Kansai area, invested in a string of cultural projects and leisure facilities in the towns along the railway as a strategy of integrated industrial and local tourist development. One of the projects turned out to be the establishment of the world-famous Takarazuka Revue, whose success and fame eventually repaid the corporation. Meitetsu did not engage in cultural enterprises until the 1960s when the domestic tourist industry thrived. Nonetheless, in order to extend its economic and social influence in the railway industry, the company showed great ambition and determination to catch up with its peers from the very beginning.

On deciding the site for construction, Tsuchikawa did not set the nearby Inuyama area as his first choice. Anticipating the strong cultural influence brought by the locality of Tokyo once the project was implemented therein, he brought Taniguchi’s idea to the local governments, communities, and cooperative railway companies in the Kanto area, but none of them gave him a positive response. Having no other alternatives, Tsuchikawa brought the agenda back to Nagoya and opened an executive board meeting at Meitetsu for discussion. Consequently, what he received were only harsh criticisms such as “Preposterous!” and “Nonsense!” Considering that architectural museums abroad were generally facing deficits in the early postwar period, many executive board members feared and scorned the lack of budget consciousness of the plan, and they emphasized to Tsuchikawa their stance as policymakers of a profit-making corporation.11

Still, Tsuchikawa finally persuaded the executive board to initiate the Meiji-mura construction project, as his two recent impressive feats brought him powerful leverage in the policymaking arena in the company: he launched the “rationalization movement” at Meitetsu which helped the corporation economize to an investment of 2 billion yen, and he also earned a profit of over ten million yen from a land deal in Tokyo, which was originally regarded as a losing business.

Tsuchikawa soon appropriated a large stretch of undeveloped corporate land adjacent to the reservoir Pond Iruka. As is mentioned before, the land is located on remote, pastoral hillsides, connected by neither trains nor buses at that moment. However, such backwardness in exploitation and transportation became the very advantage in Taniguchi’s eyes. He asserts that for the construction of the open-air museum, isolation from fire sources is required. It is extremely difficult to find out a vast and safe site in big cities like Tokyo and Osaka or in their suburbs; even if it turned out to be successful in finding one, the population would inevitably grow around the site, and undoubtedly, excessive dust and waste gas would be brought to the

11 Tsuchikawa Moto-o, Meiji-mura Hyobancho IV, p.2.

139

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muraarea, which would cause a substantially higher possibility of conflagrations12. Hence, Tsuchikawa successfully found a reciprocity for both Meitetsu and Taniguchi.

Generally speaking, the contributions and devotions made by Tsuchikawa are as spectacular as that of Taniguchi. Upon commanding Meitetsu to give overall assistance including land, capital, and human resources to the establishment of Meiji-mura, Tsuchikawa himself stood out to help organize meticulous technical investigations on the locomotives and railway facilities

moved to the open-air museum.13 Thanks to the successful promotion campaigns made possible by his strong network in the transportation and tourist industries as well as Taniguchi’s in the academia and intelligentsia, Meiji-mura welcomed an astoundingly large group of people to its opening ceremony in 1965. Taniguchi and Tsuchikawa’s collaboration further extended to the establishment of the Meitetsu Bus Terminal in Nagoya in 1967. Personally designed by Taniguchi, this building became yet another proof of their firm friendship.

Establishment of the administrative system

The Meiji-mura project began to progress quickly beginning in the early 1960s. In 1961, a special committee was established for the preparation and negotiation for the opening of Meiji-mura. After the site near Pond Iruka was ensured in the same year, Tokugawa Musei, a famous narrative artist and essayist, was appointed as the soncho (village head) of Meiji-mura, which marks the preliminary formation of its organizational structure.

Soncho and kancho and are the two posts for leaders of Meiji-mura, both of which are derived from its full Japanese name Hakubutsukan Meijimura, yet they take on distinct responsibilities. Soncho in Japanese means the head of village (mura), who turns out to be the symbol, representative, and image ambassador of Meiji-mura. The successive sonchos in the history of Meiji-mura are all celebrities in the cultural industry.14 They do not need to be specialists in Meiji architecture or even architecture. Instead, they are responsible for excavating and promoting the charm of Meiji-mura from their own cultural perspective.

