本文係探討臺灣在1900至1982年曾逐步推行兩種國別與不同典型的 文化保存法制，即1930至1945年臺灣總督府施行的「史蹟名勝天然紀念 物保存法施行規則」暨「史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法取扱規程」，又 1945至1982年中華民國政府續行的「古物保存法」暨「古物保存法施行 細則」。從兩國法制的探源與歷史法制比較，進而明瞭兩者的差異暨相 關之律法特色。從兩法制之淵源探索與立法意旨的比較，可見臺灣總督 府與中華民國政府在文化保存思維上存在著先天的差異，前者係吸收19 世紀末、20世紀初的歐洲文化保存風潮之先進精神，再藉由相關團體推 動該項現代性之文化保存制度，不啻具有現代性暨開放性之法制色彩； 而後者卻固守民族文化的存續，維護國家主權的立場，而以搶救國寶為 手段，傾向於閉鎖性的法制思維。 以文內列舉十大面向進行觀察，不禁發現臺灣總督府之保存法制 具有開放性特色，不僅與世界文化保存立法大勢同步，亦與當時歐洲 新興保存潮流同趨，其不僅包含人文地景的史蹟、名勝，更擴及天然 紀念物、動物、植物等自然景觀，此與1972年「聯合國教科文組織」 （UNESCO）首揭「世界遺產」範疇定義，若合符節。反觀中華民國政 府的文化保存法制，在兵馬倥傯之際，費時年餘完備法制化程序。但其 法制過程周延與否，立法思維是否縝密，仍俟考驗。今考察該法適用範 圍多囿限於器物範疇，且以民族立場、主權本位為法制化起點，甚難有 開放性的視野，績效不彰，自屬必然。然1945年後，臺灣繼受1937年以 來無主管機關之「古物保存法」法制樣態，致公權不張，相關配套左支 右絀的現象。 再因1937年「七七事變」後，「古物保存法」主管機關「中央古物 保管委員會」，因抗戰經費短缺，會務嘎然而止。1947年內政部欲恢復 該會規制，但政院卻以戡亂期間節省開支為由，拒絕內政部復會之申 請。1949年政府遷臺，該會亦未能在臺復會，該會業務仍由內政部禮俗 司兼辦，專門業務既屬兼辦，輒更難有專業開展之空間，致1982年以前的臺灣文化保存領域總在法令過時與現實發展兩者間，依違不定，難有 具體作為。簡言之，因當年主政者的視野與主管機關位階不明導致中華 民國政府頒布的「古物保存法」陷入「制度失能」之境地。

This paper aims at studying two different types of cultural heritage preservation laws carried out in Taiwan from 1900 to 1982.“Regulations Governing the Historic Sites and Natural Monuments Conservation” and“Enforcement Rules of the Historic Sites and Natural Monuments Conservation”, the two were announced by Governor-General of Taiwan （Taiwan Sōtokufu）in 1930 to 1945. From 1945 to 1982, another two laws,“Regulations of Antiquities Conservation”and“Enforcement Rules of Antiquities Conservation”were made by the Nationalist Government in 1930. This paper will explore origin of the law-making and make a comparison of the regulations. In an analytical point of view, there is an inherent ideological difference about the concept of preservation between Governor-General of Taiwan and Nationalist Government. The former followed the advanced trend of European cultural heritage conservation in the end of 19th century and early 20th century. Advocated by related groups in the academic field, GovernorGeneral of Taiwan announced the regulations governing cultural heritage conservation whose contents representing a spirit of modernity and openness of its time. The latter, on the other hand, considering many stolen antiquities trafficking abroad, or pressurized by the study of visiting western scientists, tried to maintain ownership of antiquities and save national treasures. The ideology behind the regulations tended to be more protective and closed. Listing 10 key aspects, the study discovering the law-making of cultural heritage preservation by Governor-General of Taiwan tended to be more open, synchronized with law-making of the world cultural heritage and also in consistence with latest conservation trend in Europe including cultural landscape, historic sites, monuments, animals, plants and all the natural landscape etc. The ideas also matched with the definition of world heritage firstly defined by UNESCO. Nevertheless, the law-making by Nationalist Government during wartime took years to complete the regulations.Yet, many regulations were incomprehensive and not meticulous enough, and still left to be discussed. Closely examining the regulations, they mostly focus on antiquities and historic objects conservation, which led to a limited perspective and less effective to carry out. After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident（the battle of Lugou Bridge）in 1937, the Central Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities governing “Regulations of Antiquities Conservation”ceased to operate due to shortage of funds. Consequently, Taiwan after 1945 was under the impact of lack of governing institute to implement“Regulations of Antiquities Conservation” and related policy-making. Ministry of the Interiors had tried to reinstate the Central Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities（CCPA）in 1947. The proposal was rejected by Executive Yuan for cutting down public expenditure. After KMT government retreated from China to Taiwan in 1949, cultural heritage affairs were handled by Department of Religion and Customs of Ministry of the Interiors. Since cultural heritage was not a major objective for the Department, it was hard to have a long-term vision and concrete achievement. Cultural heritage conservation in Taiwan before 1982 was in a constant dilemma between out-of-date regulations and limited development in reality. In short, the birth of “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act”in May 1982 was due to disability of the system, lack of a managerial institution and governing vision to enforce“Regulations of Antiquities Conservation”.

史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法施行規則；史蹟名勝天然紀念物保 存法取扱規程；古物保存法；古物保存法施行細則；文化資產

“Regulations Governing the Historic Sites and Natural Monuments Conservation”,“Enforcement Rules of the Historic Sites and Natural Monuments Conservation”,“Regulations of Antiquities Conservation”,“Enforcement Rules of Antiquities Conservation”；cultural heritage