Report on the 31th Seminar“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
from the viewpoint of technologies”

Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage

Report on the 31st Seminar“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
from the viewpoint of technologies”

Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage

Explanatory noteThis report includes presentations and discussions at the JCIC-Heritage’s 31st Seminar (Webinar)“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies” held on August 28, 2022
under the sponsorship of the Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage andAgency for Cultural Affairs. This report consists of transcripts of voice recordings, which have been slightly
edited into a report format. All photographs of unknown sources and used in presentations are provided by
the presenters.

Organizer：JCIC-Heritage Secretariat, Agency for Cultural Affairs

Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
Editorial Board：
TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General)
KANAI Ken

(Assistant Secretary General)

FUJII Ikuno(Planning, Main Editor, Poster design)

CHIU Chunni(Editor)

MAEDA Koki

(Editor)

HIRONO Satomi(Assistant Editor)

TATEAI Rikako(Assistant Editor)

International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the view point of Technologies

Table of Contents
Purpose of the Seminar/Program… ………………………………………………………………………………

5

Opening Remarks/Briefing on the Purpose of the Seminar… ………………………………………………

6

AOKI Shigeo (Vice Chairperson, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)" The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"…………

8

KAMEI Osamu (Adviser, Center of the History of Japanese Industrial Technology, National Museum of
Nature and Science)" Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology:
Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"……… 16
SHIMODA Ichita (Associate Professor, Faculty of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba)"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand:
Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together"………………………………………………… 24
NOGUCHI Atsushi (Visiting Fellow, Kanazawa University Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations andCultural Resources)

Panel Discussion… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Moderator: TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in
Cultural Heritage), KAMEI Osamu
Panelists: SHIMODA Ichita, NOGUCHI Atsushi
Closing Remarks… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural
Heritage)Program
Purpose of the Seminar
In the field of cultural heritage protection, the introduction of new equipment and technologies has madeducumentation and preservation work more efficient and accurate in research and surveys, and at the sametime, the introduction of various technologies has brought dynamic changes in research and survey methods
and international cooperation itself.
In this seminar, we will introduce specific examples of international cooperation on cultural heritage inwhich Japan has been involved to consider how we should deal with new technologies in the context ofactivities conducted in diverse social and cultural backgrounds.
⃝15:00－15:05
Opening Remarks/Briefing on the Purpose of the Seminar
AOKI Shigeo (Vice Chairperson, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)⃝15:05-15:25"The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"
KAMEI Osamu (Adviser, Center of the History of Japanese Industrial Technology, National Museum of
Nature and Science)⃝15:25-15:45"Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology: Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage
by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"
SHIMODA Ichita (Associate Professor, Faculty of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba)⃝15:45-16:05"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand:
Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together"
NOGUCHI Atsushi (Visiting Fellow, Kanazawa University Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations andCultural Resources)⃝16:05-16:50
Panel Discussion
Moderator: TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in
Cultural Heritage), KAMEI Osamu
Panelists: SHIMODA Ichita, NOGUCHI Atsushi⃝16:50-17:00
Closing Remarks
TOMODA Masahiko

Opening Remarks/Briefing on the Purpose of the Seminar
My name is AOKI Shigeo and I serve as Vice

Kanto Earthquake of 1923, the platform of the

ChairpersonforKamakura Daibutsu collapsed and tilted, leaving theInternational Cooperation in Cultural Heritage. Thankstatue with a cracked neck. In order to reconstruct

you all for joining us today at the 31st JCIC-Heritage

the platform with earthquake-resistant mechanisms

Seminar. In light of today’s seminar title, “Internationaland repair the neck, data on the Daibutsu such as

Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the Viewpoint

its weight, center of gravity, and surface area wasof Technologies,” I will be discussing surveying

required; the first photogrammetry of a Buddhist

technologies in the field of the conservation of

statue concerned with cultural heritage thus took

cultural heritage. Such technologies are making

place in 1959. In 1970, a Central Asia research teamgreat strides.

from Kyoto University conducted photogrammetry

of

the

Japan

Consortium

Let us look back on the history of photographicof the Buddhas of Bamiyan and their cliff wall. Theirsurveying, or photogrammetry, in Japan. In the fieldrecords now constitute precious 3-dimensional dataof cultural heritage, the first example is probably theof the state of the Bamiyan ruins and the Eastern

1954 creation of a 1:1000 map of the remains of theand Western Buddhas before their destruction.

Heijo-kyu imperial residence, using aerial surveying.

Overseas, we are all familiar with the transfer

Photogrammetry of the Kamakura Daibutsu (Thethrough UNESCO support of the Abu Simbel

Great Buddha of Kamakura) was the first example

temples and other Nubian monuments, which

concerning statues of the Buddha. In the Great

would have been submerged during constructionof Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. The transfer began in
1964 and was completed in 1968. In order to shift
and reconstruct the removed stones to the correct
positions, as well as to recreate the phenomenon
in which, on specific days, the sunlight shines infrom the temple entrance on the gods within the
sanctuary, accurate 3-dimensional survey data was
required and obtained by photogrammetry. These
examples all belong to the era of photogrammetrywhen a stereoplotter was used to plot 3D images
from analog stereo photographs.
Thereafter, as computers became available,
they were first used to digitalize and plot analog
photographs via scanners. From that time on, laser
survey technology development began. Thereafter,
as digital cameras appeared, photogrammetry
entered its full-scale digital era. Today, thanks to therapid advance of technologies like SfM (Structurefrom-Motion)

AOKI Shigeo(Vice Chairperson, Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)

multiview

stereophotogrammetry

and laser surveying such as LiDAR, recording andapplication of 3D data has become common in
the field of preservation of cultural heritage. Thiskind of use of technology enhances the efficiency

international cooperation in cultural heritage. As

and precision of survey research records andthere are issues raised by the fact that 3D surveying

conservation work, as well as changing the nature

is now possible for anyone in itself, I hope that theof international cooperation itself. In particular, it

subsequent discussion will address the significanceis extremely important in areas affected by naturaland issues of the introduction of this technology. I

disasters and conflict.

hope this will become an opportunity to consider

Today we will hear about specific examples of

how we are to handle new technologies amid efforts

the use of new technologies on the ground of

at international cooperation conducted in a diverse
social and cultural context.

鎌倉大仏（出典：高徳院国宝銅造
阿弥陀如来坐像修理工事報告書）

バーミヤン西大仏（出典：バーミヤン 京都大学
中央アジア学術調査報告書）

Figure 1

3D計測

ドローンを使った撮影の様子

Figure 2

3Dモデル化アブ・シンベル神殿（出典:Wikipedia）

Lecture 1"The Changes ofTechnologies in Societies:
How We Should Work with
New Technologies"

8“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

My name is KAMEI Osamu and I work at the
National Museum of Nature and Science. The titleof my talk today is “The Changes of Technologies
in Societies: How We Should Work with New
Technologies.” SOCIETY, in Japanese, I am awarethat the term can represent a narrow field, such as
local communities, each region or profession, to alarge category, such as human society, culture orcivilization. While my place of work brings to mind
images of dinosaurs and biodiversity these days, it
was first established in the early Meiji era in the late
19th century as a museum engaging in education onscience and industrial technology for the shokusan
kogyo (promotion of industry) policy、, which formed apart of fukoku kyohei, creating a rich country with astrong military, and was the policy, intended to bring
Japan onto equal terms with the Western powers.
Research on botany, zoology, geology and so on atthat time was heavily slanted toward the practical-- does this have a medical use? could it be madeinto leather? are there better minerals available? andso on. In accordance with the progress of technology
and the changing face of the world, the museum
has a history of growth and contraction, sometimes
barely surviving, while finding new social roles amid
the changes and thus changing its role and format.
As its 150th anniversary draws near, the museum

KAMEI Osamu(Adviser, Center of the History of Japanese Industrial
Technology, National Museum of Nature and Science)

Figure 1
KAMEI Osamu is based in Chiba Prefecture. He has a Ph.D
(Engineering), with a focus on industrial chemistry (organic
resources/energy/environmental science). He has worked
establishing public libraries and museums as well as research
positions before present position. His research on the history ofindustrial technology explores the past and future of humanity
and nature, considering technology as “the totality of the skill
and knowledge needed for humanity to survive,” and industry
as “economic activity for the enrichment of humanity.” He enjoys
various research activities in cooperation with Japanese andoverseas researchers, from sociological perspectives such as
museum studies and science communication, to natural history
perspectives such as the Anthropocene, awareness of humanactivity on a global scale, and ICOM-NATHIST.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

9"The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"

range of human activity, from the time humanity
emerged until now. The light-colored lines show
politics, sorcery, religion and so on, all forms of social
technology. In comparison, “science” developed
rather recently; while its history may be short, it isa form of technology which serves as a versatile
tool with a sharp cutting edge. The green square
represents research, covering a slightly different
range from that of science. Although this figure
shows science expanding beyond politics, doubts
do exist. Technology, including science, is -- as I will
mention later -- affected by conventional wisdom andexisting paradigms.
Incidentally, here I have written “kagaku gijutsu” inromanized Japanese. This phrase is the Japaneseterm used to refer to technology integrated with
science at a high level, differing from the English“science and technology.” To express its particularcharacteristics, the Japanese term is sometimes
used, with explanations, at international conferences
and so on. (Figure 4)
In addition, we must also note that “predicting thefuture is difficult.” For example, when dealing withthe simple harmonic motion which comes up earlyin school physics classes, the future position andspeed of the pendulum can be accurately predictedwith a simple equation. Predicting the future seems
easy for science. However, when another pendulum
is added to create a double pendulum, the future
position and speed become impossible to predict.
Research on complex systems and chaos is taking
place in order to address phenomena like these,
but we are not likely to find simple, accurate ways topredict the future any time soon. (Figure 5)In short,
simulations are no more than simulations. Widely
varying interpretations of the same data are often
produced.
For example, climate change is one good

