The Heritage Education Journal

Volume 1, No. 1
September 2022

An online publication for those who use, manage, teach, or create information aboutpast or present people and cultures© 2023 The Heritage Education Network
All rights reserved. Permission must be obtained from the publisher for reproduction of material
in any form. The Heritage Education Journal is a journal of opinion, and the views expressed in its
articles are not necessarily those of the Publisher or the Editor.

The Heritage Education Journal (ISSN: 2832-9228), is published by The Heritage Education
Network on a system of rolling contributions that together comprise the yearly volume.

Table of Contents
The Heritage Education Journal
Volume 1, Number 1
September 2022
Editor’s Corner
Introducing The Heritage Education Journal (THEJ)
ArticlesHeritage Education and Oral History

Barbara Sommer
Laboratories as Heritage Sites: Linking Ethics, Research and Education

Rachel Watkins
A Cultural History of Archaeological Education

Carol J. Ellick
When Heritage Meets Education: Reflections on Past and Contemporary Policy in
Flanders

Joris Van Doorsselaere
Teaching and Learning About Cultural Heritage Within Archaeology in Australia

Georgia L. Stannard, Keir Strickland, and Melissa MarshallConceptualizing Heritage Education in Contemporary Japan

Mayumi Okada and Amanda Gomes
Why Does Archaeology Matter? Archaeology Across Different Countries and Teaching
Approaches

Laura Arias-Ferrer, Alejandro Egea-Vivancos, A. Gwynn Henderson, Linda S. Levstik,
Christian Mathis, Helena Pinto, and M. Jay Stottman
Forum
A Conversation on Heritage, Archaeology, and Education in the United States

Eleanor M. King, A. Gwynn Henderson, and Jeanne M. Moe, with comments by Sara
Chavarría, Walter Fleming, Ayana Omilade Flewellen, Alexandra Jones, Robert Kelly,
Allison K. McLeod, Sarah L. Miller, Teresa Moyer, Elizabeth Reetz, and Jack Rossen

Conceptualizing Heritage Education from Past to Present in Japan
Mayumi Okada1 and Amanda Gomes2
Abstract
This paper explores heritage education in contemporary Japan within a conceptual expansion ofheritage as cultural property (bunkazai) to include cultural heritage (bunka isan), which is aconsequence of national efforts to address socioeconomic issues. Although heritage is used inschool education, social education, and lifelong learning, the definition of “heritage education''
has not been formalized in Japan. This paper situates heritage, its management, and education
within contemporary policies and historical developments and aims to highlight the interaction
and dynamism of Heritage and Education. Before World War II, heritage education was
employed to cultivate a modern national identity mainly through public appreciation and, later,
to contribute to indoctrinating the public in order to strengthen Japanese imperialism. After thewar, the heritage management system was reformed based on a new constitutional law promoting
a democratic and pacifist postwar Japan. Over the following decades, the concept of heritage andits management policies were informed by social and economic concerns, globalization, andneoliberalism. Today, heritage education has a broader role in Japanese society, encouraging theparticipation of various stakeholders in order to promote local identity, regional revitalization,and tourism development.
____________
While there is no direct translation for ‘heritage education’ in Japanese (Okamura 2011),
this does not imply the lack of a connection between heritage and the public or an absence ofopportunities to teach and learn about heritage in Japan. In fact, there is a dynamic interplay
between heritage, the public, and education throughout modern Japanese history. The last few
decades have been characterized by the gradual appropriation of global concepts of heritage andrelated management practices by the state to support economic recovery efforts and frame
citizenship. Rather than replacing previous practices, these developments were establishedseparately overtop of existing structures and more recently have begun to make connections
between the two. These developments have been studied across multiple disciplines but have notcoalesced into a singular field or practice in Japan. Moreover, a holistic framework for heritage
education in Japan does not exist, despite the growth in academic discourse.
In this article, we situate heritage education in Japan within a palimpsest of multiscalar
practices and principles resulting from heritage and education policies as well as the sociohistorical context of their development. In particular, developments in the conceptualization ofheritage in Japan are integral to understanding the state of heritage education. Currently, both
cultural property (bunkazai) and cultural heritage (bunka isan) refer to heritage as a whole. The
former was officially adopted during the early stages of postwar development in Japan andcontinues to be the most widely accepted administrative term for heritage. The latter has become
more prevalent across research and policy concerning heritage, as well as within the generalpublic over the past few decades (Matsuda 2013). Throughout this paper, bunkazai (culturalproperty) and bunka isan (cultural heritage) are used to refer to distinct concepts and1
2

Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan m-okada@let.hokudai.ac.jp
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan gomes@let.hokudai.ac.jp

management systems in Japan, while heritage is an umbrella term. Moreover, there are several
adjacent terms used across policies concerning cultural properties, tourism, and education thatfall under the umbrella of heritage education, such as dissemination (fukyū), enlightenment(keihatsu), and utilization (katsuyō). These concepts are informed by the Confucian
underpinnings of education in Japan, the introduction of Western pedagogy, and the aims of thestate. In order to understand the development of heritage education in Japan, it is important to
explore these concepts and the subtle shifts in their meaning over time.
This paper presents heritage education as a series of nested, interlinking concepts
developed by the government to support state-making efforts and to reinforce national identity.
The following historical approach to their development is presented in three stages informed bystructural reforms that reference the previous systems. The first three sections consider
prevailing political ideologies, the construction of citizenship, and the connections between
policies concerning heritage and education. Finally, a summary of contested heritage considers
the legacy of these practices, their impact on marginalized communities in Japan, and theirrelationship to heritage education.
A Historical Overview of Heritage Discourse and Education in Japan
Japan has a long history of heritage management and heritage-making practices, asevidenced by the treasure house of Tōdai Temple, Nara. The Shōsō-in, as it is called, dates backto 746 CE and was built as a repository to preserve valuable objects, including foreign items
brought to Japan via the Silk Road. Items of intangible and tangible heritage were protected by aselect group of stakeholders, such as the imperial family, temples, shrines, and feudal lords. On
the other hand, heritage education emerged as an essential part of the state-making process of
prewar Japan as the Imperial government sought to establish itself as a modern colonial power
among its Western counterparts. Since then, heritage education has gone through several stagesof development closely tied to heritage discourse in Japan. The postwar period brought about aparadigm shift in attitudes and policies towards heritage and education ushered in by occupying
forces framing a democratic nation. Over the last few decades, heritage education has expanded
as Western concepts of heritage and heritage education have been appropriated to foster bothglobal and national citizens of Japan. These three modern periods are not unique to this article,
and there are other resources that explore the prewar, postwar, and current periods within thecontext of their research (Scott 2003; Edwards 2005; Kakiuchi 2016; Teeuwen and Rots 2020).
The following overview of the historical developments and sociopolitical context aims to clarify
how the concept of heritage and education have come to be mobilized by the government, whichis essential for conceptualizing heritage education in Japan.
Prewar Period: The Imperial State and Heritage Education
The emergence of heritage education is tied to the centralization of heritage andeducation policies of the emergent, modern nation-state of Japan. It was essential in establishinga new national identity that was shared with its citizens as well as with the world. The firstnational policies concerning the protection of heritage were implemented following the Meiji
Restoration of 1868, which ended the policy of national isolation in place for hundreds of years
and established a new system of government. Prior to this, items of tangible and intangible

