Architectural Changes

One of my patrons recently asked me whether there had been changes in jinja architecture over time, particularly after disasters, and whether there had been controversies of the sort there were in Europe. (If I mention “Viollet-le-Duc”, anyone with knowledge of medieval French architecture will shudder in horror.) As with everything in Shinto, the answer is complex, and depends on the jinja.

The first point to bear in mind is that traditional jinja architecture is wooden, and while wooden buildings can last for over a millennium (the oldest one in Japan is a temple, and it is pushing 1400), they do need to be thoroughly maintained for that to happen. That can involve literally taking them apart and putting them back together after replacing pieces that are rotten. Simply leaving the buildings alone is not an option.

Further, jinja that can afford it have traditionally rebuilt their structures on a cycle of a few decades. The Shikinen Sengū at Isë Jingū is the most famous example, but not the only one. In these cases, the style of building is normally extremely conservative. The buildings are new, but someone brought from a thousand years in the past should recognise them. This applies generally — Shinto is conservative, but in this case that means preserving the style of the buildings, not the buildings themselves. The exceptions, these days, are buildings that have been designated as Cultural Properties or National Treasures, when the jinja is legally obliged to preserve the structure itself. Even then, individual components are replaced as necessary, and decorations are carefully restored.

At “ordinary” jinja, the buildings are replaced when they can no longer be repaired. In most cases, the replacement is similar to the old structure, but changes may be made. This might mean changing the roofing material, say from thatch to copper tiling — which is both easier to maintain and more fireproof. It might mean expanding the prayer hall to accommodate more people, or altering it to make it more accessible. Occasionally, it involves radical changes in architecture, bringing in a lot of modern elements. Even then, the main sanctuary normally remains recognisably within the tradition of Shinto architecture.

You do also see changes after disasters. After the Tokyo earthquake of 1923, Kanda Jinja rebuilt in reinforced concrete, and as a result the sanctuaries survived the firebombing of Tokyo in 1945. More recently, the tower gate at Aso Jinja in Kyūshū collapsed in the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes. It was an Important Cultural Property, and so it has been rebuilt almost exactly as it was, but with four steel pillars added to reinforce it. As I recall, the jinja decided to leave them exposed, to remind people of the earthquake (but I can’t find that reference right now). Most historic jinja buildings, and quite a few ordinary ones, also include fire detectors these days, although these are normally inconspicuous.

The government has also forced changes. Atsuta Jingū in Nagoya used to have its own distinctive architectural style, but the Meiji government knocked it down and rebuilt it to look like Isë Jingū. They also wanted to move Isë Jingū to Tokyo and rebuild it in reinforced concrete, but Meiji Tennō vetoed that personally.

Sometimes these changes are, naturally, controversial. However, that seems to be less common in the Shinto community than it is in Europe. It seems likely that this is because people expect the structures to be rebuilt every few decades, and in most cases do not expect the replacements to be exactly the same. Thus, relatively minor changes go through without comment, and over a thousand years things can change a lot. When someone tries to make large changes all at once, however, it can provoke more discussion. Even then, the controversy appears to be local.

Jinja architecture is conservative, but the Shinto community expects the structures at jinja to be rebuilt and replaced every few years. This means that changes do happen, almost without being noticed.