Lecture 1

functions as a repository of natural history, humanhistory, the history of technology, and the historyof science; however, the latter two -- the industrial
technology which is my field -- are now “endangered
species” within the museum. (Figure 1)
Figure 2 shows the topics of my discussion today.
I will focus mainly on the definition and properties oftechnology as well as its involvement with society.
First, the world is full of things we don’t know. The
large square on the outside in Figure 3 represents
all the things we don’t know in the world. The circle
within it is the things we do know. The borderline ofthese two things is where “things we don’t understand”
are. These “things we don’t understand” are thequestions posed to science and technology, as well
as being the scope of science and technology, or as
we say in Japanese kagaku gijutsu.
Next, here is a diagram visualizing the applicablerange of technology. The horizontal axis is time, withthe present at the right end and the beginning ofmodern humanity at the left, covering approximately
200,000 years. The vertical axis is the range ofthe use of technology. The range becomes wider
toward the top. Technology is defined as “the totalityof the skill and knowledge needed for humanity
to survive.” This suggests that the range in which
technology is applied extends throughout the entire

Lecture 1

10“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

example, as a topic involving the future of theearth. Simulations of climate change produce
entirely different conclusions based on the samemeasurement data, depending on the calculation
conditions set. At left is a site full of threatening
climate change-related photos. At right is a site
insisting, based on data analysis, that there is no
crisis. Many world-famous scientists are involved
with topics such as these. While I have provided
sites at the extremes for illustration, many different
stories arise from the same measurement data on
the same earth, the same planet. In short, entirely
different interpretations of the same phenomena
are possible. This is a reflection of the difficulty for
science in grasping an image of the whole that
extends to parts with no measurement values, orof predicting the status of the future, a complex
system. A future “told through science,” using science
where it might be effective, might look like one inwhich bold hypotheses based on human ideas andengineering methods are accompanied by practicaluse as something scientific in some way. This iswhere we find that simulations are only simulations.
The desired conclusions can always be reached bychanging the algorithms or the conditions set.
Science is of greatest use within the range that canbe scientifically understood. The term “unexpected”

when used by experts indicates “what we are notthinking about.” Rather than meaning “something
we did not think to expect,” it is used to mean“something our expectations are deliberately notaddressing.” “Extrapolation” sometimes employs
science to address the unexpected. It must be usedin expectation of wrong answers as well as rightones.
You would think the truth is unique, but it's notunique in the real world. Given normal-sized space
and time, we may admit that facts are unique. But
the truth is the application of human interpretation
to facts. We are hardly in need of KUHN Thomas’sview of paradigm shifts to understand that humaninterpretation is affected by emotion. This meansthat there are as many truths as human beings
want to see. The phenomenon arising, to misquotethat young detective, is one in which each fact isaccompanied by many truths. The truth changes
according to the eye of the beholder -- their beliefs
and what they take as common sense. (Figure 7)
I imagine that similar difficulties arise when
considering the past and future in the context ofinternational cooperation in cultural heritage, ourtopic for today. As we work, we keep in mind the factthat the figures constituting measurement results
may have been attained through new technologies,

Figure 6

Figure 8

Figure 7

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 13

Figure 11

Figure 14

Figure 12

11"The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"

Figure 11. Industry as represented in Figure 12 is a
general term for the activities which enrich humanity
materially, economically, and spiritually.
Figure 13 shows the request-driven nature oftechnology. Human requests are fundamentally forthe resolution of issues. Technological development
proceeds to work on these issues as society, whenpermitted the use of the necessary resources suchas the time and budget needed to find solutions.
The history of technology is the practical handlingeven of things which science does not understand.
When an issue exists and is then resolved, the next
issue arises; this repetition is also the history oftechnology. Figure 14 is a familiar example in thefield of the history of industrial technology. In a time
when people wanted to conduct industrial activity, toLecture 1

old ones, or any at all, that no matter how accurate
they are, they depict only a “hypothesis” of the timein question based on our current perspectives. In mymain area as well, the world of industrial technology,
we tend to assess past living environments, the useof technology and materials and so on, based on
current perspectives; we must also, however, remainaware that this may not be appropriate. We must noteliminate the possibility that we are seeing what wewant to see, making assumptions about how people
should be acting, or being led to focus on a specificdirection. Falsifiability is the most important, mostessential point in science as technology.
Accordingly, let me share my definitions. Figure
8 confirms that the word kagaku gijutsu indicatestechnology integrated with science at a high level.
The properties of science include the sharing of
knowledge via text, reproducibility, and falsifiability.
As shown in Figure 9, science is a systematizationand theorization of knowledge extracted via
technology, making it one aspect of technology.
Figure 10 confirms that technology is the totalityof the skill and knowledge needed for humanity
to live. Characteristic properties of technology
include the resolution of human issues, being
request-driven, and handling unknowns. I will omit
here the explanation of industrial technology inLecture 1

12“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

make things, to get things, to get money, in a certain
area around Kita-Kyushu, society was in favor of
making as much as possible. The left background of
the photograph shows the multicolored appearing on
the ocean and the sky at the time when these wishescame true. Now an infamous sign of pollution, at
the time it was considered a symbol of regional
pride, like coal mining folk songs. As a result ofprotests and calls for technological development for
the environment as well, along with the arrival of
economic conditions permitting money to be used
for this technology, the blue sea and sky in theright photograph came about through a combinationof economic and environmental improvement. This
example is a simple description of the properties oftechnology in industry.
Figure 15 shows the importance of balance, thatis compromise, in the application of technology.
Realistic solutions appear by moving forward
selectively with technology while paying close
attention to the balance and compromises between
the environment, everyday life, and economics.
There are multiple solutions. The reasons the current
technologies are widely used from among the manyother options, can be explained after the fact, butmore often than not the reason is “by chance.”
Humanity has multiplied and found success whilesolving problems with this kind of random selectionof technology.
The graph in Figure 16 is used to explain the
Anthropocene, showing that the history of population
increase does not follow a consistent line, butrather shows a sharp increase in recent times. This
major turning point was the full-scale use of fossil
fuels for industrialization, also called the Industrial
Revolution. An even more essential turning pointcame in the 1950s, with the extension of large-scaleconsumption to the masses. This was supported by
the dollar-a-barrel crude oil produced in the Middle
East and supplied effectively bottomlessly afterWorld War II. This oil enabled the masses aroundthe world to take up mass production and material
consumption, realizing a modern world in which
no one would starve and everyone could live long,
healthy lives. While it may run against our instincts
to say so, economic inequity is clearly being reduced
as well.
I was born at the end of the 1950s. The image
most people have, in particular my contemporaries,
is of a world divided into affluence and poverty, likethe two lumps in the Figure 17 graph. But the reality
is different. Viewing the facts through recent figures,
we find that, as shown in the Figure 18 graph, thenumber of people in the poverty category is clearly

Figure 15

Figure 17

Figure 16

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 22

Figure 20

Figure 23

Figure 21

13"The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"

countries alone. The SDGs are a declaration on
the part of the UN, as an engine for sustainable
activities rendering people around the world,
including developing countries, better off, to use
economic activities involving developed countries.
Sustainable development is economic development.
This is a statement of determination that, rather thanrelying on aid from developed countries and richphilanthropists, the resolution of issues must takeplace through the growth of both developing anddeveloped countries based on economic activities.
The UN has established economic activities as asustainable method of achieving its goals.
I have already demonstrated that the era
prevailing until now of human poverty and inequity
is approaching its end. When there is no longer

Lecture 1

decreasing. The middle class has vastly increased,
and those in the affluent category are increasing as
well. While we tend to think that people starving or
suffering in poverty are increasing, based on video
images of war and natural disasters, in fact theirratio is continuing to decrease, currently reaching a
low never before experienced by the human race. Ifanything, we now have problems like an excess offood production, and the use thereby of food such as
agricultural products for non-food purposes, trading,and so on in order to prevent food prices from falling(Figures 19 and 20). For the first time in history, we
have reached a stage where, in terms of humanity
as a whole, more people die of overeating thanof starvation. I will skip over my discussion of theevidence that fossil fuels and oil are not going to
run out, but the figures show that we may consider
ourselves at a stage where the absolute quantity ofenergy, as well as food, will not run short. (Figures
21 and 22)
Figure 23 shows the sustainable development
goals (SDGs). The individual goals are no different
from humanity’s approaches over the last 2000 years,
let alone the previous UN millennium development
goals (MDGs). The only major difference is the clear
awareness of methods which realize “leaving no
one behind.” The MDGs were goals for developing

Lecture 1

14“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

any clear economic inequity, the method of taking
from the rich countries to give to the poor ones will
no longer work. If developed countries do not use
economic activities supporting wealth as well, they
will no longer be able to guarantee sustainability.
The human race has no experience, at least within
the history of modern and contemporary nation, ofsustaining mutual aid without inequity. I believe thata new era is beginning; however, we have no way ofknowing how it will unfold. Past experience may notserve to resolve future issues. We must recognizethat we are living in the age of uncertainty (VUCA).
(Figure 25)
Next, let me discuss the understanding and useof technology. We were once taught that we must
understand the content of technology, that it mustnot be used as a black box. I was taught this way
myself. However, black-box technologies will only
increase from now on. When a technology comes
into everyday use, with no need to be aware of its
existence, the technology starts to become a blackbox. Or perhaps it is at that moment that it completes
the process of becoming a black box.
In the past, when social and technological change
was more gradual and the range and quantity ofnecessary knowledge were limited, steady study
from the basics up would enable masteringknowledge, succeeding in academia. But themountain of knowledge has grown taller and keeps
on growing, so that reaching its height step by step is
ill-advised now. Figure 26 shows a learning method
comparable to using a helicopter to approach thegoal. This method involves beginning with study ofthe necessary technology, picking up its principles
and fundaments later on. Practical study requires anawareness of this method as mainstream practice.
Figure 27 is a reference example from industrial
technology. JES was a prewar industrial standard.
After World War II, it was aligned with the UnitedStates Military Standard (MIL) to become JIS. As
JIS was created through a transplant of the inchstandard MIL, it involves a number of complicateddecimals. Lengthy figures were established as thestandard, based not on scientific reasoning but
through the simple conversion of engineering datafrom inches to millimeters. Japanese industry, called
on for compliance with standards involving three andfour numbers after the decimal point, responded byincreasing its precision to reach top global standards.
When our faraway descendants excavate modernday objects, measure them, and examine the figures,
they may decide that the Japanese manufacturingindustry aimed and succeeded deliberately to reacha high standard of precision at some point.