heritage were protected by a select group of stakeholders, such as the imperial family, temples,shrines, and feudal lords (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2001, 3). These forms of heritage werereframed as new categories like historical sites and natural monuments were established (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Heritage Policies and education reform during the prewar period.
The earliest ordinance issued by the Meiji government concerning heritage instituted
state-sanctioned definitions of Shinto and Buddhism. In order to support a new politicalframework centered around the imperial family, it declared Shinto the national religion.3 This
policy led to a movement to abolish Buddhism and destroy Buddhist artifacts across Japan. In
response to this loss, the Meiji government issued the Decree for the Preservation of Ancient
Artifacts in 1871, which required each province to inventory cultural property and preserve it. As
a result of this effort, the government created thirty-one categories of heritage items.4 Following
this first set of policies, the Ancient Temples and Shrines Preservation Law of 1897 established aheritage management system overseen by the Agency of Domestic Affairs and later the Ministryof Education.
Consequently, heritage was mobilized to educate citizens to encourage an understandingof the new nation-state and citizenship. When the law of 1897 was deliberated at the parliament,
temples, shrines, and associated religious cultural goods were recognized not only as outstanding
historical and aesthetic objects but also as important educational materials for the people of the
new nation-state due to their honorable history with the imperial families (Morimoto 2010). The“national treasures” (kokuhō) throughout Japan were assembled in newly established Imperial

34

In prewar State Shinto, the emperor was recognized as a living god (arahitogami) and the highest object of faith.
Categories included religious goods, weapons, calligraphy, clothing, crafts, and Japanese lacquerware.

museums in Tokyo, Nara, and Kyoto for public appreciation, and historical sites were used tofoster national identity as well as to enforce Japan's imperialism.
As with heritage, education went through massive reforms at the outset of the Meiji
period in order to foster modern citizens who would support the development of the Japanese
empire. The earliest policies emphasized the role of State Shinto, traditional Confucian values,
and modern sociopolitical developments (Luhmer 2006). The publication of state-edited history
textbooks for elementary schools based on imperial myths in 1903 resulted from stronger
national control over compulsory education. Archaeological materials and historical sites wereinterpreted as evidence of these myths to maintain the national constitution centered on theemperor (Morimoto 2010:394). The later expansion of heritage and its management occurredunder the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education as an extension of imperial control. The
Historic Site, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments Preservation Law enacted in 1919
recognized historical sites associated with the achievements of the imperial family and past
warlords as sacred sites.
With the expansion of the Japanese empire during this period, heritage was further
utilized to promote national pride and ideological indoctrination. When colonizing parts of East
Asia and the Pacific, heritage was used as proof of Japanese superiority and justification forcontrol of these regions. For example, when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 and implemented
colonization and assimilation policies, many researchers of archaeology, anthropology, andarchitecture conducted surveys across the Korean peninsula, collecting data as well as artifacts.
These items were displayed at a museum established by the Office of the Governor-General of
Korea to showcase the authority of Japan’s imperialism (Arai 2012).
As we have seen in this section, a system of cultural heritage management was promoted
as part of the establishment of the Imperial state, and at the same time, heritage and education
were utilized to construct citizenship. This heritage education ultimately contributed to the
spread of Japanese imperialism throughout East Asia. However, the heritage education used atthat time was completely rejected after the war, while its legacy is still an issue today in the formof recognition and restitution.
Postwar Period: Promoting Peacetime Democracy through Heritage Education
Following the war, heritage education was once again mobilized by the reformed state toreimagine citizenship in Japan in contrast to its Imperial predecessor. Heritage and education
were initially reconceptualized by Allied Forces. The creation of a new constitution was
overseen by the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ)during the occupation of Japan following the war. Enacted in 1947, the constitution shifted
power from imperialism to a constitutional monarchy. These sweeping reforms were thenadjusted by the postwar state following the return of Japanese sovereignty. Heritage education in
Japan was radically reformed to support the development of a democratic nation focused on
pacifism and postwar recovery (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Heritage Policies and education reform during the postwar period.
Early postwar heritage management was focused on the protection of cultural properties.
In the years immediately following the end of the war, heritage was at risk due to economic
instability. A fire at the main hall of the Hōryū-ji temple in 1949, the oldest wooden structure in
Japan, became the impetus for the development of the postwar heritage regime. In 1950 the Art
and Monument Branch of GHQ drafted the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties(LPCP), which was then enacted by the Japanese government (Scott 2003). The primary aim of
the LPCP, according to Article 1, is to ensure the preservation (hozon) of cultural properties andtheir utilization (katsuyō) for national cultural promotion. While preservation is generally
understood as relating to the maintenance of cultural heritage, the meaning of utilization isvague. Article 4 of the LPCP mentions public appreciation in reference to utilization, which,while similar to Western notions of interpretation, defines the role of the public as passive
recipients of specialist knowledge. The term interpretation has been avoided in Japanese heritage
management as it harkens back to the employment of prewar ideology in the production ofknowledge concerning cultural heritage (Moriya 2019). The LPCP also established a different
sense of ownership of cultural properties, insofar as what once fell under Imperial control inorder to support its legitimacy is now managed by the state on behalf of the nation.
The development of postwar heritage education was initially restricted by the GHQ’s
control over education reform during the postwar period. Cultural heritage was scrutinized for its

