4 ms·

My understanding is that in Japanese culture buildings where traditionally torn down and rebuilt periodically (it sticks in my mind something like every 10 or 2

My understanding is that in Japanese culture buildings where traditionally torn down and rebuilt periodically (it sticks in my mind something like every 10 or 20 years, but don't quote me on that). Interestingly enough, that apparently includes culturally and/or historically significant buildings and the Japanese don't consider these to be new buildings from a "continuity" standpoint. That is to say, the Japanese would still consider a temple to be hundreds of years old even if it had been torn down and rebuilt multiple times; with all the sense of connection to antiquity that a Westerner might feel when visiting the Sistine Chapel. An advantage of this approach is that the craftsmanship necessary to build these structures is preserved. Unlike the stories you hear about in Western culture where preservationists have to reconstruct long forgotten techniques.

mikhailfranco 3y ago
Perhaps explaining why the world's oldest company (est. 578) builds Japanese temples. And maybe also why it was recently acquired (2006) - no more rebuilding? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi
akasakahakada 3y ago
I click into this post just to say the same thing. It is Ise Grsnd Shrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine But not all Japanese buildings are like this.
nemo44x 3y ago
The old techniques didn’t fall out because building stopped. New materials and tools are why. The techniques used for some intricate carving were sure to be lost when electric tools and computer aided machine tech came into existence. The average rough carpenter is probably lousy with a hammer compared to 150 years ago but they can frame a house out just fine using a nail gun.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > The techniques used for some intricate carving were sure to be lost when electric tools and computer aided machine tech came into existence. No. The new tools and tech were bound to succeed in a culture that valued reductions in time and labor costs. But there's nothing inevitable about such a culture, and it seems perfectly possible for there to be others that would have ranked the new tools and techniques inferior to the old ones for a variety of reasons.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    The Amish, sure. But no serious culture has abandon technology.
    - brnaftr361 3y ago
      There's records of it, Graeber details some instances in The Dawn of Everything. As to your definition of culture, I would say it's lacking in sophistication. And when not abandoning it, in many cases it can be foisted upon people. Imagine a scenario where some people's hand farm, but their traditional trade partners elected to buy into the globalist system: there's simply no way for them to compete against industries of scale. So they're disintegrated from their neighbors and can't rely upon them for trade. And if you look at the record, there is evidence of widespread trade networks from people's dwelling in South/Central America to the North American East. If we take Diamond's word for it, that's a considerable disruption due to the sort of intrinsic constraints he proposed (poor progenitor species for agriculture/beasts of burden) that may present if extremely strict conservativism is abided.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      Compare your culture’s TFR to the Amish. Which is the “serious culture”? Which will still exist in 200 years?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        what do flight restrictions have to do with this?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
I think there's a bit of broken telephone here. A few specific buildings, like the Ise Grand Shrine, are rebuilt every couple decades as a cultural practice (or imperial edict) specific to those sites. It definitely does help maintain active practice of traditional construction techniques. Others, like the Nara Todaiji temple, are very old structures and preserved as best as possible, being repaired and rebuilt only when necessary eg. due to fire or structural damage. The practice of frequently renovating or rebuilding residential houses is quite unrelated, and more of a postwar trend.
- b112 3y ago
  It's also a way to kill parasites, which might take up roost in the home, and start anew. Since the buildings are simple to build, it's plausable.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  IIRC the pre WWII era Japanese wooden school buildings were at least originally meant to be torched every 2-3 decades and rebuild for hygienical reasons. Not sure if it was ever practiced in the end.
iancmceachern 3y ago
Like Yurts too
bitwize 3y ago
When I went to Osaka Castle, the tour info tells you that the building itself is basically a replica of a castle that was sacked and then rebuilt, multiple times over the centuries. The inner and outer baileys -- the stone fortifications -- are original, but the castle itself, which was originally made of wood, is brand new in relative terms. The Japanese don't remain attached to their buildings, usually because their buildings have been historically likely to be destroyed by earthquake, typhoon, fire, or invasion. In more recent years, yeah -- houses a few decades old will be knocked down to make way for new developments and no one bats an eyelash, but it's because Japanese culture sort of respects the ephemerality of all things, especially manmade things -- one way or another, any given building is going to fall on a timespan of 30-60 years.

mikhailfranco 3y ago

Perhaps explaining why the world's oldest company (est. 578) builds Japanese temples. And maybe also why it was recently acquired (2006) - no more rebuilding? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

akasakahakada 3y ago

I click into this post just to say the same thing. It is Ise Grsnd Shrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine But not all Japanese buildings are like this.

nemo44x 3y ago

The old techniques didn’t fall out because building stopped. New materials and tools are why. The techniques used for some intricate carving were sure to be lost when electric tools and computer aided machine tech came into existence. The average rough carpenter is probably lousy with a hammer compared to 150 years ago but they can frame a house out just fine using a nail gun.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> The techniques used for some intricate carving were sure to be lost when electric tools and computer aided machine tech came into existence. No. The new tools and tech were bound to succeed in a culture that valued reductions in time and labor costs. But there's nothing inevitable about such a culture, and it seems perfectly possible for there to be others that would have ranked the new tools and techniques inferior to the old ones for a variety of reasons.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  The Amish, sure. But no serious culture has abandon technology.
  - brnaftr361 3y ago
    There's records of it, Graeber details some instances in The Dawn of Everything. As to your definition of culture, I would say it's lacking in sophistication. And when not abandoning it, in many cases it can be foisted upon people. Imagine a scenario where some people's hand farm, but their traditional trade partners elected to buy into the globalist system: there's simply no way for them to compete against industries of scale. So they're disintegrated from their neighbors and can't rely upon them for trade. And if you look at the record, there is evidence of widespread trade networks from people's dwelling in South/Central America to the North American East. If we take Diamond's word for it, that's a considerable disruption due to the sort of intrinsic constraints he proposed (poor progenitor species for agriculture/beasts of burden) that may present if extremely strict conservativism is abided.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Compare your culture’s TFR to the Amish. Which is the “serious culture”? Which will still exist in 200 years?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      what do flight restrictions have to do with this?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

I think there's a bit of broken telephone here. A few specific buildings, like the Ise Grand Shrine, are rebuilt every couple decades as a cultural practice (or imperial edict) specific to those sites. It definitely does help maintain active practice of traditional construction techniques. Others, like the Nara Todaiji temple, are very old structures and preserved as best as possible, being repaired and rebuilt only when necessary eg. due to fire or structural damage. The practice of frequently renovating or rebuilding residential houses is quite unrelated, and more of a postwar trend.

b112 3y ago
It's also a way to kill parasites, which might take up roost in the home, and start anew. Since the buildings are simple to build, it's plausable.
m4rtink 3y ago
IIRC the pre WWII era Japanese wooden school buildings were at least originally meant to be torched every 2-3 decades and rebuild for hygienical reasons. Not sure if it was ever practiced in the end.

iancmceachern 3y ago

Like Yurts too

bitwize 3y ago

When I went to Osaka Castle, the tour info tells you that the building itself is basically a replica of a castle that was sacked and then rebuilt, multiple times over the centuries. The inner and outer baileys -- the stone fortifications -- are original, but the castle itself, which was originally made of wood, is brand new in relative terms. The Japanese don't remain attached to their buildings, usually because their buildings have been historically likely to be destroyed by earthquake, typhoon, fire, or invasion. In more recent years, yeah -- houses a few decades old will be knocked down to make way for new developments and no one bats an eyelash, but it's because Japanese culture sort of respects the ephemerality of all things, especially manmade things -- one way or another, any given building is going to fall on a timespan of 30-60 years.