Japanese cultural property protection laws regarding "Nihonto"

[Brian]

  On 3/19/2025 at 6:28 PM, Al_KRK said:

....I'm asking if there are legally described rules for sword conservation.

Expand  

The brief answer to this is no...there are no laws around this at all. The only thing that can resemble that, is the regulations against exporting the top levels of papered swords, such as that described here: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23644-juyo-bijitsuhin-export/

 

[Cola]

  On 3/19/2025 at 6:28 PM, Al_KRK said:

That's not what I meant. I'm asking if there are legally described rules for sword conservation. I need this for a theoretical paper. 

Expand  

 

Well it's as I said: there are no legal rules. Whoever owns the blade can do whatever they want with it.

[Al_KRK]

  On 3/19/2025 at 9:41 PM, Rivkin said:

Per se Japanese have little appreciation of old objects conservation in a white men's sense. They see a cultural object as continuing its existence and function until its demise rather than being fixed in a specific state. Its most obvious when looking at the architecture - the "gold pavilion" is one of the most iconic Japanese buildings yet today its very different than it was 100 years and 100 years ago it was very different compared to Muromachi. Wooden architecture, straw elements as part of floor and roof construction means each building is continuously rebuild, maybe couple of beams can survive the entire lifetime, but otherwise when it says "this is 1000 years old" it usually refers to the institution, not exactly this building in exactly this place and in exactly this form. There are relicts where >50% is something very old, but they are rare exceptions. City of Hiraizumi is a great example - in the west this would not happen and if it would, it would not be considered a national historical treasure. In Japan its seen as such.

 

By the same token as long the blade's function and purpose are exactly retained as original, the need is not to preserve the original polish as part of the sword's history, but rather repolish it to fit the contemporary perception of what today is an appropriate appearance for this blade. By the same token Japanese give very little consideration to any second tier (i.e. not properly sealed and written account by government entities) historical provenance associated with a blade; by default they believe such information is faked and therefore unless its confirmed with zero doubt by a modern authority it does not even enter the radar. At the top tier the original Daimyo receipt from Meiji period solicits only shrugs and sniffs, while modern sayagaki of unquestionable authenticity claiming the same provenance is treated as end of discussion argument. For a white person its weird since it is old documents which are needed to confirm the old provenance; for a Japanese its natural since the qualifications of the modern authority are accepted, while old things remain uncertain.

Expand  

Thanks! This is exactly what I want to write about, and also to present this destruct tanto somewhat provocatively. The difference in understanding the approach to authenticity.