potential to revitalize imperialist and nationalist sentiment5, and, as a result, there were efforts
not to employ it within the standard curriculum (Hood 2021). However, at the regional level,
heritage was incorporated into postwar local education movements, which aimed to be
democratic, scientific, and for the people. In 1953, the Tsukinowa mounded tomb (kofun) was
excavated by local residents, mainly teachers, students, local heritage clubs, and professionalarchaeologists. This community-based approach to heritage management fostered thedevelopment of a local archaeology study circle and extracurricular activities for local students(Tsuchiya 2017:44). Moreover, postwar history education focused on the acquisition of skills tounderstand history through the investigation of archaeological artifacts and historical sites. It wasalso critical of the use of myths and legends.
As with heritage legislation, a series of amendments following the end of the occupation
made adjustments to the Western and liberal aspects of education. At the regional level, thereintroduction of moral education, or dōtoku, as a non-standard subject that draws on Confucian
ideology to promote social cohesion, provided a framework for the study of intangible andtangible heritage (Kitamura 2019). However, it should be noted that national standards for moral
education are not always followed at the local level (Bolton 2015; Chiba 2022). Additionally,
moral education continues to be an area of study central to nationalist reforms of later right-wingparties.
During the early postwar period, heritage education was utilized by the state to respond tosocioeconomic issues caused by rapid economic growth, urbanization, and depopulation of rural
areas. In particular, urban and rural land development contributed to the loss of culturalproperties, such as archaeological materials, traditional buildings, and folk materials. One
example of early postwar heritage education is a 1966 measure, "Regional Initiatives for theProtection of Cultural Property” (Bunkazai aigo chiiki katsudō) aimed at fostering patriotism
through supporting public understanding of cultural properties. The government produced
resources for educators, catalogs of cultural properties, and films. Additionally, an annual weeklong campaign was created to raise public awareness for the protection of cultural properties.
The newly introduced regional initiatives followed three guiding principles: (1) the developmentof knowledge and awareness of cultural property through school and social education, (2) the
dissemination of information regarding the protection of cultural property to the public, and (3)the promotion of the protection of cultural property through local committees. In addition to
public appreciation, these new initiatives expanded the concept of utilization to include thedevelopment of school curricula and social education activities (Agency of Cultural Affairs
2001:86-89; Moriya 2019:67-71).
In response to the issues discussed above, the government established the Agency of
Cultural Affairs (bunkachō, ACA) in 1968 under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology (MEXT) to enforce legislation concerning the protection and oversee
the selection and designation of cultural properties, national treasures, and important culturalproperties. It was also expected to provide instruction, orders, and recommendations regarding
the management of designated cultural properties to their owners and regulate any changes to thephysical fabric of cultural properties, export restrictions, and restoration injunctions. It would
5

Designated historical sites associated with the Meiji Emperor, except for those with historical values assigned byacademics, were undesignated in 1948 (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2001, 14).

also become responsible for the establishment and operation of museums, theaters, and research
institutions for cultural properties While the ACA was established as the direct managing bodyfor cultural properties, ACA also plans and implements measures regarding heritage education.
Though the ACA is responsible for policies concerning heritage, as well as its preservation andutilization6, local heritage managers are employed at local Boards of Education overseen by
MEXT. With the establishment of the ACA, heritage education is regulated across multiple
government bodies at varying levels.
When the LPCP was amended in 1975, the government not only expanded the categories
of cultural properties to ensure their protection7 and took measures to find a balance between
development and preservation, but also embraced fukyū-keihatsu, dissemination andenlightenment, as a means of generating greater public awareness for these cultural properties
and their protection. This model was intended in environments of formal education and social
education, or shakai kyōiku.8 Social education is situated between school education and homeeducation and is frequently held in museums, libraries, and kominkans (citizens’ public hall andcultural center; Abedellatif 2021). Local governments administer this style of community-basedlearning, and it is ultimately up to them if cultural properties are a part of these learning
opportunities.
The support of local communities was positioned as essential in protecting culturalproperty from postwar development, while cultural properties were framed as a resource tosupport postwar national and local identity (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2001; Moriya 2019). In
other words, while actively participating in the preservation of cultural properties, the public wasstill passively receiving knowledge created by specialists to mobilize citizens to support postwar
economic recovery and development in most other cases. Postwar heritage education was
utilized to contribute to the protection of cultural properties from the rapid development that took
place as the nation sought to recover economically and socially. The emphasis on preservation in
heritage management and the limited scope of utilization contributed to the amorphous state ofheritage education. However, the next few decades brought a renewed interest in thesocioeconomic role of cultural properties in Japan. In turn, heritage education expanded togenerate new roles for citizens in the promotion of their local cultural properties.
Contemporary Period: Heritage Education, Japanese Neoliberalism, and Globalization
The employment of global heritage protection strategies has been central to the expansionof heritage education, policies, and management over the last 30 years. While global approaches
6

Agency of Cultural Affairs, “Major Roles of the National Government, Local Government and Owners.”
Retrieved from https://www.bunka.go.jp/english/policy/cultural_properties/overview/index.html (accessed 23
February 2021).
7
In 1975 the LPCP was amended to recognize the protection of Buried Cultural Properties (maizō bunkazai) or
archaeological materials, the designation of Folk Cultural Properties, and the introduction of preservation districts
for groups of traditional buildings (Teewen and Rots 2020).
8
In the prewar period, social education had been an instrument for national indoctrination. After the war, prewar
ideas and institutions were dismantled, and social education was revived in a new democratic framework.
Although it provides community education outside of schools through local institutions such as libraries, museums,
or public halls (kōminkan), the centralized aspect of social education was criticized and its role downplayed, when
the idea of lifelong learning was introduced in the 1980s.