Figure 24

Figure 26

Figure 25

Figure 27

Figure 28

Figure 29

15"The Changes of Technologies in Societies: How We Should Work with New Technologies"of the people shaping the background of technology.
Upon self-reflection, I find that around the beginningof the 21st century, I believed that we had enteredan era of chisoku, or “awareness of sufficiency.” I
thought that if humanity were to continue with thelevel of abundance that it had attained thus far, thiswould be sufficient. The UN SDGs showed me that
this was a lazy attitude. For all humanity to live inabundance, we need a sustainable framework formoving forward together. Maintaining the status quo,
all enduring together, is not a sustainable framework.
In this context, rather than chisoku, awareness of
sufficiency, I have the Red Queen hypothesis on mymind. It is a hypothesis in biology, that species must
constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order tosurvive.
Figure 29 is an illustration from Lewis Carroll’s
Alice Through the Looking Glass. In this illustration,
Alice and the Red Queen are running. They haveto do all they can do just to stay in one place. The
Queen kept crying “Faster! Faster!”.
“Now here, you see, it takes all the running you
can do, to keep in the same place,” says the Queen.
In response, Alice asks, “Then how would I getsomewhere else?”
The queen answers, “If you want to get somewhere
else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
This is the world we find ourselves in now, and withthis I end my talk.
Thank you.

Lecture 1

Another example is mechanical and quartz
watches. We no longer have the technology tomass-produce accurate mechanical watches.
Mechanical watches cannot be produced with thetechnology used to produce far more accurate quartz
watches. The two technologies are not the same.
In this way, for good or ill, one technology replaces
another. Technology is possessed of the propertiesof transmission, mutation, improvement, and reform.
Myself included, we are seriously hidebound by
the attitude that we can climb the mountain stepby step from its base and eventually understandeverything. However, take the field of electric
circuitry, for instance; it would be no easy task
to start by studying vacuum tubes and eventually
come to understand LSI (large-scale integration).
The electron tube technology which has playedsuch a major role historically is effectively uselesswhen it comes to LSI. In this way, there are many
fields where studying from the basics of science
to its application is difficult; in reality, we extract
theory from application and call it science. There
are an ever-increasing number of fields where wefind ourselves at the top of the mountain and must
continue using the technologies at its foot as blackboxes. Science is a systematization of the common
points of application. While there are still some fields
where science can be learned from the ground up,
there will be more and more where we must enterfrom application and configure the basics therefrom.
I mentioned the need for technology education
enabling these black boxes to be used as blackboxes. While we need to consider how to handle thetechnologies of the past and what characteristics
these boxes possess, let me also confirm the needfor education which teaches the use of most of theseblack boxes as black boxes.
Figure 28 shows a perspective on the affluenceLecture 2"Multilateral Cooperation for
Adapting New Technology:
Research and Protection ofCultural Heritage by Cambodian
Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"

To begin with, let me introduce myself. I haveworked as a member of the Japanese Government
Team for Safeguarding Angkor (JSA), which isengaged in the restoration of the Angkor Wat andBayon Temple monuments as well as nurturinghumanresource

forconservation

work

and

architectural/archaeological research in this context.
(Note 1)

Launched in 1994, the JSA has already been

active for over a quarter-century. It is a pioneeringand flagship project, as one of Japan’s oldest
endeavors in the field of international cooperation
on cultural heritage. Professor NAKAGAWA Takeshi
has served as director since its beginnings, while thefirst site director was Mr TOMODA Masahiko, now
the Secretary-General of JCIC-Heritage. (Figures

16“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

1and 2)I myself have participated in this project since mystudent days in 1998, working roles including sitemanager for onsite restoration work at the Northern
Library of Angkor Wat from 2006 to 2013. Experts
from a wide variety of academic fields participate
in this project; as shown here, there are roughly ten

SHIMODA Ichita

specialist teams, which collaborate while carrying(Associate Professor, Faculty of Art and Design, Universityof Tsukuba)

out their work.

SHIMODA Ichita is an Associate Professor at Tsukuba University,with a Ph.D (architecture). He was born in Tokyo in 1976. Heworked in Cambodia from 2007 to 2013, as technical advisor
to the Japanese Government Team for Safeguarding Angkor.
As well as working on the Angkor Wat and Bayon Temple
restoration projects, he was involved in numerous architecturaland archaeological surveys among the monuments. Along witha survey intended to clarify the full scope of the ancient city
at the Sambor Prei Kuk site, which was registered as a World
Heritage site in 2017, he has worked on projects including
protecting monuments across the entire region, conserving andrestoring remains, and nurturing human resource in these areas.
From 2016 to 2019 he worked in World Heritage conservation
management and registration applications as a Senior Cultural
Properties Specialist at the Agency for Cultural Affairs, handlingWorld Heritage site nomination of the Mozu and Furuichi kofun
sites. He is a member of the Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation in Cultural Heritage, Subcommittee for Southeast
and South Asia and of the Japan Geopark Committee.

Figure 1

Japanese Government Team for Safeguarding Angkor

Figure 2

transferred. First, as shown at left, we have therestoration work

technology composing elements intended for specific

A list of the main technologies used by eachpurposes, such as stone repair, surveying, operationteam would look something like this table. (Figureof heavy machinery and so on. Within the JSA,

3) For example, the architecture team at the top,

the member known as technical staff learn theseapplies various surveying technologies for recording,individual technologies.

analyzing and designing the restoration plan. In

Elsewhere, as shown at right, we have experts

recent years, emerging technologies include pointwith a comprehensive understanding of the individual

surveying, 3D surveys and models using 3D data,technologies involved in planningand managing

AR, VR are also becoming familiar in this field.

restoration based on the required various research.

Lecture 2

Various types of technology for research andThese technologies are applied in order to conserve

Through long-term OJT (on-the-job training) of staff

the cultural heritage of the Angkor monuments; they

selected through training for Cambodian university

also serve to identify the value and characteristics

students, the JSA has worked to develop theseof the heritage and to select and examine targets

multi-talented specialists. They acquire experiencefor protection. Other technologies are also neededin survey and restoration work alongside diverse17

to identify why and how the monuments are

Japanese experts.

"Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology: Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"

deteriorating or being damaged, and to develop therequired restoration technique and material.

In this way, the phrase “technology transfer” must
be considered to include both elemental technologies

At the bottom of the table are the technologies

which can be mastered in short-term training andused by the restoration design team. These arethose which require long-term education to develop

the technologies directly required for restoration

applied technicians who can take a comprehensive

work. An extremely wide range of technologies isapproach to individual technologies. (Figure 4)

incorporated comprehensively for each stage of theTechnologies here include those at the cutting-edge

restoration work, from advance surveys to restoration

as well as the analog and traditional. For example,

planning, the restoration work itself, and monitoring

what I’m showing you here comes from the onsite

and maintenance after the restoration work. These

Cambodian university student training program heldtechnologies are brought onsite by Japanese experts

about a month ago in Cambodia. (Figure 5) Heldand sometimes cooperating specialists from otheras an International Contribution Project for Culturalcountries; we make every effort to share theoretical

Heritage funded by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, as

and practical knowledge with the Cambodian local

techniques such as photogrammetry have recently

staff and to work in concert with them onsite.

become much easier, we introduce students to thesetechnologies and instruct them in methods of drafting

Technology Transfer in international cooperation
One of the significant aspects of international

elevational views, ground plans, and cross-sectionsof the architectural heritage. (Note 2)

cooperation in this context is technology transfer;

The students find these technologies very exciting;there are two general types of technology to beduring training, they mainly learn practical methods of

AR/VR

GPS

CAD GIS

FEM)
X

X
MPN

Figure 3

X

SEM
DNA

Figure 4

Lecture 2

operating the technology. That is, while the studentsmonuments alone involves a diverse range ofcreate these drawings, they are not engaged in thetechnologies, which, as I have just pointed out,

process of understanding architectural forms, styles,

require equally diverse methods of transfer. In fact,

structures, and so on. Dr. KAMEI spoke previously

the forms of international cooperation for cultural

about black boxes of technical process, and there

heritage are diverse in the extreme, including exhibits

are aspects in which this is becoming increasinglyof artifacts, cooperation at research institutions, andunavoidable. However, I consider it very important to

so on for tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

understand the principles and the technical theory in

These approaches are not limited to surveys andcombination with meaningful experience.

conservation alone; therefore, discussion covering

Therefore, I make sure during these training

all of these diverse technologies is far from easy.

programs to have the students understand theImportant points at the core of international

basic technologies of surveying from the groundcooperation

up, as well as actually seeing the target objects andtechnology as well as the issue of how to transfer

drawing them by hand. Through this process, theprinciples along with technology. (Figure 7)

18

students acquire enhanced understanding of the“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

target buildings and also of their structure and stateincludethehardwareaspectof

LiDAR technology at the Angkor monumentsof deformation and damage. Working manually also

Here, let me discuss my main topic, the aerial surveys

enables them to understand the limits of the data

conducted at the Angkor monuments in Cambodia.

precision available. I have tried various teachingThis project took place via cooperation among sevenprocedures throughout training of this kind in the

countries and eight international organizations.

past, finding that when conventional technologies(Note 3)are explained in chronological order, the students

University of Sydney, École française d'Extrême-tend to become bored, losing interest before the

Orient, and the Cambodian governmental Authority

end. Therefore, I begin by having them work withfor the Protection and Management of Angkor andthe latest technology, without understanding its

the Region of Siem Reap (APSARA); in addition,

principles yet (treating the technology as a black

private-sector organizations and countries such asbox), and feel the excitement of doing so. I findJapan, Hungary, and the US took part.