Kancho in Japanese means the head of museum (hakubutsukan, or simply kan). All kanchos have been architects and/or experts in architectural history.15 They are in charge of practical affairs such as daily operation of Meiji-mura and policymaking on the preservation of architecture. Taking the third kancho Iida Kishiro for instance, he comes to his office at Meiji-mura twice a week, and his daily routine mainly includes three tasks: holding meetings regarding museum operation and architectural material investigations, supervising architectural maintenance and repair projects, and providing voluntary professional narrations for tourists. In other words, kancho is devoted to “spreading and practicing the achievements in research”.16

12 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.386.13 Takase Fumihito, p.84.14 They are Tokugawa Musei (1st), Morishige Hisaya (2nd, actor, singer), Ozawa Shoichi (3rd, actor, essayist), and Akawa Sawako (4th, essayist, talent).15 They are Taniguchi Yoshiro (1st), Sekino Masaru (2nd), Muramatsu Teijiro (3rd), Iida Kishiro (4th), Suzuki Hiroyuki (5th), and Nakagawa Takeshi (6th).16 Nishio Masatoshi, “Meiji-mura de no Iida sensei”, p. 15.

140

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura

In 1962, the Meiji-mura Foundation was established and recognized by MEXT, which is a key event in Meiji-mura’s history.17 The foundation prospectus was issued subsequently, in which the purpose and the future agenda of Meiji-mura are regulated as follows:

This foundation is established in order to collect and manage various kinds of historical materials of the

Meiji Period, and thereby setting up a museum. This is not only for enabling them to be opened widely to the general public, but also to provide a guideline of history for the masses today and tomorrow by reviving the social education on the basis of the new spirits of Meiji. Therefore, we expect to fulfill the general education, and thus making contributions to the progress of culture. (Chapter 2, Article 3)

In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, the following projects are to be launched:

(1) The establishment and operation of a museum related to Meiji culture, and the corresponding implementation of academic researches.(2) The execution of events regarding the promotion of Meiji culture.(3) The holding of lectures, symposiums, and seminars for the sake of reviving social education based on the spirit of the Meiji Period.(4) The glorification of great people from the Meiji Period.(5) The distribution of publications on Meiji culture.(6) Other projects necessary for the achievement of the goals in Article 3. (Chapter 2, Article 4, translated by the author)

As is stressed in the prospectus, social education, rather than profit-making, was the main purpose for the establishment of the Museum Meiji-mura.

Another key event in Meiji-mura’s history is the formation of the architectural committee in 1963. Led by Taniguchi, the first generation of the committee included ten scholars specializing in architectural history and/or experts in architectural preservation techniques.18 As it is limited by land area and its construction budget, instead of admitting all architectural structures proposed by proprietors all over Japan, Meiji-mura has accepted only qualified architecture on a selective basis. It has been responsibility of the architectural committee to identify and examine first-class architecture that can be considered cultural property, among which buildings on the verge of demolition are given first consideration. All the selected architectural structures are items with historical and stylistic value, no matter whether they are famous or not. Once its proposal on introducing a building is approved by the directors of Meiji-mura, the committee starts to supervise the process of architectural displacement.

Taniguchi’s philosophy of “rescue”

As Taniguchi categorizes, there are four ways of preserving old architecture in general: on-site preservation, relocational preservation, stylistic preservation, and partial preservation.19

17 50 years later in 2012, Meiji-mura was further recognized as a public-interest incorporated foundation by the Japanese government.18 The members of the architectural committee includes Taniguchi Yoshiro, Ōta Hirotaro, Fujioka Michio, Kido Hisashi, Kikuchi Jūrō, Sekino Masaru, Iida Kishiro, Saito Hachiro, Ichikawa Kiyosuke, and Ito Michio, who all served as the staff of the Meiji-mura Foundation.19 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.390.

141

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji MuraWhile Meiji-mura has adopted the latter three approaches, the basic pattern of preservation in Meiji-mura turned out to be relocational preservation, which denotes the logic of moving and rebuilding. Unlike on-site preservation, relocational preservation allows the creation of a pure “Meiji” atmosphere by collecting Meiji buildings and artefacts outside Inuyama through their unidirectional displacement.

The comparison between the definitions of “preservation” and “conservation” given by architectural historian Kikuchi Juro helps facilitate the pattern of architectural protection in Meiji-mura. He points out that preservation suggests the inability to keep the original architectural conditions, while conservation emphasizes the “coexistence and maintenance of the new and the old.”20 Here, following this interpretation, it is more reasonable to understand on-site preservation as conservation, which is inapplicable to the case of Meiji-mura.

In fact, Taniguchi and his colleagues on the architectural committee preferred on-site preservation. They tried hard at the very beginning to dissuade the local communities from demolishing the architectural structures which they assessed as valuable. As Taniguchi points out, architecture is fixed to the ground and forms a close relationship with its surroundings, and once the environment is removed, it will be harder for the architecture to present its original aesthetic features. Therefore, he totally agrees that on-site preservation is the most favorable method and should be conducted whenever possible, as it may become meaningless if the buildings are disconnected from their local atmosphere, original architectural materials and building techniques, and the people who previously lived in them.21

Be that as it may, due to the changing social circumstances in the early postwar period, calls for on-site preservation of Meiji buildings were largely swamped by increasing demands for land, criticisms on Meiji values, and economic or technical difficulties in maintaining or repairing the architecture. Hence, relocational preservation came to be the most preferable alternative to saving the buildings from destruction. That is to say, the “life” of the architectural structures could best be salvaged by means of geographical movement.

