%0 Conference Paper
%A Okahashi, Junko
%B ICOMOS 19th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium "Heritage and Democracy"
%C New Delhi, India
%D 2018
%F icomos:2003
%K identity
%K conflict
%K peace
%K reconciliation
%K Okinawa
%K Japan
%K war
%K local history
%K tangible heritage
%K local community
%K reconstruction
%T Significance of reconstructed built-heritage after wartime destruction: Restitution of identity? New role in the subsequent society?
%U http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/2003/
%X In a southern island of Japan stands a prominent example of reconstructed cultural heritage,  the Shuri-jo (Shuri Castle). First built in 14th Century by the Ryukyu dynasty of Okinawa, it was a living  castle until late 19th Century. However, entirely devastated by heavy bombarding in 1945, its tangible  memory could then only be rebuilt through reconstruction. Shuri-jo being highly important for the  identity of the people of Okinawa, reconstruction works started as early as the 1950s, emerging from the  rubbles of the city of Naha, even under the American occupation. Majority of the works took place in the  early 1990s. The historic urban landscape around Shuri-jo was gone in 1945, yet without such context,  the new Shuri-jo is again at the heart of the local community. Reconstruction could take place at the right  momentum, while the elders could link their memories of the pre-war castle to its new being. Without  the reconstruction of this castle complex, it could be said that for them, war period was not over. Those  reconstructed monuments could be seen as restituted identity of the place, as a symbol of reconciliation  of the war-torn society of Okinawa. Without the reconstructed castle, today having also become a tourist  asset, one would find it difficult to visually trace in space the important evidence of local history, rich in  its own cultural uniqueness. Shuri-jo, with its strong narrative, illustrates the not-to-be-granted-for age of  peace that overcame dark memories of war and loss. It is a case study of an act of reconstruction under  “exceptional circumstances” that rose initiative and motivation of the local and national community,  enabling release of large-scale means. This case should possibly support the discussion on who decides  the future status of cultural heritage after its post-conflict form of devastation, who takes the  responsibility, and for whom?