A central and monumental position in the city

3Since the early-modern period (1573-1867), castles have been built in the heart of Japanese cities. Erected on a plain or on a small hill, they dominate the urban space developing at their foot, organised according to the social hierarchy of the Edo period (shi-nô-kô-shô system: warriors, peasants, craftsmen, merchants) with residential districts for warriors separated from those for craftsmen and merchants. These cities, known as castle-towns (jôkamachi) are the model on which most of the capitals of today’s prefectures were built, such as Tokyo (former Edo), Nagoya, Hiroshima, Sendai or Kanazawa. From the moment they were built, these castles were not only defensive works, but also tools of political communication, designed both to house the local lords called daimyô (and the shogun in the case of Edo) and to display their power.

Map of Kanazawa in the end of the Edo period.

4Keeps, with their monumentality and architectural features, particularly symbolise the wealth and power of a lord. Reaching up to 30 metres for the highest, they are visible from afar, sometimes even from the countryside, and some streets are aligned in their axis. As they are built in the heart of cities, they are often the only architectural landmark, as the Japanese urban landscape does not contain monumental architecture, with the exception of pagodas, which were erected near the city boundaries in the early-modern era. Thus, like the bell tower of a church in European cities, the keep is a geographical landmark for the inhabitants who have a special attachment to it.

Perspective view of Himeji Castle, from the train station.

5Nowadays, castles sites, with an average surface area of around 30 hectares, up to 230 for Tokyo, can be described as “empty centres”, an expression used by Roland Barthes in L’empire des signes to describe the capital’s castle. Empty indeed, because the vast majority of the buildings originally built in these sites were destroyed at the beginning of the modern era (1868-1945). In just a few years, this monumental heritage has suffered irreversible damage, with the destruction of most of the castle buildings, which were not yet recognized as historical or architectural heritage assets. The only value they were often recognised for was the weight of their materials, for which they were sold at public auction. The interest of a few men, especially members of Meiji oligarchy from the early-modern warrior class, eventually saved from dismantling several of the current “national treasures”, such as the keeps of Himeji and Hikone.

Reconstruction projects and importance of the symbol

6It was at the beginning of the twentieth century that the heritage and symbolic value of castles was first recognised, with the establishment of a new legislation allowing their protection and enhancement, and the start of a practice that was to become widespread: the reconstruction of castles, particularly keeps. There are three types of reconstructed keeps: “invented keeps” (mogi tenshu 模擬 天守), whose historical existence or form is not proven; “reproduced keeps” (fukkô tenshu 復興天守), whose historical existence is proven, but where formal liberties have been taken; and “restored keeps” (fukugen tenshu 復元天守), which presents a high level of fidelity to the original. Of the approximately 80 reconstructed keeps in Japan today, 52 belong to the category of “invented keeps”, i.e. about 65 %. This important figure illustrates the symbolic dimension of the keeps for the Japanese people, who attach a strong territorial feeling to them, beyond the historical aspect. If the purpose of these buildings was, at first, mainly touristic, a boom in the reconstruction of reinforced concrete keeps can be observed in Japan in the 1950s and 1960s, in the aftermath of the Second World War, as an important stage in the reconstruction process of Japan and its cities.

Keep of Hiroshima Castle, “restored keep” (fukugen tenshu), reconstructed in reinforced concrete in 1958 (left side) and keep of Iga Castle, “invented keep” (mogi tenshu), reconstructed in wood in 1935 (right side).

7Of the hundred or so keeps that exist in Japan, only twelve are so-called original keeps (i.e. 13 %). Moreover, only five of the “restored keeps” were reconstructed with a wooden structure. However, the level of authenticity of reconstructed keeps does not seem to be related to their tourist popularity. According to tourism figures, the castles of Ôsaka and Nagoya, with their reconstructed reinforced concrete keeps, occupy the first and third places respectively in terms of attendance in 2019, exceeding two million visitors (https://corporate.kojodan.jp/). The symbolic value of these buildings therefore seems to far exceed their historical value.

Nagaya and fortified gate in Kanazawa Castle, reconstructed in wood in 2001 and 2015.

Looking for “authenticity”

8Since the 1990s and especially in the early 2000’s, there has been a trend in heritage practices towards the faithful reconstruction of old castle sites (keeps and other military buildings), with respect for old techniques and materials. The case of Kanazawa Castle, whose reconstruction began in 2001, is a concrete illustration of this. Fortified gates, bridges, moats and nagaya have indeed been faithfully reconstructed, based on historical documents and archaeological excavations. At present, the reconstruction work of the residential palace built in the heart of the castle will result in the creation of the largest reconstructed wooden building in Japan, with a surface area of 10,000 m².

9More recent events also illustrate a strengthening of these issues in national and international politics, as well as tensions between government ambitions and public opinion. In 2019, at the G20 meeting held at Ôsaka, former Prime Minister Abe Shinzô declared to world leaders: “The castle of Ôsaka, which is the symbol of the city, was first built in the sixteenth century. All the masonry walls and the great gate date back to the seventeenth century. Although most of the Ôsaka Castle was destroyed by fire during the Meiji Restoration 150 years ago, the keep was rebuilt to its sixteenth-century form about 90 years ago. However, only one big mistake was made: they went so far as to install lifts.”

10This speech reflects the Prime Minister’s, and many Japanese people’s, lack of knowledge regarding the history of this heritage. Indeed, the keep of Ôsaka castle was rebuilt in reinforced concrete in 1931 and is not an exact reproduction of the historic sixteenth-century building, which could not be built due to a lack of historical sources. It is thus interesting to note that Abe shows a desire for authenticity by regretting the presence of lifts, even though the building has neither structure nor appearance faithful to the original. This anecdote seems to illustrate a certain confusion among the Japanese in their perception of this military heritage.

Keep of Ôsaka Castle, “reproduced keep” (fukkô tenshu), reconstructed in reinforced concrete in 1931.

11The current example of Nagoya Castle is another illustration of the use of this heritage in political discourse. Indeed, the mayor of Nagoya, Kawamura Takashi, has launched a vast project to rebuild the keep of Nagoya Castle. Listed as a national treasure in 1930, then destroyed in the bombings of 1945 before being rebuilt in reinforced concrete in 1959, the Nagoya keep will be destroyed and rebuilt “identically” with a wooden structure by 2028. This project has provoked a wave of public protests, particularly because of the colossal costs involved in the construction (about 50 billion yen). The justifications put forward for this project are the economic spin-offs that this building will generate. Situated within just a few hours from Tokyo, Nagoya is often absent from the tourist circuits of foreigners and an “authentic” keep would allow international tourism to be revived. In a desire to be faithful to the historical model, it was also decided not to install a lift in the keep, provoking the anger of associations of disabled people who demand accessibility for all to the monument.

12In a context of strong economic pressure related to tourism and competition between municipalities, does the political discourse around the authenticity of these buildings not reflect a desire to seduce foreign visitors and Westerners in particular, for whom the heritage value is strongly related to material authenticity  The emotional relationship that the Japanese maintain with their castles is independent of its level of authenticity, as illustrated by the national emotion following the recent disasters that devastated the castles of Kumamoto and Shuri, located on the southern islands of the archipelago, both of which were rebuilt in the second half of the twentieth century. More than traces of the past, castles thus assume the unique role of urban markers and, above all, of identity symbol, materialising, on the one hand, local particularities and, on the other hand, a certain form of national historical unity.