to heritage management provide a wider system for situating Japanese cultural heritage, thenuances of national regulations and local practices should be treated equally as part of a holistic
framework of Japanese heritage education. The relationship between contemporary heritage
management developments and nonlinear neoliberal reform in Japan (Tiberghien 2014) aids inunderstanding the fragmented and overlapping forms of heritage education in Japan. Neoliberalpolicies and global heritage practices have reshaped the concept of heritage in Japan since the1980s, restructuring its management through decentralization and deregulation, as well as the
responsibilization of citizens for their management (Figure 3). Consequently, heritage education
has been expanded to produce individuals and communities that actively participate in new
frameworks for heritage management as represented by the expansion in the meaning ofutilization.
While responding to external pressure to pursue a more active role in international
politics, Japan introduced heritage reforms on a global stage while simultaneously taking steps toreframe national heritage practices to facilitate marketization and commodification for tourism
and regional revitalization. As early as the 1970s, the government explored ways of attaching
culture to Japan’s foreign policy to control the nation’s image abroad and protect its economic
interests (Bukh 2014; Loo 2020; Nakano and Zhu 2020). However, cultural heritage would
receive increased attention following Japan’s ratification of the World Heritage Convention in
1992. Japan adopted global approaches to heritage and contributed to them, focusing on a
diplomatic policy of cultural exchange and cooperation (Akagawa 2015). The government
utilized the inscription process to brand itself globally. For example, the nomination of theHiroshima Peace Memorial focused on the nation’s commitment to peace and avoided its
wartime legacy (Nakano and Zhu 2020).

Figure 3: Heritage policies, educational reforms, and related legislation during the contemporary
period.
The same year as Japan’s ratification of the World Heritage Convention, the government
enacted legislation that positioned cultural properties as a resource for local tourism and businessstrategies to promote economic revitalization. The 1992 "Law Concerning the Promotion of
Tourism and Specific Regional Commerce and Industry through the Implementation of Events
Utilizing Local Traditional Performing Arts," or the Matsuri Law, promoted the self-regulationof heritage management at the municipal level. This law encourages the utilization of local
traditional performing arts for regional revitalization. While utilization was a tenant of theprotection of cultural properties in Japan initially associated with public appreciation andacademic study (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2015), this law was broadened to include the active
engagement of heritage resources by local stakeholders, especially the business sector, to address
economic issues. Initial pushback from within local communities against the restructuring of
heritage management as it places emphasis on economic stakeholders rather than on theindividuals or groups holding traditional knowledge and techniques (Teewan and Rots 2020)
demonstrates the tensions that continue to form in response to subsequent stages of neoliberal
reforms.
The development of lifelong learning under the Nakasone administration was part ofmarket-oriented reforms to education centered on promoting individualism and freedom,reframing the relationship between the state and the individual (Takayama 2009). Moreover,
Nakasone’s administration sought a balance between a focus on economy and culture, as well as
nationalism and internationalism in its reforms (Hood 2001). Formalized in 1990, lifelong
learning has been promoted at the national, prefectural, and local levels, with cultural activities
prominently centered (MEXT 2009). Through this approach, individuals are positioned as central
to preserving and promoting cultural properties, which have been threatened by socioeconomic
factors, specifically the aging society. Local communities are not only the target of keihatsu, or
educational activities aiming to generate local understanding of cultural properties, but also
participate in raising awareness of heritage within and outside of Japan.
The Koizumi administration’s (2001-2006) structural reforms indirectly addressededucation in Japan, simultaneously encouraging decentralization and neoconservative values(Murakami 2019). During this period, an expanded model of the utilization of cultural properties
partnered their promotion with the engagement of local communities in the responsibilities ofheritage development. The global tourism strategy of the government focused on rebranding
Japan as a “tourism-oriented country” (kankō rikkoku). Within this framework, cultural heritage
was promoted as a resource for economic recovery following the collapse of the financial bubble
in 1992 and was utilized to perpetuate the discourse on the nation’s uniqueness and homogeneity(Iwabuchi 2015). The establishment of the Japan Tourism Agency and increased privatization
would eventually create a multi-sectoral partnership for heritage management.
The 2006 Basic Plan for the Promotion of a Tourism Nation led to the establishment of
the Japan Tourism Agency, which works in partnership with local heritage managers to utilize
cultural properties in regional development (Japan Tourism Agency 2007). While placingemphasis on tourism for economic recovery, the Koizumi administration furthered decentralized
and promoted communal cohesion through the participation of various actors in community
building (machizukuri), a bottom-up approach to community development to create social capitaland a resilient community (Dimmer 2016). Due to the ambiguous nature of machizukuri, it has
generated innovative local workshops on various aspects of heritage, including local resources,but has also promoted the involvement of private businesses. Public participation anddecentralization are key aspects of machizukuri.
Education within the context of community building rarely fits a particular model,
although it can follow prescribed formats. As the first Abe administration (2006-2007) came to
power, the next wave of neoliberal reforms reinforced the role of communities and culturalproperties in rebranding localities. In 2007 “The Basic Scheme of History and Culture” (Rekishi
Bunka Kihon Kosō) was established to frame a wide range of regional cultural properties(including tangible, intangible, designated, and non-designated properties) and their management
within the surrounding environment in a holistic manner (Agency of Cultural Affairs n.d.). It
encouraged local communities to collaborate with public and private sectors to establish
connections between local cultural properties and regional identity. This framework used anarrative, or ‘story’, that highlighted the uniqueness and diversity of local culture through the
integration of regional planning, community building, and tourism within management plans(Nishimura 2011). The process of assembling cultural properties for reimaging and rebranding
regions has reemerged in later initiatives aimed at economic revitalization through tourism.
Heritage management and education were expanded through programs associated withthe third stage of neoliberal reforms in Japan by the Abe administration (2006-2007 and 20122020). The government distanced itself from Koizumi’s policies, placing greater emphasis on
education reform with nationalistic ideology (Tiberghien 2014). Additionally, regional andmultisectoral approaches to heritage management were supported through programs
implemented during the second Abe administration. An amendment to the LPCP in 2018
reformed the heritage management system to address the most pressing issues of depopulation,
declining birthrate, and an aging society. It encourages local governments to take the initiative inthe management of cultural properties. In addition, private organizations are permitted toparticipate in cultural property management. This amendment places greater emphasis on therole of local municipalities in the development of heritage management plans and the utilizationof heritage (fig.4) in partnership with stakeholders from the public and private sectors (Agencyof Cultural Affairs 2018). On the one hand, this drastic shift in cultural property management has
been generally well-received for supporting initiatives to implement cultural property
management that involve local communities consisting of various stakeholders. On the other
hand, its connection with the government’s tourism policy in anticipation of the 2020 Tokyo
Olympic and Paralympic Games has generated concerns from these specialists as to whether thefocus on tourism development would overshadow preservation (Iwashiro and Takagi 2020).

