Written by Amelia Antolini.
Image credit: provided by the author.
The Taoyuan Martyrs’ Shrine is regarded as one of the best-preserved Japanese Shinto architecture outside Japan. Only a limited number of structural elements have been altered over the years; however, the meaning and the use of the Shrine have significantly changed. Built in 1938 as a Shinto Shrine, it was transformed into a Martyrs’ Shrine following the retreat to Taiwan in 1949 of the Kuomintang (KMT) government, with the purpose of honouring those who died in the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949) and in the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). Today, alongside its commemorative and religious functions, the Taoyuan Shrine is part of a cultural park where visitors can rent kimonos, drink matcha, buy Japanese-inspired souvenirs, and attend weekend markets.
Western building preservation theory suggests that a site remains authentic only if it keeps its original state without any changes. This view can be overly rigid, as it is common knowledge that buildings need maintenance, if not partial structural alterations, to be preserved. This, in turn, compromises the original state of a building, hence its ‘authenticity.’ Considering its significant historical alterations, can the Taoyuan Shrine still be considered authentic? This value is the foundation upon which the international heritage conservation framework is built; is ‘authenticity’ really a universal value when the concept itself emerged from a Western understanding of architectural preservation? Taiwan offers multiple interesting perspectives in answering the above questions, especially since the island operates outside of UNESCO jurisdiction. Hence, Taiwan does not adhere to a shared global framework for its heritage, and the colonial monuments of the island have acquired different political and cultural meanings over time.
Conflicting ideas coexisting at the Shrine
The Taoyuan Shrine was constructed in 1938 under the Kōminka (imperialisation 皇民化) policy of the Japanese Empire, which sought to transform colonial subjects into loyal citizens. The Shrine was one of many built across Taiwan; these functioned not only as a religious space but also as an instrument of political authority, reinforcing Japanese imperial ideology on Taiwanese people through ritual and spatial organisation.
The geopolitical transition of the late 1940s redefined the function of the Taoyuan Shrine. After the end of Japanese rule in 1945, the KMT government of the Republic of China established its regime on the island in 1949 and enforced martial law in the same year (1949-1987). As part of this, the Qu Ribenhua (de-Japanisation 去日本化) measures called for the removal or transformation of Japanese colonial structures across Taiwan. Many Shinto Shrines were demolished, while others were converted into Martyrs’ Shrines, which resulted in the obliteration of the prior religious purpose and a structural refurbishment emulating Chinese imperial architecture.
Taoyuan Shrine followed a different trajectory as its religious function was transformed, but much of its architectural layout survived. The honden (main sanctuary) and haiden (worship hall) kept the original structure, but the interiors were redesigned to house spirit tablets dedicated to nationalist war martyrs. Furthermore, the torii gate had its kasagi (upper lintel) removed so that its profile would resemble the “Double Ten” symbol (十十), a direct reference to the 10/10/1911 date, the beginning of the military uprising to overthrow the Qing imperial rule in China. The Shrine complex underwent further maintenance work in the early 2000s for the transformation into a Cultural Park, as former administrative buildings were turned into commercial structures to house cafés and souvenir shops. Today, in these areas, events and exhibitions on Japanese culture take place alongside the different layers of history the site offers. As a result of past alterations and modern uses, the Taoyuan Shrine and Cultural Park reflect how the relationship of Taiwan with its colonial past has evolved over time.