This philosophy of relocation as a compromise under emergency is devised and summarized by Taniguchi as “rescue” (kyujo 救助), which serves as one of the basic motivations and guidelines of the Meiji-mura enterprise. The word “rescue” is actually a literal description rather than a rhetoric one. Just as Taniguchi repeatedly emphasizes in his writings, if Meiji-mura had not been established, or if its establishment had been delayed for a period of time, part or even all of the architecture pieces as well as their historical values would have forever disappeared from the world. Following this logic, the effort of dissuasion taken by Taniguchi and his team can well be regarded as an invisible rescue or pre-rescue, which has at least the same importance as relocational preservation.

Taniguchi uses a series of vivid analogies to further illustrate the rationale of his philosophy. He compares the architectural structures in danger of destruction to patients in critical condition (kyukan), and the architectural committee to an ambulance (kyukyusha) which 20 Kikuchi Juro, “Watashi no Meiji kenchiku”, p.62.21 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.390.

142

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muratransports the “patients”.22 These tropes specifically highlight the urgency of preserving Meiji architecture, yet in a deeper sense, they also allude to the salvage of the good, old past which is threatened by postwar modernity. Also, Taniguchi compares his architectural team to gleaners (ochibo-hiroi) and scavengers (ponkotsuya/bataya)23, which reflects the painstakingness of identifying and

examining valuable Meiji buildings and artefacts from the sea of Japanese architecture.

Painstaking relocation

Taniguchi and his colleagues including Kikuchi Juro and Iida Kishiro have all remarked on the normal steps taken in the process of relocation. Here, definitions shall go first again to facilitate the understanding of the related concepts. Relocation refers to the technical process which starts from the disassembly of the architecture on the rescue list, and ends with the completion of its restoration in Meiji-mura. To go one step further, as Kikuchi remarks, the word “restoration” is more accurate in describing the technical rebuilding process in Meiji-mura, as it refers to “the act of returning the architecture to the original condition”. On the other hand, the word “reconstruction” means “the rebuilding process of lost architecture in which the prerequisite of strict historical investigation is needed”, which does not fit the situation of Meiji-mura.24 Thus, based on Kikuchi’s point of view, the word “reconstruction” in this paper is used to emphasize the effect of recuperation after the completion of the physical, scientific restoration projects, and its capability of creating a new space and context as if it is a re-creation.

Generally, once the list of the buildings to be rescued has been decided by the architectural committee, negotiations with the proprietors are arranged. After agreeing on the property transfer, hurried but careful surveying and meticulous dismantlement are conducted. The disassembled parts are transported to the site in Inuyama, and are stored in the warehouse, waiting for a suitable time and chance to be restored rather than going under rehabilitation right after their arrival. Therefore, relocation is not implemented under a first-come, first-completed rule.

From the viewpoint of architectural experts, restoration is far more difficult than construction.25 Kikuchi points out that the buildings to be restored are just as important as new items which arrive in a general museum; nevertheless, the architectural structures have to be dealt with in a much more cautious way, for it is nearly impossible to fix the technical errors made during the relocation process. Furthermore, while the items in regular museums can be exhibited and replaced in batches, architecture in open-air museums cannot.26 For this reason, the architectural experts devise careful plans for all the buildings and artefacts individually. They are chosen to be restored out of deliberations on not only the financial situations in different times, but also the effect of representation.27 They are rearranged at “suitable” spots respectively around the 100-hectare site (and the work was mostly done by Taniguchi before he passed away in 22 Ibid p.394.23 Taniguchi, Meiji-mura Hyobancho V, p.10.24 Kikuchi, “Meiji-mura ichiku kenchiku no hyoka”, p. 22.25 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.394.26 Kikuchi, “Watashi no Meiji kenchiku”, pp.63-64.27 Ibid p.64.

143

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura1979). Factors such as terrain, properties of soil, and possibility of landscape change brought about by the multiplying of relocated buildings, are all taken into consideration.28 The choice and reconfiguration of land for restoration is by no means less painstaking than the investigations conducted before restoration. Certain small plots have to be roped off time after time for dimension measurement in order to determine the specific location for rebuilding. After this process, pipes may be laid, and trees or soil may be bulldozed if necessary, yet the technical teams endeavor to keep the landscape in its original state as much as possible.

