ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

The Committee for the Protection of Buried Cultural
Properties
OGASAWARA Nagataka1
Excavation research due to reconstruction projects of the Great East Japan Earthquakein ﬁscal 2015 showed outstanding progress overall, however, regional differences arebecoming evident. It should be noted that reconstruction projects continued to bewithheld within the affected area of the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima
Prefecture. As for the expense to publish excavation reports of the excavation research,time constraints were lifted signiﬁcantly due to the ﬂexible response of the government
on reconstruction grants. However, the staff shortage is still serious compared to theenormous number of projects, and personnel engaging in excavations are bearing aheavy burden. It is needless to say that further support is desirable. The JapaneseArchaeological Association is working hard to collect information and take measures
mainly by the Special Committee for the Great East Japan Earthquake.
This article overviewed activities of the Committee for the Protection of Buried
Cultural Properties in ﬁscal 2015. It consisted of a national meeting (May 22, TeikyoUniversity), director meetings (in principle held monthly), an information exchange (Oct.
18, Nara University), a conference with the Agency for Cultural Affairs (March 10,Agency for Cultural Affairs), and so on. In addition, the Committee has submitted site
preservation requests for Irinosawa site in Kurihara City, Miyagi Prefecture; the remainsof Nagagusukuudoun (residence for the crown prince) at Shuri High School in Naha
City, Okinawa Prefecture; Jono site in Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka Prefecture; and for
Warei Stone Buddha in Mihara City, Hiroshima Prefecture. It should also be noted that astatement of the Association chairman was issued at the May general meeting regarding
Takaosan mounded tomb in Numazu City, Shizuoka Prefecture. A liaison group wasnewly formed in the Kyushu/Okinawa district where big problems rose consecutively.
Other than sites mentioned above, preservation was discussed in ﬁscal 2015 for
Kassenhara site in Yamamoto Town, Miyagi Prefecture; Nishihiranai I site in Hirono
Town, Iwate Prefecture, Enkakuji Keidai Nishgawa Kekkai Iko (west side boundary
marker of Enkakuji Temple) in Kamakura City, Kanagawa Prefecture; Kinyahonmachi
1 c/o The Committee for the Protection of Buried Cultural Properties, The Japanese ArchaeologicalAssociation, 4th Floor, 5–15–5 Hirai, Edogawa Ward, Tokyo 132–0035, Japan(jjarch@archaeology.jp)
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 5 (2017): 54–55© Japanese Archaeological Association

54

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 5 (2017): 54–55

TRENDS ●●●●IN ARCHAEOLOGYTITLE ●●●●IN JAPANsite in Hirakata City, Osaka Prefecture, remains of Urado Castle in Kochi City,
Kochi Prefecture; Sugu-Takauta site in Kasuga City, Fukuoka Prefecture; and so on.
Unfortunately, there were many sites that have not been preserved and some cases withprolonged problems. Factors regarding preservation problems are becoming more various.
Since it has been ten years since the Committee started conducting its “questionnaireregarding protection of buried cultural properties,” a summary was reported at a session
in the May general meeting. The Committee plans to publish the report with added
analysis. During the past ten years, using private research institutions in excavation
research became normal, and baby boomers retired in large numbers, creating a newgeneration of specialized staff. This ﬁscal year could be evaluated as a year of drasticchange in preservation of cultural properties. Diversiﬁcation is true not only for site
preservation problems or utilization of preserved sites, but also for problems regarding
research systems and research technologies, with new issues arising. In order for theAssociation to take measures against such problems, it is strongly desired for theCommittee to reorganize our system according to the current changes.

© Japanese Archaeological Association55