Figure 4: Concepts encompassing utilization (based on Agency of Cultural Affairs 2015).
“Japan Heritage (Nihon Isan)” was promoted alongside the 2018 amendment. This
framework positions cultural property as a resource to create economic value through utilizationand promotion of cultural properties (Japan Tourism Agency 2016) both locally and nationally. It
is also significant as one of the first ACA initiatives to officially use the term bunka isan(cultural heritage) rather than bunkazai (cultural property). Moreover, the ACA authorizes a‘story’, that highlights the uniqueness and diversity of inscribed heritage and that is expected tostimulate regional branding and local identity.9 Japan Heritage was positioned as a tourism
development strategy from its inception with the aim of contributing to regional revitalization
through the branding of cultural properties that are both recognized and unrecognized by thestate. Like the 2018 amendment to the LPCP, this program was developed to encourage tourism
related to the 2020 Olympic games. Japan Heritage was intended to be a temporary program as
its certification only applied for five years with a cap of approximately 100 inscriptions.10 In
other words, it was not a sustainable program but rather appears to be an initiative built around a
specific event.
One of the features of Japan Heritage is that the registration requires a ‘story’ of theregion that weaves together several cultural properties. It may be created by one municipality or
produced by multiple municipalities. “A Heritage of Salmon: A Journey of Ten Thousand Yearsin the Nemuro Strait” encompasses several heritage sites and natural landscapes throughout
eastern Hokkaido and was used to promote coexistence between the Indigenous Ainu and ethnic

9

The ACA supports the regions whose stories have been inscribed as Japan Heritage by providing subsidies for
fukyū-keihatsu (exhibitions, workshops, symposiums etc.), utilization (guidance facilities etc.), development of
human resource (interpreter etc.), promotion activities (online contents and leaflets) and research projects.
10
104 Japan Heritage has been certified up to today as of 7 July 2021. Retrieved fromhttps://www.japan.travel/japan-heritage/full_list (accessed: 7 July 2021)

Japanese of the region by uniting them under a shared heritage.11 In regard to educational output,these projects were expected to include promotional activities, fukyū-keihatsu, such as leaflets
and public events for local communities as well as tour guiding programs based on ‘story’ fortourists. However, there is not sufficient data to assess what was produced and whether suchactivities are sustainable. Additionally, since the global pandemic has derailed the government's
tourism-focused plans, including those involving cultural heritage, the efficacy of thesedevelopments will likely be impacted by these unforeseeable circumstances.
Finally, the most recently inscribed World Heritage Site, the Jomon Prehistoric Sites inNorthern Japan, has shown coordination between World Heritage management bodies and local
heritage management for the promotion of the site through school education, lifelong learning,
and tourism initiatives. While there were efforts to bridge heritage education across tiers of
heritage management in Japan and consolidate practices, a recent report mentions that local
managers struggled to incorporate the global evaluation and interpretation models into fukyūkeihatsu efforts (Hokkaido Archaeological Center 2023). Similar to the Japan Heritage program,education activities associated with the Northern Jomon World Heritage Site frame heritage
through ‘story’. Given the hesitancy of local heritage managers with regard to global practices,
the sustainability of similar initiatives requires further consideration.
Exploring Contested Heritage in Japan
While much of this article has examined the development of heritage education, thissection will consider how the prioritization and marginalization of different aspects of heritage inJapan intersect with education. The concept of contested heritage has been explored in various
fields of research, but it has not always been labeled as such in English or in Japanese. However,as global frameworks of heritage are more readily adopted in Japan, greater scrutiny has beenplaced on the politics of cultural heritage in Japan. Rather than provide an exhaustive list, we
will briefly survey key themes that form the nexus of contested heritage and heritage education.
Many disputes concerning heritage are linked to Japanese colonial and imperialist
policies and practices. For one, heritage education has contributed to the construction of a sharednational identity that has remained racialized since the prewar period (Siddle 1996).
Additionally, the strategic reframing of the nation’s darker historical narratives to emphasize
more favorable aspects of its cultural heritage has led to recurring disputes domestically andinternationally. Lastly, the adoption of global heritage practices has elevated the profile ofJapanese heritage, but it has also precipitated discord across all levels of heritage management,
thereby positioning heritage education in a precarious state.
Heritage has been mobilized to support Japanese national identity, which has conflated
race and ethnicity since the prewar period. The Japanese race has been set in contrast to bothforeigners and the other “races” of Asia, including the nation’s Indigenous populations(Yamashiro 2013). While the prewar ideology of racial superiority in Asia was abandoned, its
legacy persists in modern iterations of national identity. Thus, contested heritage in Japan
involves groups perceived to be racially different, such as the Ainu and Zainichi Koreans, andtheir marginalization in heritage management practices. For example, there are numerous
11