A number of challenges have to be faced in the restoration process, including the difficulty in ensuring identical building materials, the failure of obtaining original engineering documents, and the inability of perfectly grasping the traditional building techniques as applied by antecedent craftsmen. In the case of the Hongo Kinotoko Barber Shop, the blueprints were nowhere to be found before its restoration. As a result, in order to complete substitute engineering drawings that reach high-level academic and technical standards, the technical team had to consult historical records as well as on-site surveys during the process of dismantlement. When confronting questionable technical points, the team would then resort to news reports, old photographs, and even related diaries or anecdotes to infer the original architectural shape. Even after the restoration work was completed, the repair and reconfiguration plans had to be prudently examined by the architectural committee before their execution. Since the ultimate purpose of the restoration work is to rebuild the architectural structures as they were at the outset, it is an extremely painstaking process of rediscovery which has to be timely engaged.

Opening ceremony and the first relocated buildings

The construction of Meiji-mura proceeded smoothly. In 1963, the foundation stone laying ceremony was performed on the site in Inuyama. In 1964, Meiji-mura formally acquired governmental recognition as a museum, which eventually entitles it to be named as “Museum Meiji-mura”. Finally, having collected 15 pieces of architecture, on March 18, 1965, Meiji-mura welcomed its opening ceremony. At that point, the area of the site was 50 hectares, only half as large as the current dimensions, and the quantity of buildings on display was less than one fourth of the figure today. Still, as many as 780,000 people visited Meiji-mura in the first year. The number of visitors increased year by year; in 1968, it rose to a surprising 1.58 million, which is nearly two times as large as that of the first year.

In the first batch of “immigrant” architecture, the Residence of Mori Ogai and Natsume Soseki relocated from Tokyo, the St. John’s Church relocated from Kyoto, and the Mie Prefectural Office relocated from Tsu City in Mie Prefecture all became popular scenic spots. Other buildings include the Residence of Marquis Saigo Tsugumichi and the Sapporo Telephone Exchange, both of which were designated as important cultural properties soon after their relocation. Saigo’s residence is the first building that sees its relocation completed in Meiji-mura. It is a two-storey French-style house which has a fine semicircle veranda on the outer side. Prior to its disassembly in 1963, the proprietorship of the residence was gained by the Japanese National Railways (JNR)29 from the Saigo family. Eventually, members of the architectural committee of Meiji-mura persuaded the administrative board of JNR to allow the already vacant

28 Ibid p.63.29 Now Japanese Railways, or in the abbreviated form, “JR”.

144

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Murahouse to be relocated to Inuyama, rather than having it demolished as planned by the board.

The relocation story of the Sapporo Telephone Exchange can best illustrate the arduous process of an endangered Meiji building which is rescued by, relocated to, and reconstructed in Meiji-mura. The telephone exchange building is the first piece of architecture rescued by Meiji-mura, which is

a typical two-storey Western-style stone structure built in the Meiji Period. Although used as the main building of the Sapporo Central Post Office between 1910 and 1962, it is now rehabilitated to its original name and appearance in early Meiji Period. Owing to the postwar urban reconstruction, in 1962, the building had been sold to a pig-raising cooperative by the local community, which then put it in peril of destructive remodeling or even total demolition.

On hearing the news, the architectural committee members hurried to Hokkaido to bid for the proprietorship of the building. After obtaining the agreement of property transfer, a thorough engineering survey was conducted, and the entire building was carefully yet swiftly disassembled to stone blocks of certain sizes. The blocks were checked and numbered one by one in order to ensure that all of them were in good condition, while supplementary stones were prepared in case the numerated blocks were damaged on their way to Inuyama. Finally, the disassembled parts were loaded onto vehicles heading for Meiji-mura and were kept in the warehouse. After rounds of research including investigations of old records and photographs, the disassembled sections were rehabilitated in the original scale and shape in 1898 when it was established. As Taniguchi commented, the whole project is “even more difficult than jointing together a severely smashed vase”.30 The telephone exchange building was finally designated as a national important cultural property in 1968, which can well be regarded as a cheerful reward for the efforts of the devoted architects and negotiators.

Opportunities and challenges in operation

Meiji-mura has experienced four developmental stages since its inception. From 1965 to the early 1970s, the average annual number of visitors is as high as 1.4 million. This was made possible thanks to a lifestyle revolution that took place throughout Japan, namely the popularization of washing machine, refrigerator, and monochrome television, which created plenty of leisure time for common households. Moreover, the low possession rate of private cars in Japanese society stimulated the advent of the golden age for public transport corporations including Meitetsu. In this context, both the Meitetsu and Meiji-mura enjoyed a period of capital influx.

In the 1970s, due to the decline in tourist traffic after the 1970 Osaka Expo and the popularization of overseas travelling, the visitor statistics of Meiji-mura stabilized. In the 1980s, Meiji-mura further saw a decline in the statistics. Enabled by the strong economy and the popularization of private cars, the choices of outdoor leisure activities for the common people further increased. This is especially reflected by the opening of a sequence of new open-air museums as well as theme parks like Tokyo Disneyland, which brought a good number of business competitors to Meiji-mura.

