Changes

==Reconstruction==

==Reconstruction==

The shrine is sometimes said to have been established in the first century CE;<ref>Penelope Mason, ''History of Japanese Art'', Second Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.</ref> other sources place it at least a few centuries later.<ref>Ching, 288, gives the year 500 CE.</ref> The actual buildings which comprise the shrine have for centuries, however, been frequently rebuilt, making the question of dates somewhat more complicated. In recent centuries, the pattern has been to rebuild once every twenty years; the shrine was thus reconstructed in 2013, and before that, in 1993. During the [[Sengoku period]], the practice of reconstructing the shrine was discontinued, due to the inability of the embattled Imperial institution to fund it; however, in the late 16th century, [[Oda Nobunaga]], [[Toyotomi Hideyoshi]], and [[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] each in turn contributed significantly to funding the reestablishment of the custom.<ref>Stuart D.B. Picken, ''Historical Dictionary of Shinto'', Scarecrow Press (2010), 97.</ref> The practice of rebuilding the shrine is generally said to be chiefly associated with Shinto beliefs about spiritual corruption, and purity. The impermanence of the structures also helps emphasize the idea that it is the ''[[kami]]'' that is the object of worship here, and not the buildings themselves which should be sacred or treasured due to their age or historicity.<ref>That said, as [[Marshall Sahlins]] points out (albeit admittedly in a satirical piece), if we can consider a forest to have survived untouched, continuously, for however many centuries, despite the fact that no one tree within that forest has survived that long, can we not think the same of Ise Shrine? Marshall Sahlins, ''Waiting for Foucault, Still'', Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press (2002), 9-10.</ref>

The shrine is sometimes said to have been established in the first century CE;<ref>Penelope Mason, ''History of Japanese Art'', Second Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.</ref> other sources place it at least a few centuries later.<ref>Ching, 288, gives the year 500 CE.</ref> The actual buildings which comprise the shrine have for centuries, however, been frequently rebuilt, making the question of dates somewhat more complicated. In recent centuries, the pattern has been to rebuild once every twenty years; the shrine was thus reconstructed in 2013, and before that, in 1993. For over one hundred years during the [[Sengoku period]], from [[1463]] to [[1585]],<ref>Cassandra Adams, “Japan’s Ise Shrine and its Thirteen-Hundred-Year-Old Reconstruction Tradition,” ''Journal of Architectural Education'' 52:1 (1998), 52.</ref> the practice of reconstructing the shrine was discontinued due to the inability of the embattled Imperial institution to fund it; however, in the late 16th century, [[Oda Nobunaga]], [[Toyotomi Hideyoshi]], and [[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] each in turn contributed significantly to funding the reestablishment of the custom.<ref>Stuart D.B. Picken, ''Historical Dictionary of Shinto'', Scarecrow Press (2010), 97.</ref> The practice of rebuilding the shrine is generally said to be chiefly associated with Shinto beliefs about spiritual corruption, and purity. The impermanence of the structures also helps emphasize the idea that it is the ''[[kami]]'' that is the object of worship here, and not the buildings themselves which should be sacred or treasured due to their age or historicity.<ref>That said, as [[Marshall Sahlins]] points out (albeit admittedly in a satirical piece), if we can consider a forest to have survived untouched, continuously, for however many centuries, despite the fact that no one tree within that forest has survived that long, can we not think the same of Ise Shrine? Marshall Sahlins, ''Waiting for Foucault, Still'', Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press (2002), 9-10.</ref>

While tradition would have it that the techniques, materials, and tools are unchanged going all the way back to the 7th century (if not earlier), scholarship suggests that they have, indeed, changed, as all traditions change over time. Yet, nevertheless, the belief or perception that the shrine remains the same, the tradition unbroken, is of importance.

While tradition would have it that the techniques, materials, and tools are unchanged going all the way back to the 7th century (if not earlier), scholarship suggests that they have, indeed, changed, as all traditions change over time. Yet, nevertheless, the belief or perception that the shrine remains the same, the tradition unbroken, is of importance.