A Heritage of Salmon: A Journey of Ten Thousand Yeas in the Nemuro Strait. https://www.heritage-ofsalmon.com/en/index/#story (accessed: 20 December 2023)

examples of the contested heritage associated with the Ainu, an Indigenous people who faced
assimilation in their traditional homelands after the Meiji period. Although their recognition as
an Indigenous People by the Japanese Diet in 2008 only partially addressed the historical andongoing appropriation, exclusion, and erasure of Ainu cultural heritage in Japan, the new law
enacted in 2019 officially states Ainu people as Indigenous people in Japan and continuous
initiatives have been implemented responding to the issues above.
The policy for Ainu cultural promotion has been creating opportunities for non-Ainu
citizens to understand Ainu people, their culture and history as well as for Ainu to regain theirculture with more stable circumstances. This policy, for example, led to the development of
Upopoy – Symbolic Space for the Ethnic Harmony, National Museum of Ainu people, and Park.
At the same time, there are critics who say that these measures have not been met with the full
support of Ainu communities, due to the lack of consultation and their involvement in the state’s
tourism initiatives (Morris-Suzuki 2018). Additionally, these developments were notaccompanied by a formal apology for the Japanese government’s assimilation policies or directcompensation. Furthermore, there is still a need for wider discourse regarding custodianship andstewardship of Ainu heritage, as well as who tells the story of Ainu heritage. Various Ainu
cultural properties are still cared for within the current management system by ethnic Japanese
specialists. Although the presentation and interpretation of Ainu heritage with and by Ainu
people has been initiated in some places, such as Upopoy (Okada and Edelheim 2024) andothers, it has not yet spread throughout Hokkaido and Japan. Protests continue for greater
involvement of the Ainu people in the management, presentation, and interpretation of theircultural heritage.
Repatriation issues over cultural property and ancestral remains affiliated with local andIndigenous peoples in regions such as Hokkaido, Okinawa, Taiwan, China, and Korea are otherexamples of ongoing heritage issues associated with Japan’s colonial past (e.g. Arai 2012;
Chiang 2014; Okada 2020). While the call for the repatriation of ancestral remains to theircommunities has been ongoing for decades, there have been few successful initiatives todecolonize collections in museums and universities. Recently, Ainu people, scholars, and eventhe general public have advocated for the return of Ainu people’s ancestral remains andassociated funerary objects following Japan’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Despite the development of a national repatriation scheme for
Ainu ancestors housed in the collections of universities across Japan in 2016, only a few cases ofrepatriation have occurred due to insufficient institutional records identifying and detailing theacquisition of ancestral remains. Additionally, the mental and physical strain of the process oncommunity members and ongoing distrust among the Ainu, scholars, and universities are notaddressed by the current policy (Okada 2020).
In the postwar period, the ongoing and fervent political debate surrounding the framing of
war memories in Japan remains deeply entangled with the forging of national identity. As
previously discussed, the government has employed the World Heritage inscription process torebrand its dark heritage. In the case of Hiroshima, the focus on peace aligns with the state’s
efforts to promote the nation’s postwar pacifism. Conversely, there have been several
controversies over how to represent Japan’s war memories in history textbooks from groups ofvarious political leanings (Nozaki 2002). Ultimately, these struggles are representative of both
how wartime legacies are interpreted as well as how postwar national identity is defined.

Finally, returning to the discussion concluded in the previous section, there are increasing
examples of global heritage practices concurrently instigating tensions within the hierarchicalstructure of heritage management, casting heritage education into a precarious position. An
example of an issue that has recently surfaced concerns the historical interpretation of thewartime industrial heritage sites inscribed and nominated as World Heritage Sites. In 2022,
South Korea strongly opposed Japan's nomination of the Sado complex of heritage mines,
mainly gold mines, as a UNESCO World Heritage Site because the property does not reflect thehistory of Korean wartime forced labor. South Korea's demand to recognize Korean forced laborin Japan's World Heritage is not the first. It was also made when sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial
Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding, and Coal Mining were inscribed in 2015. The Japanese
government has not responded to South Korean demands to reflect and include the history of
Korean wartime labor in the interpretations and presentations (Johnsen 2022).
In order to overcome these issues, it is more important to recognize multiple perspectives
on the legacy of war and colonialism. Regarding Ainu heritage, it is necessary to improve thesituation today that history, archaeology, and anthropology courses at the university level dealing
with the historical relationship between the academia and the Ainu people are still limited inJapan. It is also important that those involved in research understand this historical fact and theconflicts today. Moreover, with regard to the contested heritage managed under the World
Heritage system and UNESCO constitution preamble, the lack of multiple perspectives on thepast leads to a reduction in the potential of heritage education to ensure universal value and to
the exclusion of stakeholders with different perspectives on heritage education.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated throughout modern Japanese history, heritage education is one
means used to reinforce the role of citizens within contemporary political structures. During the
prewar period, the public, as part of the emergent nation-state, was introduced to a racialized
ethnic identity essential for the modernization and colonial interests of Imperial Japan. The
postwar government rejected these conceptions and employed cultural properties to support thedemocratizing of Japanese society. While not replacing the postwar heritage system in Japan,
cultural heritage has provided a framework for situating cultural properties, their role as local
resources, and the engagement of local communities in their use, informed by economic,
political, and ideological concerns. This hybrid model is a result of the phased development andselective adoption of neoliberalism in Japan. In other words, heritage education in recent years
can be situated at the intersection of heritage, education, globalization, and neoliberalization.
Recent administrations have expanded heritage education practices to accommodate an increased
focus on stakeholder participation and the economic values associated with cultural heritage inJapan. As a result, heritage management and education are designed to contribute to thedevelopment of regional identities and regional revitalization. In part, the engagement of local
communities is associated with the deregulation of heritage management, while the increased
autonomy of local governments reflects wider trends in decentralization. Additionally, theincreasing privatization of heritage management can be seen in the rise of third-sector
participation in heritage-making initiatives. One area for further research and development is thepossibility of addressing contested heritage through current neoliberal systems in Japan. Whilethis article adds to the growing literature in English on heritage studies in Japan, it also touches
upon the various contexts in which heritage education occurs. Heritage studies in Japan are notformalized in academia and do not frequently engage critical and multivocal perspectives.
Similarly, while there is research in both English and Japanese on heritage education in prewar
Japan, Japanese research on developments during the postwar period rarely addresses contested
heritage, globalization, or socioeconomic issues. This article contributes to the growing literatureon the intersection of heritage and education in Japan and provides a broader view of heritage
education that considers the mechanisms of power dynamics within the state. The authors agree
that there is a need for continued research on the various trends and advances in heritage
education in Japan.
References
Abedellatif, K. M. Factors Affecting the Participation of Learners in Social Education: A studyof Community-based Learning Activities at Kominkan. The Chugoku Shikoku Society for the
Study of Education Pedagogical Research Journal 26:21-32. 2021.
Agency of Cultural Affairs, 文化庁. Bunkazai hogo hō gojūnenshi 文化財保護法五十年史[Fifty years of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties]. Electronic document,
https://www.bunka.go.jp/tokei_hakusho_shuppan/hakusho_nenjihokokusho/archive/pdf/9371160
1_01.pdf, accessed August 2022. 2001.
――Heisei 26-nendo bunkazai no kōkatekina hasshin katsuyō hōsaku ni kansuru chōsa kenkyūjigyō hōkoku-sho bunkazai no kōkatekina hasshin katsuyō gaidobukku 平成26年度文化財の効
果的な発信・活用方策に関する調査研究事業報告書文化財の効果的な発信・活用ガイド
ブック [FY 2014 Research and Study Project on Effective Measures for Dissemination andUtilization of Cultural Properties Report]. Electronic document,
https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001113438.pdf, accessed June 2021. 2015.
――Bunkazai hogo hō kaisei gaiyō ni tsuite 文化財保護法改正の概要について”[Outline ofAmendment of the LCPC]. Electronic document,
https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkashingikai/bunkazai/kikaku/h30/01/pdf/r1407909_03.pdf,
accessed June 2021. 2018.
――Cultural Properties for Future Generations: Outline of the Cultural Administration of Japan.
Electronic document,
https://www.bunka.go.jp/tokei_hakusho_shuppan/shuppanbutsu/bunkazai_pamphlet/pdf/r139301
5_02.pdf, accessed June 2021. 2019.
―― Rekishi Bunka Kihon Kosō hando bukku 歴史文化基本構想ハンド
ブック [Handbook of the Basic Scheme of History and Culture]. Electronic document,
https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/rekishibunka/pdf/handbook.pdf, accessed March
2021. n.d.