30 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.394.

145

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura

As the bubble economy collapsed in the early 1990s, Japan entered a long term of economic depression. Correspondingly, visitors heading for Meiji-mura dropped strikingly as people sought simplified and economical leisure activities. From 1993 to 2001, the number of visitors shrank over 10% every year. As a result, in 2002, only 370,000 people visited Meiji-mura, which is less

than one fourth of the figure in 1968.

Facing this situation, the administrators of Meiji-mura conducted a series of proactive measures to stop the further shrinking of visitors. On the upper level, Meitetsu Impress, a branch company of the Meitetsu Group, was established in 2003 to boost the efficiency in the operation of Meitetsu-owned cultural and leisure enterprises. On the lower level, the policymakers of Meiji-mura initiated a sequence of measures. They introduced the volunteer system, opened a number of new restaurants and shops, and started running Facebook and Twitter accounts for image promotion. They also designed schoolchildren-oriented exhibition corners and participatory programs, launched new seasonal events like autumn wedding fair and winter illuminations, and promoted classic events such as regular folk art performances and spring tea ceremonies in a stronger way. Eventually, thanks to these effective measures and the ripple effect on tourism brought to the central Japan area by the 2005 Aichi Expo, the number of visitors to Meiji-mura has seen a small-scale yet vigorous rebound since the mid-2000s.

According to a survey conducted jointly by Meiji-mura and the Nagoya Institute of Technology, on the one hand, Meiji-mura is recognized for its capability of providing pleasure and drawing repeat customers, its atmospheric uniqueness, and its advertising measures in local media31, all of which guarantee a stable source of visitors. On the other hand, the remote geographical location of Meiji-mura makes it a fairly purposeful destination both in the past and today. This factor has considerably limited the numeric growth of visitors from places far away from central Japan, which include Hokkaido, Kyushu, and even the Kanto area.

Meiji-mura also takes on the function of an academic institute in addition to a tourist attraction. It is able to learn from the operational experience of the Japan Monkey Center, which is another Meitetsu cultural facility founded by Tsuchikawa before the initiation of Meiji-mura. Administrated by a specially established foundation rather than the head office of Meitetsu, the center combines zoological research and tourism in its mechanism of operation. Specifically speaking, the research funds of the center are fully reimbursed by the ticket income, which was a novel running model in Japan in the 1960s.

Meiji-mura copied this model. Its site construction and infrastructure expenses, however, were paid by Meitetsu, which caused a considerable deficit for the operational group.32 Be that as it may, Meitetsu was able to gain profit from the attendant transportation and circulation revenues as stimulated by the operation of Meiji-mura.33 Also, thanks to the tourist influx in its early years, the open-air museum was self-sufficient in its daily operation and academic

31 Nunomura Keisuke, et al., p.452.32 Tsuchikawa, Meiji-mura Hyobancho IV, p.5.33 Ishii Rie, p.18.

146

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muraresearches through its ticket income surplus, which was enabled by 1.2 million visitors in an average year in the first three decades in its history. Meiji-mura also witnessed a massive inflow of newly relocated architecture in its early days, welcoming as many as 46 pieces from its opening ceremony to two decades later. The buildings were collected from a wide range of locations. Architecture from Tokyo alone occupies one third of the total collection. Meanwhile, architecture from central Japan and the Kansai area occupies another one third, and the rest one third is occupied by buildings

which are relocated from other places in Japan and even from abroad.

Corresponding to the increase of relocated items, a shift in the travelling mode for on-site visiting has also gradually evolved since 1965. In the 1960s, as the number of relocated buildings remained relatively small, Meiji-mura turned out to be an ideal destination for one-day leisurely visit. However, as the number of buildings and artefacts which have their restoration finished keep growing, it has been more and more difficult to see all the exhibitions in detail in one day. Despite the construction of “a series of carefully planned walkways and transportation systems that physically and perceptually link all the artefacts together”34, which include the Meiji-mura tour bus and the dynamically operated Kyoto streetcar, tourists usually cannot help but change their way of visiting from devouring all the exhibits to making compromise selections from the long list of buildings and artefacts in the open-air museum.

The spending on architectural relocation also proved to be enormously costly. In 1970, the total expense of removal, transportation, and restoration for each piece of architecture reached 100 million Japanese yen on average.35 The relocation costs are closely related to the raw materials of the buildings. For instance, wooden architecture costs less in the relocation process owing to its comparatively compact structure. On the contrary, stone or brick architecture has a larger and more complex structure, so it was both costly and difficult in relocation.36 Partly out of this reason, the scale and speed of relocating additional architecture slowed down conspicuously since the 1980s. Among all the buildings and artefacts in the 68 exhibition blocks, only 6 architectural structures were approved entry to Meiji-mura and completed their dismantlement after 1980, and only 5 pieces finished their restoration work since 1985.