The main movers were researchers fromthat their interest is more sustainable if I use thisAs the use of aerial surveying has been increasing

experience to encourage them to understand thein Japan as well over the last few years, many people

background principles or the target object in order. In

here may be familiar with it. In brief, it is a survey

this way, I consider it important in technology transfer

technology which uses the reflection of the earth’s

to promote understanding of the technical principles

surface of multiple lasers, irradiated from above

to the greatest extent possible. (Figure 6)

with highly precise position information, to grasp theToday’s seminar is intended to foster discussion

overall topology of the ground surface height. Aerial

on technologies in international cooperation throughsurveying is an extremely helpful tool in Japanesecultural heritage; the restoration of the Angkor

cultural heritage as well, where it is put to use to••

Figure 5

Figure 6

The region slopes gradually from northeast towith trees, castles in the mountains, and so on.

southwest, with an average gradient of about 0.1%.

(Figure 8)(Figure 10) The central area of the monuments

This is a satellite photo from Google Earth ofis thickly forested: in particular, the area aroundthe Angkor monuments. The main remains of the

Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat, which must havemonuments cover an area of 25 kilometers east-west

been the center of the capital as it was, is difficultand 20 kilometers north-south. For example, thisterrain, now covered in weeds and forest, with poor

rectangle to the west is an artificial reservoir built invisibility and dangerous footing. (Figure 11) Aerial

the 11th century, just one of many vast water supply

surveying enables at least five or six measuring

constructions. (Figure 9) In recent years, we havepoints per square meter. Point-cloud data of this kindcome to understand that the area of the capital ofprovides a clear image of the shapes of the Angkor

the Angkor dynasty was very large, considered to

Wat temple architecture. In addition, high-resolution

have encompassed the entire area from the Phnom

aerial photographs are also made available. (Figure

Kulen mountains to the north to Tonlé Sap Lake in

12)
The orange areas on the map are the results

the south.

20m

1/900

Figure 7

1/1000Figure 10

Angkor Thom

• Authority for the Protec�on and Management of Angkor and thet Region of Siem Reap (APSARA)
Syd• University
Universverssity of Sydney,
dney, RobertRoberberrt Chris�e Research Centre (USYD)
Ecole
francaise
ran
ed
• Ec
cole
e fr
d'Extreme
ExtrememeeOncaiseOrient, Siemm Reap Centre (EFEO)
Societe• So
ocieteC
edd’Aeroport
Aeroporrt (S
(SCA)
SCA)
e Concessionnaire• Hungari
Hungariangariiaan Indochina Company (HUNINCO)• JapanJapaaan
APSARAA
PSARA Safeguarding Angkor
Angk (JASA)
ann-AP• World Monuments Fund (WMF)• Archaeology & Development Founda�on Phnomm Kulenn Program (ADF)2013

Angkor Wat
rtthrth
Google
Goo
Go
G
o og
oo
glllee Earth
gle
Ea
E
art
arth
h

2012 4

Figure 88

Figure 112

New DEM data from LiDAR mission (Angkor Wat)

New aerial imagery from LiDAR mission (Baphuon)

Khmer Archaeology LiDAR Consortium

Figure 9

Figure 12

19"Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology: Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"

30m

Lecture 2

grasp the precise shapes of kofun tombs overgrown

Lecture 2

20of a 2012 measurement project. (Note 4) As well asof the central Angkor Thom area, enables clear

180 square kilometers covering the central Angkor

confirmation of linear remains in an irregular gridmonuments area, this project included 90 square

as well as a great number of reservoirs of about 50

kilometers in the Phnom Kulen mountains, themeters on each side. (Figure 16)

putative location of the 9th-century kingdom’s capital,

The Angkor monuments are sometimes called aand the Koh Ker archaeological site consideredhydraulic city; surveys have enabled the recreation of

to be the 10th-century kingdom’s capital, currently

this grid-shaped irrigation network. The mechanism

under application by the Cambodian government

thought to have existed setting water drawn from thefor inscribing to the World Heritage list. (Figurenortheast corner of the walled city to flow along the13) Further, in 2015, additional surveying covered

natural topology of the area and reach everywhere

the major Cambodian sites of Banteay Chhmar,

within the citadel, eventually reaching the southwest

Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, Sambor Prei Kuk,

corner and once again being discharged into theand Longvek, through a new research organization

moat outside the walled city. The details of thismainly involving the École française d'Extrême-structure need to be elucidated by future surveys.

Orient and the Cambodian government. (Figure 14)(Figures 17, 18 and 19)“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

The difference in elevation within the city is only
New insights of Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat

about 5 meters per 3 square kilometers, so when thefrom LiDAR survey

topographical data obtained is displayed as a normal

We at JSA acquired data on the central area of

elevation tinted hillshade map, visual confirmation

the Angkor monuments through this project. Forof detailed shapes was found to be difficult. Here,

example, multiple linear remains and reservoirs

with the cooperation of Dr. CHIBA Tatsuro of Asia

have been confirmed in this way within the Angkor

Air Survey Co. (consultants on aerial information),Thom citadel, completed in the 12th century andwho developed a technology representing diagrams

surrounded by a 3-kilometer square moat. (Notebased on topological displays with an improved(Figure 15) This contour map, an enlargement

red relief map, we were able to conduct detailed

5)

AngkorA*Evans, D. H., R. J. Fletcher, C. Pottier, J.-B. Chevance, D. Soutif, B. S. Tan, S. Im, D. Ea, T. Tin, S. Kim, C.
Cromarty, S. De Greef, K. Hanus, P. Bâty, R. Kuszinger, I. Shimoda and Boornazian, G. 2013.
“Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using lidar,” Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America 110: 12595-12600. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306539110

Koh Ker

Phnom Kulen

Figure 13

New topographical map from LiDAR mission (Angkor Thom)

Figure 15

A*Evans, D. 2016. “Airborne laser scanning as a method for exploring long-term socio-ecologicaldynamics in Cambodia,” Journal of Archaeological Science 74:164-175.

Figure 14

New topographical map from LiDAR mission (Central Area of Angkor Thom)

Figure 16

by linear lines, in which the regular distribution ofUsing this, we were able to confirm the distribution

reservoirs has been confirmed. (Figure 22) Thisof over 2000 reservoirs within the city. At this point it

forms a contrast to the random distribution of theis not clear whether the ponds were there from thereservoirs in Angkor Thom, as we previously saw.

beginning of city or they were dug later period as

The difference is suspected to derive from land use

needed by residents when the water supply networkor from the different eras in which the reservoirs were

within the city failed to function. As the reservoirs

constructed, an issue which must be analyzed in theare considered important element to elucidating thefuture. (Figure 23)

Lecture 2

analyses. (Figure 20)

past environment and studying land use at the time,further survey should be highly interesting. (Figure21)

Use of LiDAR data to various purposes
Through the combination of the topological data

We have been discussing Angkor Thom, butgleaned from aerial surveying and onsite undergroundnumerous interesting remains have been foundsurveys and excavations, we are working to clarify

around the moat in Angkor Wat as well. The area

the history and structure of the Angkor monuments

within the moat was divided into multiple districts

and other ancient cities in Cambodia. Currently,

Figure 17

Figure 20

Google Earth

Figure 18

Figure 21

Angkor Wat

Google Earth

Figure 19*Evans, D. H., R. J. Fletcher, C. Pottier, J.-B. Chevance, D. Soutif, B. S. Tan, S. Im, D. Ea, T. Tin, S. Kim, C. Cromarty, S. De Greef, K. Hanus, P. Bâty, R.
Kuszinger, I. Shimoda and Boornazian, G. 2013.
“Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using lidar,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 12595-12600. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306539110

Figure 22"Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology: Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"

Google Earth21

Lecture 2

JSPS Grant-in-Aid-funded research is in progress inas the cities declined. The topological data gainedorder to clarify the hydraulic systems, land divisionfrom aerial surveys has also come into use for issues

systems, land use, and environment of the ancient

relating to protection of the monuments in the present

khmer cities. (Note 6) With overseas travel finallyday, such as more detailed reconfigurations based

becoming possible again after the restriction by

on the current status of conservation areas, new

COVID-19, full-scale on-site research is once moreplans for water discharge and storage construction,

feasible, and I hope to make good progress with theland use within the remains, and management of

aid of various other researchers. (Figure 24)

land ownership. (Figure 26)

With regard to aerial surveys conducted as

22international joint projects, various information is

Significance and challenges of multinational

available online, and numerous academic papers

cooperation“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

based on these surveys have been published. While

The last slide is a presentation of the significancewe do not have enough time to get into the individual

and issues of multinational as opposed to bilateralresearchgainedcooperation on this project. First, the premise is thatthrough aerial surveys is contributing significantly

this project was realized as a collaboration among

to archaeological research as well as monument

multiple organizations based on the foundationconservation. (Figure 25)ofoutcomes,

topological

data

heritageconservation

throughinternational

With the new discoveries of relics over a wide

collaboration developed after the Angkor monuments’area, our understanding of the monument groups