Akagawa, Natsuko. Heritage Conservation and Japan's Cultural Diplomacy., Routledge,
Abingdon, U.K. 2015.
Arai, Shinichi. Koroniarizum to bunkazai: kindai nihon to chōsen kara kangaeru” コロニアリズ
ムと文化財：近代日本と朝鮮から考える[Colonialism and Cultural Property: from theperspectives of Modern Japan and Korea]. Iwanami Shinsho, Tokyo. 2012.
Bolton, Kristoffer, H. Moral education in Japan: The Coming of a New Dawn, Abe’s New Moral
Education. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo. Electronic document,
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/49714, accessed May 2024. 2015.
Bukh, Alexander. Revisiting Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy: A Critique of the Agent-Level
Approach to Japan’s Soft Power. Asian Perspective 38 (3):461-485. 2014.
Chiang, Min-chin. Memory Contested, Locality Transformed: Representing Japanese Colonial‘Heritage’ in Taiwan. Leiden University Press, Zuid-Holland. 2014.
Chiba, Kaeko. Traditional Art Education: The Case of Tea Ceremony (Chadō). In Japan’s School
Curriculum for the 2020s: Politics, Policy, and Pedagogy, edited by Akito Okada and Sam
Bamkin, pp.163-180. 2022.
Dimmer, Christian. Place-making Before and After 3.11: The Emergence of Social Design in
Post-Disaster, Post-Growth Japan. Review of Japanese Culture and Society 28:198-226. 2016.
Edwards, Walter. Japanese Archaeology and Cultural Properties Management: Prewar Ideology
and Postwar Legacies. Essay. In A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan, edited by Jennifer
Robertson, pp. 36-49. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. 2005.
Hokkaido Archaeological Center 北海道埋蔵文化財センター. Houkokusho Hokkaido ni okeru
Sekai Bunka Isan no intāpuritēshon ni kansuru chousa kenkyuū 調査研究報告書 北海道における世界文化遺産のインタープリテーションに関する調査研究 [Report on Interpretationof World Cultural Heritage Site in Hokkaido]. Electronic document,
https://sites.google.com/view/ecpuwchh/%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%BB%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E4%BA%8B%E6%A5%AD, accessed October 2023. 2023.
Hood, Christopher P. Japanese Education Reform: Nakasone’s Legacy. Routledge, New York.
2001.
Iwabuchi, Koichi. 2015. Pop-culture diplomacy in Japan: soft power, nation branding and thequestion of ‘international cultural exchange. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21 (4):419432. 2015.
Iwashiro, Takuji 岩城卓二 and Hiroshi Takagi 高木博志. Hakubutsukan to bunkazai no kiki 博
物館と文化財の危機 [Crisis in Museums and Cultural Property]. Jinbun Shoin, Tokyo. 2020.