In the last decade of the 20th century, the financial pressure on Meiji-mura was exacerbated by the sharp decrease of the tourist flow. Before the collapse of the economic bubble, Meiji-mura was still capable of using its ticket income to repay the debts incurred by a series of restoration projects, yet this mechanism was inexorably disabled after the early 1990s. Nevertheless, the necessary costs for everyday operation and architectural maintenance, the anticipated high expenditure on new relocation projects, the difficulty in obtaining governmental allowances due to the non-governmental character of Meiji-mura, and the crucial demand for profit-making of Meitetsu, are all hard to be ameliorated or negotiated. For instance, the current expenditure on architectural maintenance has to rely on only limited governmental subsidies37

34 Herrington, p.409.35 Tsuchikawa, Meiji-mura Hyobancho IV, p.6.36 Kikuchi, “Meiji-mura ichiku kenchiku no hyoka”, p.21.37 The subsidies are exclusively provided for the 12 important cultural properties and the Nagoya Garrison Hospital, which is the only tangible cultural property of Aichi Prefecture in Meiji-mura. They cover 50% of the total maintenance and preservation expenditure. See Iida Kishiro “Hakubutsukan Meijimura” p.37.

147

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muraand external donations. The donations have been exempt from tax imposition since 2004, yet they only arrive in uncertain frequencies and amounts. Pleased by its fame yet confused by its finances, Meiji-mura is now facing both opportunities and challenges.

The Historical significance of Meiji-mura

To determine the biggest historical feat of Meiji-mura, its achievement of salvaging over sixty pieces of valuable Meiji architecture may not quite be the most appropriate candidate. Rather, it is its contribution on a nongovernmental level in reshaping the public attitude towards Meiji architecture that deserves more attention. Nurtured by its initiators, operators, and supporters in Japanese society, Meiji-mura has successfully promoted the historical and artistic values of Meiji architecture to the masses, and powerfully publicized the significance and the urgency of preserving the architectural structures as well. Just as Taniguchi remarks, the Meiji-mura enterprise has evolved into “a movement of enlightenment”.38

It is important to state, though, that the Meiji-mura project has never been free from political influence and pressure, as members from either the local government or the Japanese central government have played different roles in this enterprise. Kuwahara Mikine, the governor of Aichi Prefecture from 1951 to 1975, facilitated the establishment of the Meiji-mura Foundation as he accepted the invitation to serve on the foundation board as a consultant. Prime Minister Sato Eisaku prompted and actually determined the partial relocation of the Imperial Hotel, which now becomes the most valuable asset and the biggest representational irony of Meiji-mura. Also, the actions of bureaucrats from MOFA and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, who exerted repeated pressure to the policymakers of Meiji-mura in the relocation dispute of the Imperial Hotel, should not be forgotten. Moreover, officials from MEXT can never be ignored for their role in certifying Meiji-mura Foundation as a museum as well as granting cultural property designations to the candidate architecture in Meiji-mura.

The situation in the early days was tough, especially before Meiji-mura’s opening in 1965. In the first two decades of postwar period, when the concept of Meiji was still widely deemed liable for the engagement of war, Meiji architecture rarely gained attention from people other than historians or architectural historians. Although discussions about Meiji architecture did exist in the field of historical research, nobody carried out practical plans for rescuing Meiji architecture by means of relocation until Taniguchi and Tsuchikawa launched their enterprise.39

In this context, as one would expect, only a few people showed their support towards the Meiji architecture preservation project, while many others treated this ambition indifferently. As a

38 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.392.39 Still, Meiji-mura is not the very first place in Japan to practice architecture preservation through relocation. The oldest open-air museum in Japan comes to be the Sankei Garden in Yokohama. Opened in 1906, it furnishes a domestic prototype of architecture relocation, and most of the preserved objects are premodern pieces. The first open-air museum opened in postwar Japan is the Open-Air Museum of Old Japanese Farm Houses in Toyonaka, Osaka Prefecture. Opened in 1956, it focuses on the collection of folk residences throughout Japan.