World Heritage registration in 1992. The project also

has been dramatically upgraded. We have beenowes its realization in part to the hard work put intoable to analyze and verify questions such as thosecoordination by Dr. Damian EVANS, originally of therelating to the renovation of temple complexes andUniversity of Sydney and subsequently moved to thethe process thereof; how multiple facilities were

École française d'Extrême-Orient.

combined to form comprehensive water supply

The significance of cooperation among multiple

remains, and how these facilities fell into disrepair

countries lies in the diverse resources which can
LiDAR Consor iumh�ps://angkorlidar.org/publica�ons/

Buckley, B. M., R. Fletcher, S.-Y. S. Wang, B. Zottoli and Pottier, C. 2014. “ Monsoon extremes and society over the past millennium on mainland Southeast Asia,” Quaternary Science Reviews 95: 1-19.
*Carter, A., Heng, P., Stark, M., Chhay, R. and Evans, D. 2018. “Urbanism and Residential Patterning at Angkor “. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(6): 492-506. [PDF Accepted Manuscript]*Chevance, J-.B., Evans, D., Hofer, N., Sakhouen, S. and Chean, R. 2019. “ Mahendraparvata: an early Angkor-period capital defined through airborne laser scanning at Phnom Kulen “. Antiquity 93(371): 1303-1321. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2019.133*Chiba, T., Shimoda, I., Haraguchi, T., and Shimoda, M. 2016. “ Precise Visualization Method for Cultural Heritage-The Case of High-Resolution Read Relief Image Map Used for Study of Royal City of Angkor Thom, Cambodia“. ISPRS – International Archives of the Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 41:383-386.
Coe, M. and Evans, D. 2018. Angkor and the Khmer Civilization. 2nd Edition. London: Thames and Hudson.
Cohen, A., Klassen, S. and D. Evans. 2020. “Ethics in Archaeological Lidar”. Journal of Computing Applications in Archaeology 3(1): 76-91. DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.48*Evans, D., Pottier, C. and Soutif, D. 2019. “ Quand la technologie LiDAR révèle l’ampleur de citées enfouies“. Reﬂets de la Physique 63:65-7. DOI: 10.1051/refdp/201963065*Evans, D. [In Review] “The Predicament of Archaeological Lidar: Perspectives from Southeast Asia”. Journal of Archaeological Research.
*Evans, D. 2016. “Airborne laser scanning as a method for explori ng long-term socio-ecological dynamics in Cambodia,” Journal of Archaeological Science 74:164-175.
Evans, D. 2010-2011 [2013]. “The Archaeological Landscape of Koh Ker, Northwest Cambodia ,” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 97-98: 91-150.
*Evans, D. and R. Fletcher. 2015. “The landscape of Angkor Wat redefined .” Antiquity 89(348):1402-19. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2015.157*Evans, D., R. Fletcher and Tan, B. S.. 2013. “Acquisition d’images LiDAR 2012 des sites d’Angkor, du Phnom Kulen et de Koh Ker,” Patrimoine Mondial 68: 60-63.
*Evans, D., K. Hanus and Fletcher, R. 2015. “The story beneath the canopy: An airborne lidar survey over Angkor, Phnom Kulen and Koh Ker, northwestern Cambodia ,” in A. Traviglia, ed., Across Space and Time. Selected Papers from the 41st Conference on Computer Applications
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Perth 25-28 March 2013. Amsterdam University Press, 38-46.
*Evans, D. H., R. J. Fletcher, C. Pottier, J.-B. Chevance, D. Soutif,B. S. Tan, S. Im, D. Ea, T. Tin, S. Kim, C. Cromarty, S.De Greef, K. Hanus, P. Bâty, R. Kuszinger, I. Shimoda and Boornazian, G. 2013. “ Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using lidar ,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 12595-12600. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306539110*Evans, D. and S. Klassen [In Press] “Water Management and Settlement Structure at Koh Ker”. Arts of Southeast Asia.
*Evans, D., Tan, B.S., and Heng K. [In Press] “From Aerial Photos to Lidar: New Developments in the Mapping of Angkorian Sites”. Preah Nokor.
Fletcher, R., Evans, D., Pottier, C. and Chhay, R. 2015. “Angkor Wat: an introduction.” Antiquity 89(348):1388-401. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2015.178*Hanus, K. and Evans, D. 2015. “Imaging the Waters of Angkor: A Method for Se mi-Automated Pond Extraction from LiDAR Data,” Archaeological Prospection. DOI: 10.1002/arp.1530
Klassen, S. and Evans, D. 2020. “Top-down and bottom-up water management: A diachronic model of changing water management strategies at Angkor, Cambodia “. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 58: 101166. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101166
Klassen, S., Weed, S., and Evans, D. 2018. “Semi-supervised machine learning approaches for predicting the chronology of archaeological sites: A case study of temples from medieval Angkor, Cambodia“. PLOS ONE 13(11): e0205649. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205649*Klassen, S., Lustig, T. and Evans, D. [Under Review]. “Systemic Failure in the Water Management of an Angkor-era Capital City: Adaptive Capacity at Koh Ker, Cambodia”. Ecology and Society.
*Lustig, T. Klassen, S., Evans, D., French, R. and Moffat, I. 2018. “ Evidence for the breakdown of an Angkorian hydraulic system, and its historical implications for understanding the Khmer Empire“. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17: 195-211.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.11.014
Moffat, I., Klassen, S., Attore, T., Evans, D., Lustig, T. and Kong L. 2019. “Using ground penetrating radar to understand the failure of the Koh Ker Reservoir, Northern Cambodia ,” Geoarchaeology. DOI: 10.1002/gea.21757*O’Reilly, D., Evans, D. and Shewan, L. 2017. “ Airborne LiDAR prospection at Lovea, an Iron Age moated settlement in central Cambodia,” Antiquity 91(358): 947-965. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2017.69
Penny, D., Chevance, J.-B., Tang, D. and De Greef, S. 2014. “ The Environmental Impact of Cambodia’s Ancient City of Mahendraparvata (Phnom Kulen),” PLOS ONE 9(1): e84252. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2017.69
Penny, D., Hall, T., Evans, D. and Polkinghorne, M. 2019. “Geoarchaeological evidence from Angkor, Cambodia, reveals a gradual decline rather than a catastrophic 15th-century collapse”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821460116
Penny, D., Zachreson, C., Fletcher, R., Lau, D., Lizier, J., Fischer, N., Evans, D., Pottier, C. and Prokopenko, M. 2018. “The demise of Angkor: Systemic vulnerability of urban infrastructure to climatic variations“. Science Advances. 4(10):eaau4029. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau4029
Roberts, P., Hunt, C., Arroyo-Kalin, M., Evans, D. and Boivin, N. 2017. “ The deep human prehistory of global tropical forests and its relevance for modern conservation,” Nature Plants 3:17093. DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.93*Shimoda, I., T. Haraguchi, T. Chiba and Shimoda, M. 2016. “ The Advanced Hydraulic City Structure of the Royal City of Angkor Thom and Vicinity Revealed through a High-Resolution Red Reli
ef Image Map,” Archaeological Discovery 4(1): 22-36. DOI: 10.4236/ad.2016.41003*Singh, M., Evans, D., Chevance, J.B., Tan, B.S., Wiggins, N., Kong, L. and Sakhouen, S. 2018. “ Evaluating the ability of community-protected forests in Cambodia to prevent deforestation and degradation using temporal remote sensing data“. Ecology and Evolution 8: 1017510191. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4492
Singh, M., Evans, D., Chevance, J.B., Tan, B.S., Wiggins, N., Kong, L. and Sakhouen, S. [Under Review]. Mapping different land use/cover types in a mixed forest- cashew plantation landscapes using Landsat spectral properties in Cambodia with Google Earth Engine cloudcomputing. International Journal of Digital Earth.
*Singh, M., Evans, D., Chevance, J.B., Tan, B.S., Wiggins, N., Kong, L. and Sakhouen, S. 2019. E valuating Remote Sensing Datasets and Machine Learning Algorithms for Mapping Plantations and Successional Forests in Phnom Kulen National Park of
Cambodia. PeerJ 7: e7841. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7841*Singh, M., Evans, D., Coomes, D., Friess, D., Tan, B.S. and Nin, C.S. 2016. “ Incorporating Canopy Cover for Airborne Derived Assessments of Forest Biomass in the Tropical Forests of Cambodia”. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154307*Singh, M., Evans, D., Friess, D.A., Tan, B.S. and Nin, C.S 2015. “ Mapping Above-Ground Biomass in a Tropical Forest in Cambodia Using Canopy Textures Derived from Google Earth,” Remote Sensing 7(5): 5057-76. DOI: 10.3390/rs70505057*Singh, M., Evans, D., Friess, D.A., Tan, B.S. and Nin, C.S. 2015. “ Mapping and Characterizing Selected Canopy Tree Species at the Angkor World Heritage Site in Cambodia Using Aerial Data,” PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121558*Stark, M. T, Evans, D., Chhay, R., Heng, P. and Carter, A. 2015. “Residential patterning at Angkor Wat.” Antiquity 89(348):1439-55. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2015.159*Stark, M., Carter, A., Heng, P., Chhay, R., and Evans, D. 2018. “ The Angkorian City: From Hariharalaya to Yashodharapura“, in McCullough, T., Murphy, S.A., Baptiste, P., and Zephir, T. (eds.) Angkor: Exploring Cambodia’s Sacred City. Singapore: Dominie Press. Pp. 156-177.
Stephens, L., Fuller, D., Boivin, N., Rick, T., Gauhtier, N., Kay, A., Marwick, B.et al 2019. “Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use“. Science 365(6456):897-902. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax1192
Tarolli, P., Cao, W., Sofia, G., Evans, D. and Ellis, E. 2019. “From features to fingerprints: a general diagnostic theory for anthropogenic geomorphology“. Progress in Physical Geography 43(1):95-128. DOI: 10.1177/0309133318825284 [PDF Accepted Manuscript]