Japan Tourism Agency 観光庁. Kankō rikkoku suishin kihon keikaku 観光立国推進基本計画[Basic Plan for the Promotion of a Tourism Nation]. Electronic document,
https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha07/01/010629_3/01.pdf, accessed July 2021. 2007.
――Asu no Nihon wo sasaeru kanko bijon 明日の日本を支える観光ビジョン [A Tourism
Vision to Support Future Japan]. Electronic document,
https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001126598.pdf, accessed March 2021. 2016.
Kakiuchi, Emiko. Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan: Current Issues and Prospects for
the Future. Gdansk Journal of East Asian Studies 10:7-27. 2016.
Kasai, Kosuke. Reform Impact and Underlying Factors: A Changing Policymaking Process andChanging Education Policies in Japan. In Japan’s School Curriculum for the 2020s: Politics,
Policy, and Pedagogy, edited by Akito Okada and Sam Bamkin, pp. 13-34. 2022.
Kitamura, Yuto. Background and Context of Education System in Japan. In Education in Japan:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Education Reforms and Practices, edited by Yuto Kitamura,Toshiyuki Omomo, and Masaaki Katsuno, pp. 67-83. Springer, Singapore. 2019.
Loo, Tze M. The politics of Japan’s use of World Heritage: From ratifying the World Heritage
Conventions to the Mozu-Furuichi Tumulus Clusters. In Sacred Heritage in Japan, edited by
Aike P. Rots and Mark Teeuwen, pp. 1-17. Routledge, Abingdon, U.K. 2020.
Luhmer, Klaus. Moral Education in Japan. Journal of Moral Education 19 (3):172-181. 1990.
Matsuda, Akira 松田陽. Paburikku ākeoroji no kanten kara mita kōkogaku,
bunkazai, bunka isan パブリック・アーケオロジーの観点から見た考古学、文化財、文化遺産 [Archaeology, Cultural Property, and Cultural Heritage from a perspective of PublicArchaeology]. In Kōkogaku kenkyū 考古学研究 [Archaeological Studies] 60 (2):19-33. 2013.
――Paburikku, isan, bunkazai, kōkogaku no kankei ni tsuite パブリック、遺産、文化財、考古学の関係について [The relationship between public, heritage, cultural properties andarcheology]. In Heisei 24-nendo iseki-tō manejimento kenkyū shūkai パブリックな存在としての遺跡・遺産：平成24年度遺跡等マネジメント研究集会（第2回）報告書 [2012Archaeological Management Research Meeting] edited by Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties. Electronic document,
https://repository.nabunken.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/11177/3490/1/BB13846340_022_027.pdf,
accessed May 2021. 2014.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). National Policies
Concerning Lifelong Learning. Electronic document, https://www.mext.go.jp/en/ , accessed May
2024. 2009.

Morimoto Kazuo, 森本和男. Bunkazai no shakaishi: kingendaishi to dentōbunka no hensen 文
化財の社会史: 近現代史と伝統文化の変遷 [Social History of Cultural Property: Modern
History and Transition in Traditional Culture]. Sairyūsha, Tokyo. 2010.
Morris-Suzuki, Tess. Performing Ethnic Harmony: The Japanese Government’s Plans for a New
Ainu Law. The Asian-Pacific Journal 16 (2):1-16. 2018
Moriya Masayuki, 森屋雅幸. 2019. Bunkazai hogo seisaku ni okeru komyuniti sesaku nositen ni
kansuru kenkyū: bunkazai aigo chiiki katsudō no bunseki wo chūshin ni shite 文化財保護政策におけるコミュニティ施策の視点に関する研究：「文化財愛護地域活動」の分析を中心にして [Resarching Cultural Asset Protection Policy From the Perspective of Community
Measures: An Analysis of Community Activities for Protecting Cultural Assets]. Shakai dezaingakkai gakkaisi 社会デザイン学会学会誌 [Social Design Review] 11:65-75. 2019
Murakami, Yusuke. National and Local Educational Administration. In Education in Japan: A
Comprehensive Analysis of Education Reforms and Practices, edited by Yuto Kitamura,Toshiyuki Omomo, and Masaaki Katsuno, pp. 67-83. Springer, Singapore. 2019.
Nakano, Ryoko and Yujie Zhu. Heritage as soft power: Japan and China in international politics.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26 (7):869-881. 2020.
Nishimura Yukio, 西村幸夫. Bunkazai hogo no aratana tenkai: rekishi bunka kihon kōsō gamezasumono 文化財保護の新たな展開：歴史文化基本構想がめざすもの [NewDevelopment for Protection of Cultural Property: Aim of the Basic Scheme of History And
Culture]. In Gekkan Bunkazai 月刊文化財 [Monthly The Cultural Property] edited by Agencyof Cultural Affairs, pp. 4-8. 2011.
Nozaki, Yoshiko. Japanese politics and the history textbook controversy, 1982-2001.
International Journal of Educational Research 37:603-622. 2002.
Okada, Mayumi. Pathway to Decolonizing Collections of Ainu Ancestral Remains: Recent
Developments in Repatriation Within Japan. In Working With and For Ancestors: Collaborationin the Care and Study of Ancestral Remains edited by Chelsea H. Meloche, Laure Spake, andKatherine L. Nichols, pp. 32-42. Routledge, Abingdon, U.K. 2020.
Okada, Mayumi and Johan Edelheim. Power, Policies, and Cultural Sensitivity in Ainu Tourism:
Indigenous Involvement in and Control over Tourism Developments in Hokkaido, Japan. In
Handbook of Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, edited by Richard Butler and Ann Carr.
Routledge, London. 2024 [in press].
Okamura, Katsuyuki. From Object-Centered to People-Focused: Exploring a Gap Between
Archaeologists and the Public in Contemporary Japan. In New Perspectives in Global PublicArchaeology, edited by Katsuyuki Okamura and Akira Matsuda, pp. 77-86. Springer, New York.
2011.

Scott, Geoffrey R. The Cultural Property Laws of Japan: Social, Political, and Legal Influences.
Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 12:315. 2003.
Siddle, Richard. Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan., Abingdon, U.K. 2014.
Takayama, Keita. Is Japanese education the ‘exception’?: Examining the situated articulation of
neo-liberalism through the analysis of policy keywords. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(2):125-142. 2009.
Teeuwen, Mike and Aike P. Rots. Heritage-making and the transformation of religion in modern
Japan. In Sacred Heritage in Japan, edited by Aike P. Rots and Mark Teeuwen, pp. 1-17.
Routledge, Abingdon, U.K. 2020..
Tiberghien, Yves. 2014. “Thirty years of neo-liberal reforms in Japan.” (J.A.A. Stockwin, trans.)
In The Great Transformation of Japanese Capitalism, edited by Sebastin Lechevalier, translated
by J. A. A. Stockwin, 26-55. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tsuchiya, Masaomi. 土屋正臣. Shimin sankagata chōsa ga bunka wo kaeru: Nojiriko hakkutsu
no bunkasigengaku teki kōsatsu 市民参加型調査が文化を変える：野尻湖発掘の文化資源学的考察 [Regional Culture is Changed by the Research with Citizen Participation: Cultural
Resource Studies of Nojiri-ko Excavation]. Bigaku Shuppan, Tokyo. 2017.
Yamashiro, Jane. H. The Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan. Sociology
Compass 7 (2):147-161. 2013.