148

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muracourageous action against the social trend, the establishment of Meiji-mura turned out to be a reflection of a contemporary history of destruction aimed at Meiji architecture.40

Beyond the expectations of many people, however, as many as 780,000 people visited Meiji-mura in the very year of its opening thanks to the aforementioned effort of all related parties to Meiji-mura. Although the surge of visitors is not necessarily related to the rise of social concern

on preserving Meiji architecture, it is a strong proof of the rise of social evaluation of the Meiji Period and its architecture. In the year of 1968, when Meiji welcomed its first centennial, the public opinion on the Meiji Period and Meiji architecture turned even more positive. It is also around this period of time that Meiji-mura received the Kikuchi Kan Prize, the Architectural Institute of Japan Prize, and the Tokai Television Prize in succession, which strongly demonstrates that the preservation enterprise began to win considerable social acclaim. Meiji-mura also issued its own prizes to influential figures in Japanese society who are dedicated to promoting Meiji culture. In 1975, one year after Tsuchikawa’s death, a prize was set up in honor of him to reward those dedicators in the entrepreneurial circle or in the intelligentsia. At the same time, the Meiji-mura Prize was established to glorify the dedicators in the academia or in the art circles. In the same year, the total visitor number of Meiji-mura exceeded 10 million.41

Further fueled by the “Hometown Campaign” (Furusato undo) launched by MEXT beginning in the late 1970s, the social consciousness of preserving modern Japanese architecture has grown rapidly. Both the nation and local communities called a stop on ruthless demolitions of Meiji architecture, meanwhile beginning to take more proactive steps to preserve the once undervalued or despised buildings. Pioneered and inspired by the then world-famous veteran Meiji-mura, campaigns of on-site as well as relocational modern architecture preservation burgeoned throughout the country. For instance, both the celebrated Historical Village of Hokkaido that was opened in Sapporo in 1983, and the renowned Edo-Tokyo Open Air Architectural Museum that was opened in Tokyo in 1993, have taken Meiji-mura as a model during their construction and operation. Despite the fact that open-air museums featuring modern architecture preservation boomed in recent decades, one can still scarcely find another museum like Meiji-mura in Japan today which contains such a large number of cultural properties in a single space.

Another important piece of evidence for the rise of the domestic concern for preserving Meiji architecture is the conspicuous rise of its proportion in the list of nationally designated important cultural properties. In as early as 1897, the Japanese government initiated its cultural property preservation project as marked by the enactment of the Ancient Shrine and Temple Preservation Law. This law was successively substituted and substantiated by the National Treasure Preservation Law in 1929 and the Cultural Properties Preservation Law in 1950, clearly reflecting the rise of official concern about the protection of historical relics. However, modern architectural structures were still generally underrated by the central government, and they were almost unprotected legislatively. Up to 1950, only 2 modern buildings were listed among the

40 Taniguchi, Meiji-mura Hyobancho V, p.10.41 Taniguchi, Taniguchi Yoshiro Shosakushu, p.408.

149

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura1057 architectural structures which were designated as important cultural properties, and this figure only saw a slight rise from 2 to 9 over one decade later. Nevertheless, as gradually propelled by the social trend of Meiji architectural preservation, in 2011, among the 2301 architectural structures designated as important cultural properties, as many as 284 pieces of modern architecture were listed, which occupied around 12% of the overall quantity.42 Today, widely regarded as a historical, cultural, and social value per se, Meiji has been rediscovered by the whole Japanese society.

Bibliography:

English materials:Herrington, Susan. "Meiji-mura, Japan: Negotiating Time, Politics, and Location." Landscape research 33, no. 4 (2008): 407-423.Hoffstaedter, Gerhard. "Representing culture in Malaysian cultural theme parks: Tensions and contradictions." Anthropological Forum, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 139-160. Routledge, 2008.Meiji-mura. Museum Meiji-mura. Aichi, Japan, 2004.Ogino, Masahiro. "Considering undercurrents in Japanese cultural heritage management: the logic of actualisation and the preservation of the present." Reconsidering Cultural Heritage in East Asia: 15.Willkens, Danielle S. "SAH Blog Railroads and Reconstructions: Transportation as a Tourism Conduit in Central Honshu." http://www.sah.org/community/sah-blog/sah-blog/2017/05/08/railroads-and-reconstructions-transportation-as-a-tourism-conduit-in-central-honshu.Yasui, Shuichiro. "Geographies of Theme Park in Japan." Annals of the Association of Economic Geographers 48, no. 1 (2002): 98-105.

Japanese materials:中野裕子（2017）「博物館明治村—明治時代を体験・体感できる野外博物館—」，『建設機械施工』69(8)，pp.83-88.中野裕子（2015）「名建築 10選」，『東京人』30(5)，pp.90-94.中川武・阿川佐和子（2015）「本物の建物と街並みで明治を感じる」，『東京人』30(5)，pp.86-89.高瀬文人（ 2015）「旧制高校の友情がつないだ明治村の誕生」，『東京人』30(5)，pp.84-85.中野裕子（2015）「博物館明治村」，『学士会会報』911，pp.101-105.石井里枝（2014）「名古屋鉄道と観光施設の開発—明治村の事例を中心として—」，『日本観光学会誌』55，pp.10-20.飯田喜四郎（2012）「博物館明治村」，『建築と社会』93，pp.34-37.