Figure 23

Figure 25

2021-2025,

•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Airborne LiDAR

21H04353)

•
•
•
>
>
•
•
•
•

Figure 24

Figure 26

Lecture 2

be shared for research. In particular, because thisproject required a large budget, a major advantage
was the division of the monetary burden among
multiple parties. The participation of experts affiliatedwith multiple organizations also led to the discovery
and sharing of outcomes and data usage methods
which had not initially been expected, a major benefit.
Elsewhere, issues included the question of how
to share data. Options included the construction of aplatform or interface that everyone could use. As of

Figure 27

now, each organization analyzes the primary data,
but there needs to be discussion on future methods

both sides and local technology are respected andof use in order to enable this data to be widely usedmade good use of, moving forward from internationalby experts in addition to the initially participating

support to international cooperation, from support toorganizations.

cooperation.
Based on the examples discussed here, projects

at one time fairly typical, centered on international

aimed at the conservation of cultural heritage canorganizations such as UNESCO. In the case of

likewise benefit significantly from this kind of equal

academiccollaboration

partnership among multiple countries in cooperation.

among experts from various countries remains

My hope is that we will see major developments oftypical; in the field of cultural heritage conservation,

this kind in the future. (Figure 27)

however, international cooperation has sometime

Thank you for your attention.

research,wide-ranging

become a matter of their national policy to someextent. Therefore, over the last twenty to thirty years,
the dominant practice has been for each country
to create its own organization which handles theseprojects.
In projects which can succeed by applying andintroducing existing technologies to the field of
cultural heritage, bilateral cooperation is likely toremain common. However, when more academic
research is the objective, or when technology must
be developed rather than introduced, more and more
projects will find themselves in need of multinational
cooperation.
In bilateral cooperation projects, the relationshipof provision from the supporting country andacceptance from the supported country tends toshow up clearly; in multinational support, however,equal

relations

betweenthe

supportingandsupported countries can be created more easily,as they participate in discussion and carry out the
project together. Moreover, by having the supported
country also contribute an appropriate amount as
the project is carried out, I believe that it becomeseasier to create a project in which opinions from

Note1: Japanese Government Team for Safeguarding Angkor
website（https://angkor-jsa.org/）
Note2: S ambor Prei Kuk Conservation Project（https://www.shimoda-lab.org/spk-project/）Note3: C ambodian Archaeological Lidar Initiative（http://angkorlidar.org/）
Note4: E vans, D., et al. (2013). Uncovering archaeologicallandscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, 110(31), 12595-12600.
Note5: S himoda, I., Haraguchi, T., Chiba, T., Shimoda, M.
(2016). The Advanced Hydraulic City Structure of theRoyal City of Angkor Thom and Vicinity Revealed
through a High-resolution Red Relief Image Map,
Archaeological Discovery, 4(1), 22-36.
Note6: G rant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(KAKENHI)“Research on the Urban Structure and Social
Infrastructure of Ancient Khmer Dynasty:
Archaeological Field Survey Using High-Precision
Topographic Data” （21H04353, Principal
Investigator: SHIMODA Ichita）

23"Multilateral Cooperation for Adapting New Technology: Research and Protection of Cultural Heritage by Cambodian Archaeological LiDAR Initiative"

Multinational cooperation in cultural heritage wasLecture 3"Extending Cultural Heritage
Protection Using the Latest
Technologies at Hand: Towards
Documentation which Anyone
can Work together"

24“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

Today’s my topic is “Extending Cultural Heritage
Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand.”In previous session, Dr. Shimoda discussed aerial
survey for cultural documentation. I’d like to talkabout documentation of various cultural heritage on
the ground, using compact and low-cost technology.
(Figure 1)
I am an archaeologist, working in mainly hot
and dry countries. (Figure 2) I am also working
on 3D documentation and databases. If anyone isinterested, please refer to the books shown here
(Figure 3). Recently, I have also published articles
on 3D documentation technology and application in
the Research Report of the Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, as well as in the
Current Awareness: a journal of the National Diet
Library of Japan. (Note 1). (Figure 4)
Here, I’d like to begin my discussion from thethought on “technology”. (Figure 5) In my sense,
第31回文化遺産国際協力コンソーシアム研究会「技術から見た国際協力のかたち」

身近な最新技術で文化遺産保護を広める
誰もが取り組める計測記録を目指して（金沢大学古代文明・文化資源学研究所客員研究員 野口 淳）

NOGUCHI Atsushi(Visiting Fellow, Kanazawa University Institute for the Studyof Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources)

Figure 1
自己紹介野口 淳（のぐち あつし）

1971年生まれ（51歳）

専門：旧石器考古学、日本、南アジア、アラビア、3D計測、データベース

Figure 2
NOGUCHI Atsushi was born in Tokyo in 1971.
He completed his graduate and undergraduate studies inarchaeology at Meiji University. His area of specialism ispaleolithic archaeology, and he had been involved in fieldsurveys in Japan, South Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula. He also
works to support cultural heritage conservation in Pakistan andthe development and introduction of 3D surveying technology.
From 2020 onward, he has held online workshops for Japaneseand international participants.
He is currently working to introduce 3D surveying into cultural
heritage preservation in Central America, as well as serving as
an adjunct lecturer at the Tokai University School of Cultural andSocial Studies.

自己紹介

Figure 3

とりあげる「技術」

今回はとくに文化遺産保護の文脈において大きな効果を発揮する

3次元（3D）計測技術を取り上げる
https://southasianpalaeolithic.net/tag/3dws/

なぜ3Dなのか...

予稿集公開中https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/ja/list/13/d1302

1
2
3
4

https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/33189
https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/69974
https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/90271
https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/115736

Figure 4

本来立体的な形状の文化遺産の記録に最適だから

Figure 7
文化遺産の3D計測
世界遺産タキシラ、カラワーン出土仏像頭部（パキスタン・イスラマバード博物館）

文化遺産保護における「技術」とは?
対象の表面を覆う多数の計測点で立体形状を記録・再構成する

Figure 5「技術」をどのように考えるのか?

Figure 8
文化遺産の3D計測
11×11×22cmで1125万点!

「技術」とは、人類がその目的を達成するために作り上げる
身体的・身体外の操作的手段「最新技術」＝身体技術を拡張・制約を超えるため文化遺産保護の文脈では...
対象の記録・保護・保存の成果を最大化することが目的＝人の目・手・足をサポート、規模・速度・精度の制約を克服

Figure 6

Figure 925"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand: Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together "自己紹介by 20 cm in its size, 11.25 million points have beenrecorded. The data of 3D measurement is consistedof X-Y-Z three-dimensional coordinates as well as
additional information such as vertex colors and soon. (Figures 8, 9 and 10)
The greatest advantage of 3D measurement isenabling record of the exact shape of object as it is, nomatter how complex it is. Therefore, in the context ofcultural heritage conservation, monitoring the statusof remains and their protection becomes possible,
along with ensuring masterpieces in reconstruction
and restoration. A high level of performance in
identifying individual artifacts and objects serves as
the foundation of a catalog database, which should
also enable monitoring issues of illegal distribution.
In addition, as noted by Dr. Shimoda, this can also
yield the basis of research data in archaeology,architecture, art history and so on. (Figure 11)
Another advantage is that data is created as

Lecture 3

technology is somatic and extra-somatic operational
means whichis created by human being to achieve
their objectives. And modern and advanced
technologies are aiming on extending physicalskills and/ or overcoming physical limitations. In
the context of cultural heritage conservation, theobjective should be optimization of the outcomes of
documentation, preservation and protection; beyond
the limitations of human eyes, hands, feet and so on.
(Figures 6 and 7)
I will focus particularly on 3D measurement andrelated technologies. Likely all cultural heritage
are in form of arbitrary three-dimensional. Here,I present an example of head of Buddha statues
excavated from Kalawan site in the World Heritage
Site Taxila, Pakistan. Tremendous number of pointcloud covering the surface of object is recorded forreconstruction and representation of the original
shape. On this Buddha head, about 10 cm by 10 cm

Lecture 3

26“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

born-digital. Digital data does not deteriorate
during reproducing process even in multiple times.
Therefore, it produces highly robust backups andensures easy redistribution. It also constitutes animprovement in terms of accessibility through online
world-wide-web from anywhere in the world. In
addition, with born-digital data, it can be compared,
verified and managed authenticity retained throughidentification. It can also support various media andplatforms. (Figure 12)
My first motivation of introducing 3D technology
was for documentation for archaeological materials
efficiently in a short time. As an archaeologist, I
study the Paleolithic. I’m working on the sites inPakistan which have yielded tremendous numberof stone tools. It is almost impossible to document
all of them manually with ordinary methods like as
hand-drawings. Therefore, in 2012, I began to use
desktop type 3D scanner for documenting materials.

(Figures 13, 14 and 15)
This solved issues. With 3D scanner documentation
work became semi-automated. Then, I was able
to take photographs or conduct observation
simultaneously during 3D scanner documented
materials. In addition, because of digitalized data, I
could bring them to Japan in form of digital data forfurther works without original material.
On the other hand, some issues remained. The
device is relatively expensive, and not able to bepermanently set up in Pakistan. Transportation is alsodifficult because it is sensitive precision equipment.
In addition, the desktop laser scanner is very specificdevice which is only able to measure small artifacts
but not for large monuments, site, topology, etc.
More critical issue is that it demands consistently
consistent electric power supply to work. However, inplaces like countryside of Pakistan, consistent work
is difficult due to poor electricity supply which leads

文化遺産の3D計測
データの実体は頂点の座標（+付加情報）

なぜ3D計測を導入したのか?