‘Global’ frameworks for assessing the value of authenticity in heritage sites
Authenticity is a value that has been largely used in international heritage conservation frameworks to assess the relevance of sites. The concept of authenticity first emerged in the 1964 Venice Charter before becoming embedded within UNESCO and ICOMOS heritage frameworks. Despite the widespread adoption of these frameworks by UNESCO member states, a universally accepted definition of authenticity has not been agreed upon. International charters acknowledge it as a fundamental criterion for evaluating heritage, but they do not offer an empirical method to determine it. Moreover, authenticity is presented as a universal value despite being rooted in Western conservation traditions that developed around the preservation of monuments constructed with durable materials such as stone and brick. Conservation practice focused on retaining the original material and shape, and disregarded other areas of the world that used different types of materials for their buildings. Japan serves as an example of why this assumption cannot be universalised: traditional Japanese architecture relies predominantly on timber, a material that naturally deteriorates over time. Here, the ritual rebuilding of structures demonstrates that reconstruction is not viewed as a loss of authenticity but as an essential component of preserving heritage.
This tension also reflects what Laurajane Smith describes as the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD), as it shapes understandings of what is considered heritage, and what is excluded from that definition. Within this discourse, decisions about what is considered worthy of preservation also shape which historical narratives are selected and presented as authoritative. Authenticity, therefore, is not a technical measure of material continuity, but can also serve broader political and national narratives. Since Taiwan is excluded from the United Nations under the One China policy, none of its heritage sites can be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Taiwan is, therefore, institutionally excluded from a system that determines which sites can acquire international recognition as heritage of “Outstanding Universal Value.” Yet the absence of UNESCO inscription does not mean that these frameworks are irrelevant to Taiwan. Instead, it raises a broader question: if heritage recognition is also a process through which particular histories are selected and legitimised, what happens when a place is excluded from the very institution that claims to define heritage on a global scale?
Taiwan has developed its own legal and institutional framework for heritage management. Heritage policy has increasingly embraced the multicultural past of the island since the beginning of the democratisation process in the 1980s. Japanese colonial architecture, once regarded as a reminder of occupation under the KMT regime, has gradually been reinterpreted as a fundamental part of the historical landscape of the island. Contemporary Taiwanese heritage management frequently acknowledges the multiple meanings accumulated by these sites. The Taoyuan Shrine serves as a perfect example of the ongoing negotiation of Taiwanese history as it has accumulated successive layers of political and social meaning. Therefore, its alterations are not simply changes from an original state but rather evidence of the different political periods the site went through. From this perspective, privileging its 1938 form risks disregarding the significance of the transformations that followed, as well as developments within Taiwanese history.
Fieldwork Observations
During empirical fieldwork conducted at the site, it was evident that there was a divergence between conservation discourse and the lived experience of everyday visitors. Academics debate the authenticity of sites and practices, but ordinary visitors do not evaluate the Shrine through the lens of material authenticity.
Interviews and spatial observations revealed a wide array of purposes behind visits. Worthy of attention is the fact that people were practising Shinto in front of the mirror where the deity Amaterasu Ōmikami resides. The fieldwork conducted was unable to determine if this was genuine devotion and religious activity or merely a re-enactment that follows the presence of other Japanese cultural aspects in the Shrine complex. Another group visited out of historical curiosity, and a significant portion of respondents visited purely for recreational purposes. This group was attracted by the opportunity to take pictures in a Japanese setting, to enjoy food stalls and pop-up markets, so for them whether a torii gate was a 1938 original or a later reconstruction proved irrelevant to their engagement with the site. This indicates that, in the eyes of visitors, authenticity is of secondary, if not negligible, importance.
Conclusion
The transformation of the Taoyuan Shrine shows that heritage accumulates new meanings as political regimes shift and societies evolve. Evaluating post-colonial buildings through a rigid framework of material authenticity risks missing how people actually inhabit and assign meaning to these spaces. For this reason, debating the authenticity of these peculiar sites becomes irrelevant, and the discussion should be shifted towards the limitations of global heritage paradigms in post-colonial landscapes.
Amelia Antolini is a PhD candidate in Critical Heritage Studies at Leiden University, Leiden Institute for Area Studies (LIAS). Her research focuses on heritage management and governance of Japanese colonial architecture and infrastructure in Taiwan. This article is adapted from her MA and MSc dissertations, which laid the foundation for her ongoing doctoral research.