42 Iida, “Hakubutsukan Meijimura”, p.36.

150

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Muraレジャー産業資料編（2010）「博物館明治村・野外民族博物館リトルワールド」，『レジャー産業資料』43(9)，pp.18-21.飯田喜四郎ほか（2010）「各地に残る学習院の古い建物を訪ねて—明治村院長官舎にて—」，『学習院大学史料館紀要』16，pp.83-99.飯田喜四郎（2007）「近代建築と明治村」，『土と基礎』55(12)，pp.4-5.西尾雅敏（2007）「文化伝承としての建築意匠と装飾」，『名古屋造形芸術大学短期大学部紀要』13，pp.51-61.布村圭祐ほか（2006）「博物館明治村の入場者数変動要因と魅力—野外博物館の計画に関する研究(その 1)—」，『学術講演梗概集 E-1建築計画 I，各種建物・地域施設，設計方法，構法計画，人間工学，計画基礎』2006，pp.451-454.西尾雅敏ほか（2006）「博物館明治村の入場者数の変遷と社会的要因の関係—野外博物館の計画に関する研究(その 2)—」，『東海支部研究報告集』44，pp.557-564.黒野友之（ 2005）「展示型から体験型へ—明治村の挑戦」，『月刊観光』470，pp.29-31.児島由美子（2005）「博物館明治村所蔵家具の調査研究」，『学術講演梗概集 F-2建築歴史・意匠』2005，pp.299-300.伊郷吉信（2004）「明治村で出会う東京名建築」，『東京人』19(9)，pp.136-159.小沢昭一・藤森照信（ 2004）「明治村はなつかしさの宝庫」，『東京人』19(9)，pp.142-147.西尾雅敏（2004）「たてもの引越し騒動記」，『東京人』19(9)，pp.154-155.西尾雅敏（2003）「明治村での飯田先生」，『文建協通信』(74)，pp.14-16.佐々木享（1995）「江戸村、明治村、日本大正村」，『技術と教育』264，pp.12-13.金子暁男（1990）「開村 25周年を迎えた明治村—その誕生から現状まで」，『運輸と経済』50(2)，pp.51-58森真澄（1983）「明治村（洋風建築編）」，『WILL』2(9)，pp.15-17，中央公論社.森真澄（1983）「明治村（和風建築編）」，『WILL』2(11)，pp.15-17，中央公論社.服部哲郎（1981）「明治村を訪ねて」，『日本仏教史学』16，pp.28-38.谷口吉郎（1981）『谷口吉郎著作集 第一巻 建築紀行』淡交社.野田宇太郎（1980）「木村毅と明治村」，『早稲田大学史記要』13，pp.75-80.菊 池 重郎（ 1977）「 私の明治建築—麻布から明治村まで—」，『 自然』32(12)，pp.60-65，中央公論社.神代雄一郎（1975）「10周年を迎えた明治村」，『芸術新潮』26(5)，pp.80-83.土川元夫ほか（1974）『明治村評判帖』博物館明治村東京事務所.宇梶文雄（1970）「明治村，入鹿池のことども—今に生きる歴史をたずねて—」， 『土と基礎』18(10)，pp.69-71.科学朝日編（ 1969）「明治村・機械館にみる歴史的遺産」，『科学朝日』29(6)，pp.63-67，朝日新聞社.

151

Virginia Review of Asian Studies: 20 (2018): 134-151ISSN: 2169-6306Lun Jing: Meiji Mura飯田喜四郎（1969）「明治村」，『月刊文化財』65，pp.44-46.菊 池 重 郎 （ 1967 ） 「 明 治 村 に お け る 明 治 建 築 の 保 存 」 ， 『 建 築 雑誌』82(985)，pp.507-510.菊池重郎（1966）「明治村（1）」，『建築界』，15(2)，pp.19-22.菊池重郎（1966）「明治村（2）」，『建築界』，15(3)，pp.19-25.菊池重郎（1966）「明治村（3）」，『建築界』，15(4)，pp.17-22.菊池重郎（1966）「明治村（4）」，『建築界』，15(5)，pp.21-30.菊池重郎（1966）「明治村移築建築の評価」，『建築雑誌』81(967)，pp.19-23.市川清作・伊藤三千雄（1966）「明治村の移築工事の実施について」，『建築雑誌』81(967)，pp.17-19.谷口吉郎・菊池重郎（1966）「財団法人明治村の設立について」，『建築雑誌』81(967)，pp.15-17.石田和夫（1962）「明治村—異色関係団体」，『社会教育』17(12)，pp.30-33.

152