Figure 10
3D計測のアドバンテージ

Figure 13
極私的な動機
きっかけは、パキスタンでの旧石器時代遺跡の調査。膨• 複雑なものであっても対象の形状を、ありのままに記録する• 本来、立体物である文化遺産の形状を忠実に再現できる☞ 保存状況のモニタリング、修復・復元のためのマスターピース

大な資料を効率的に記録・図化するには手作業では限界があった• 個体識別性能が高い ☞ カタログ、データベース、違法流通の監視• 形態、技術研究のためのあらたな情報基盤となる

良質な石材原産地にあって、地表面をぎっしりと覆う
多量の石器をどうやって記録・図化するのか...

Figure 11
3D計測のアドバンテージ

Figure 14
解決策1：卓上型レーザースキャナー
http://www.nextengine.com/• デジタル・データとして作成・記録される• 劣化のない複製 ☞ 冗長性が高く堅牢なバックアップ、再配布が容易☞ アクセス性の改善（海外・僻地...）• 比較、検証、同定 ☞ 真正性の保持、管理• マルチメディア、マルチプラットフォーム対応

Figure 12

Figure 15• 解決したこと

背景• 世界遺産、著名な遺跡でも記録は限られている• 計測作業の半自動化 ☞ 写真撮影・観察作業の並列化＝効率化• デジタルデータ化☞ 実物資料がなくてもできることの増加＝現地と帰国後の分業化• 解決しなかったこと• 機材の価格と維持☞ 現地に常時設置できず渡航時のみの作業• 運搬性☞ それなりのサイズ×精密機械の制約• 電源確保☞ 停電等電力事情により左右される作業状況

モーラ・モラドゥ僧院址
Marshall 1918: pl. XXI

モーラ・モラドゥ
ストゥーパ基壇の彫刻
Marshall 1918: pl. XXII

Figure 16

Figure 19
背景
case1.モーラ・モラドゥ（1952） ☞ モノクロ写真のみ
case2.マンセーラ、アショーカ王碑文（1925） ☞ 拓本のみ
case3.チラス、タルパンの岩刻画（1982） ☞ モノクロ写真、スケッチのみ
case4.フンザの聖岩（1985）☞ モノクロ写真、スケッチのみ

次の解決策：3D写真計測
マンセーラ碑文拓本Jettmar 1982

Dani 1985

チラス、タルパン岩刻画

Figure 17

Figure 20

パキスタン北部の文化遺産の計測記録

現場の要件：遺構等の計測を含めて

1.モーラ・モラドゥ• フィールドの要求（仏教寺院址、世界遺産タキシラ構成資産）

2.タキシラ博物館（世界遺産サライ・バロール出土仏像ほか）

3.マンセーラ、アショーカ王碑文（世界遺産「暫定リスト」記載）

④⑤
③
①
②

• 長距離移動☞ 装備品の軽減・軽量化• 電源確保の課題☞ 常時電源接続は不可能／充電も厳しい• 過酷な気候☞ 標高1200～1500m以上の山岳地帯／日中40度台を超える砂漠地帯等• 地域情勢の制約☞ 高度な測量・計測機材の禁止

4.チラス、タルパンの岩刻画（ダム水没危機遺産）

5.フンザの聖岩
古代ガンダーラとシルクロードに関連する先史時代～仏教時代の岩刻画・碑文・遺構・彫刻

Figure 18

Figure 21

27"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand: Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together "3Dレーザースキャナー：解決したこと・しなかったこと

as light and minimal as possible. Furthermore, it isdifficult to keep electric power in constant and stablecondition due to poor condition of electricity supply inmountainous rural area. Therefore, battery powered
equipment is only usable. The location was in themountains, at 1200 to 1500 meters altitude or above.
However, there is likely no vegetation covering the
ground. Therefore, daytime temperature eceeds
40°C. in July and August. The high altitude, hightemperature, and strong UV exposure conspired tocreate the worst environment for sensitive precision
devices. Survey objects are various from small
artifacts held in museums, to outdoor monuments
and sites. In addition, geopolitical issues made itdifficult to use laser equipment and drones (UAV).
Actually, use of such equipment is prohibited or
refused permission (Figure 21)
In this context, I chose 3D photogrammetry
with compact digital camera and laptop computer

Lecture 3

frequent interruption of work by blackout. (Figure 16)
In this context, I chose 3D photogrammetry as
the next solution. In northern Pakistan, part of theancient Silk Road linking the western China with
South Asia, I was participating survey of cultural
heritage jointly with Hazara University, Masehra,
Pakistan. (Figures 17 and 18)
In the certain area, documentation of cultural
heritage in detail is absolutely necessary due to lackof established documentation even on well-known
sites registered as World Heritage. Only sketches,
black-and white photographs, as well as rubbings
obtained in past investigations are available. These
records were not likely suitable either for the present
work or future applications. (Figures 19 and 20) The
field conditions in the area is severe. Long-distancetravel by road is required, a return trip by car ofover a thousand kilometers from the base camp in
the university. Therefore, the equipment must be

Lecture 3

28“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

which installed a specific software. This achieves tominimize equipment. In the field, principal work is
capturing photos of object form multiple direction.
Processing those photos is carried out after backto camp, in evening, by laptop computer which
can work either cable or battery. Full analysi isconducted after back to the base camp in theuniversity while preliminary analysis is done during
the travel. Equipment in 2014-15 season were as
following: Olympus TG-4 compact digital camera
and Agisoft Metashape 3D photogrammetry software(Photoscan in that time). This is relatively low-costsettings rather than terrestrial laser scanner or drone.
(Figures 22 and 23)
The fundamental of photogrammetry is based onstereoscopy with 2 photos taken by two cameras orfrom two different points which are for reconstructing
depth information by parallax. Modern and advanced
3D photogrammetry, so-called SfM-MVS: Structure-

現場の要件：遺構等の計測を含めて

from-Motion and Multi-View-Stereo, can automaticallyrender multiple photos taken from arbitrary positions
into 3D. Proprietary software is improved to enableeasy operability for anyone. (Figures 24 and 25)
Here are a several examples of the survey. The
first example is the foundation of stupa with stucco
statues in Mohra Moradu monastery in Taxila World
Heritage site. With multiple photos, software outputs
a 3D model. Further image processing brings out
various visualizations. Taking 30 photos in the sitetakes less than five minutes. The software requires
some time for processing, but total time requiredfor documentation is reduced than conventional
method. (Figures 26 and 27)
Another example is the Ashokan Rock Edicts in
Mansehra, in the north of Taxila. The surface of therock is severely weathered, but 3D documentation
makes the text incised on the rock clearly visible. It
appears more readable through image enhancement

解決策2：3D写真計測• 追加的な解決策＝3D写真計測• 現場計測：コンパクトサイズ・デジタルカメラ• 従来の3D写真計測＝ステレオ法• 新しい3D写真計測＝SfM-MVS（カメラ位置復元-多視点ステレオ）
法• フィールドでは撮影に専念、ソーラーパネルで充電• 夜間、電源確保が可能な場合は予備解析（ラップトップPC）• 帰投後に本格解析を実施する

Yilmaz & Karakus (2013) Stereo and kinect fusion forcontinuous 3D reconstruction and visual odometry.
IDECCO2013, doi: 10.1109/ICECCO.2013.6718242

Figure 22

Figure 25

解決策2：3D写真計測

実地計測の事例：世界遺産タキシラ• 導入初期のセッティング＋
Olympus TG-4
1/2.3インチサイズ・デジタルカメラ
参考：5万円(発売当時)

Agisoft Photoscan
standard：約2万円

Figure 23
解決策2：3D写真計測

Figure 26
実地計測の事例：世界遺産タキシラ• 従来の3D写真計測＝ステレオ法• 新しい3D写真計測＝SfM-MVS（カメラ位置復元-多視点ステレオ）
法https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Par
allax_Example.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#/media/File:Pocket_stereoscope.jpg

Figure 24

Figure 27

出土資料・遺構の3D計測：現場の要件• コスト• 高価な機材・特殊な機器を必要としない☞ デジタルカメラ+三脚+LEDライト+PC• 簡便さ• デジタルカメラで撮影するだけ（写真の品質は重要）• 解析処理も容易（ソフトのGUI・操作性の向上）• 手軽さ• ひとりでも作業できる• 1対象あたりの計測記録時間の大幅な短縮☞ 事後の解析処理には時間が必要な場合もFigure 28

Figure 30

実地計測の事例：フンザの聖岩

技術移転の取り組み

Figure 29

Figure 3129"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand: Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together "実地計測の事例：アショーカ王碑文（マンセーラ）

to concentrate only on photo capturing in the field,
then to conduct analysis after back to the base campin the university. Furthermore, in some cases, post
field-survey process can be done in Japan. This
leads reduction of overseas staying period as well.
(Figure 30)
After the practical experiment in the field, I havestarted transferring skill and knowledge to the locals
to make them conducting the survey by themselves.
Hands-on workshops on 3D photogrammetry are heldat Hazara University for training of undergraduatesand graduate students. (Figure 31)
Most important aim is the local procurement
availability of equipment. At the time, Pakistan
government led the prime-minister’s initiative
to provide laptop computer to students with highgrades. This supports many students while only afew students have their own computer. Smartphones
and low-price digital cameras can be used for
capturing photos. So, there were sufficient provisions
in place locally. The workshops alone would be
ineffective if the students simply gained experience
with borrowed equipment rather than their own.
Conditions enabling continuous practice are
extremely important. (Figures 32 and 33)
Next step is extending the project in collaboration
with a federal bureau, the Department of Archaeology
and Museums (DOAM), Pakistan. Together with
Hazara University, practical work on the collectionof Islamabad Museum in the capital city has been

Lecture 3

process than naked eye observation. (Figure 28)
Next examples are inscriptions and rock-carving
art in the northern area (Gilgit-Baltistan) which areendangered to be submerged by construction of the
Diamer-Bhasha Dam. The Sacred Rock of Hunza, awell-known cultural heritage in the north of Gilgit isdocumented as well. It bears rock-carving drawingsof many long-horn ibexes. As same as the Ashokan
Rock Edicts, the surface is significantly weatheredand some parts are damaged. While protection
from the progress of weathering and deterioration isdifficult, 3D photogrammetry can preserve the detailcondition in the form of digital data. (Figure 29)
The advantage of 3D photogrammetry is simple
setting of equipment. Rather than expensive special
devices, a digital camera, an LED light, and acomputer for analysis are required. What we should
do in the field is only taking photos of the objects bydigital camera with references for scales. The qualityof results basically depends on the quality of thephotos.
The other advantage of 3D photogrammetry is
low work force requirement. Capturing photos in thefield can be done by a single person in minimum. For
safety concerns and other conditions may require
additional persons, but a large-scale teamwork is not
required. Wroking time for field survey can also be
reduced notably. Post field-survey process requires
much time, but it can be done in later in different timeand place. According to this advantage, it is possible

Lecture 3

30“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

carried out. (Note 2). (Figure 34)
Unfortunately, the pandemic of COVID-19 makes
travelling to Pakistan difficult. Instead, I am conducting
capacity building workshops via online. (Figure 35)
In cooperation with the Tokyo National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, I held two workshops
aimed at Asian countries in the 2020 and 2021
academic years, with participants from Cambodia,
Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and so on. I also gave alecture in the 2021 academic year based on a requestfrom the Sri Lankan government’s Department ofArchaeology. I have also committed to online training
courses for Central American countries organizedby the Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations
and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University, withwhich I am currently affiliated, I also offered in theacademic years of 2020 and 2021. These were quite
intensive sessions, held over eight to ten days percourse. The first training session was for participantsfrom Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador, andCosta Rica. Lectures were given in English with local
interpretation into Spanish. This was well received in
Latin American countries, then subsequently moreparticipants from a wider range including Bolivia,
Peru, Chile, and Argentina were joining to the course
in later. (Figure 36)
Elsewhere, there are issues with online training.
Internet connecting condition and computer
performance in local contexts are most critical.
Processing may not finish within the given time, so

ハザラ大学（マンセーラ）でのワークショップ

Figure 32
ハザラ大学（マンセーラ）でのワークショップ

Figure 33

that participants may not be able to keep up with thework during the workshop. Because the workshop
is not face-to-face, it is not easy for either side to
grasp how far the work has progressed. This results
incomplete operation in time and causes of reducing
effectiveness of the workshop. Therefore, Kanazawa
University plans to prepare video recording for ondemand self-practice which can be done at their own
timing.
In September 2022, I was eventually able to holda workshop on-site in Copán, Honduras (Note 3). The
workshop was held from morning to evening every
day for a week, including lectures and practices
both in the classroom and in the field of Mayanarchaeological site of Copán as a World Heritage.
At the end of workshop, all participants gave
presentation on their outcomes and perspectives on
the usage of 3D technology. (Figure 37)
At the end of my talk, let me discuss on recent
development on technologies and international
assistance of cultural heritage conservation.
Technologies are developed and changed rapidly
in recent. Likely every year we recognize significant
change of devices and technology in general.
Therefore, I am focusing on how we can apply theselatest technologies in accordance with the mission ofcultural heritage conservation, sntead of taling about
technological development itself.
Nowadays, Digital Shift or Digital Transformation istaking place throughout all fields among the society,

連邦政府考古・博物館局との連携（イスラマバード博物館）

Figure 34
オンラインワークショップによるキャパシティビルディング

Figure 35

オンラインワークショップによるキャパシティビルディング• 2020・21年度：アジア諸国向け（東京文化財研究所と共催）• カンボジア、ネパール、パキスタン、スリランカ、（イラン）• Agisoft Metashape、CloudCompareなどの操作方法• 2021年度：スリランカ考古局Archaeo-hour• 2020・21年度：中米諸国向け（金沢大学古代文明・文化資源学研究所）• グアテマラ、ホンジュラス、メキシコ、エルサルバドル、コスタリカ• のちに参加者が拡大（ボリビア、ペルー、チリ、アルゼンチン）• 動画教材も作成 ☞ 2022年9月ようやく現地研修開催へ

Figure 36
オンライン方式の課題• 現地側の環境• 通信環境（オンライン視聴環境、サンプルデータのダウンロード）• PCの性能、処理時間（時間内に終了しない・処理ができない）• コミュニケーション• フェイストゥーフェイスでないため理解度に差が大きい• 操作と結果をオンタイムで共有できない• ソリューション• リアルタイム、ステップバイステップの「講習」から
オンデマンド型教材作成への移行• 現地ワークショップ開催による補完

Figure 37「身近な最新技術」へのこだわり

Figure 38
文化遺産保護における「最新技術」• 「最新技術」• 機器・技術は毎年変化（進化）する• 新しい機器・技術の導入が目的ではない→文化遺産保護のミッションはなにか?

• デジタルシフト、デジタルトランスフォーメーション• あらゆる分野でのデジタルシフトは不可逆、その先を考えるべき• デジタル化 → デジタルを基幹としたシステムの更新• 現地も情報を把握している、「最新」が求められる→ コスト的に可能な「最新技術」の選択

Figure 39

31"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand: Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together "power supply and communications environments on
which the latest technologies depend.
However, infrastructure issues is rapidly improved.
For example, in Pakistan, the power supply andcommunications status have both been rapidly
improved over the past five years. Therefore, criticalissues which we faced five years ago are now solved.
In my experience, especially in developing countries,
improvement of infrastructure seems faster thanglobal development of technology. Anyway, problems
will be solved faster than what we expect. So, it is
not necessary to recognize the status in developing
countries as behind of the present situation indeveloped countries. This is the reason why wemust consider the latest technology for international
cooperation and assistance in the field of cultural
heritage conservation.
Data handling and management is another risingproblem. Here I have an example in Japan with myexperience, for which I have some supplementarymaterial. (Figure 40)
While the pandemic of COVID-19 interrupting
overseas travel, my activities are somehow shifted
within Japan.The practice in Hida City, Gifu Prefecture,
central Japan is the case. We organized workshops
on 3D documentation of museum collection in Hida
Miayaga Archaeology and Folklore Museum, which
is located in the remote mountainous area and only
open 30 days per year due to lack of resources. For
promoting the museum under prevent of travelling

Lecture 3

from industry to education, not only in developed
countries but also in developing countries. The latest
information reaches likely all countries through theInternet in same time. While those providing support
and assistance to developing countries consider
that less-developed technologies and devices areenough for recipient countries, those provided
support and assistance in developing countries may
feel complain that donors despise them.
Therefore, in terms of adopting new technologies,
we must start with demonstrating and proposing
updated system, providing enough information on
the latest development and mutually exchanging
opinions, rather than unilaterally decision making. It
is important to share awareness of what technologies
will be needed in the future, based on discussion of
their applications, when and how this should bedone, including a road map for the future work.
(Figures 38 and 39)
At the same time, it is highly significant tomake use of consumer products with the latest
technologies. Elsewhere, a major issue is the costs
of introducing and operating the equipment itself,
as well as the costs of the education and training.
Because of differences on price levels between
countries, even consumer products with the latest
technologies which are familiar in Japan may beconsidered extremely expensive in other countries
especially in developing countries. Another issue isthe infrastructure status, leading to problems with theLecture 3

32“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

due to the pandemic, we call not only experts but
also citizens for participating 3D documentation
workshops. (Note 4). 3D models is better for online
promotion of museum collection. And developmentof 3D documentation technology makes people
available to work with their own digital camera andeven with their smartphones. Apple iPhone LiDAR
scanning apps are absolutely easy to handle so thateven first-grade primary school student can make 3Dmodel of Jomon pottery and obtain 3D printed model.
Such easiness on 3D documentation makes people
more familiar to museum collection. Mental barrierthat people feel to cultural heritage is overcome
when they touch and work on them together withexperts. (Figures 41 and 42)
Rapid spreading of smartphone 3D documentation
leads another change in protection and conservationof cultural heritage under conflict. Polycam, acompany developing smartphone 3D documentation
apps, is collaborating with UNESCO on the projectcalled Backup Ukraine (Note 5). This project aims torecord threaten cultural heritage in the conflict zone
of Ukraine. (Figure 43)
The cutting-edge technologies I have discussed
here is consisted with a significant number patented
technology, which are not open but in black-box
status. Sometime, this causes social problems, suchas oligopoly, inequality to access products or services
between different social classes or countries, etc. At
the same time, those cutting-edge technologies can「最新技術」導入の課題

be the key for solving social problem. Therefore, it will
be important to discuss what we can do with them,rather than what is problem to use them, together
with overseas colleagues.
Regarding with this point of view, the task forexperts is defining the mission and distributing
manuals on the necessary precision and usage of
methods and devices. For example, I am committing
to the pro bono activities of Mobile Scan Associationin collaboration with members form sectors of civilengineering and architecture industries to establish
principle manual on how to use smartphone 3D
scanning apps in practice (Note 6). Using smartphone
on 3D documentation of cultural heritage isrecognized effective and sufficient during the fieldpractice in Honduras. (Figure 44)
These cutting-edge technologies are actually noteasily affordable for people in developing countries
by themselves. However, it is effective not only
for reducing work force and time, but also for
expanding opportunity of public engagement. Either
rapid development of economy or cost-down oftechnologies and devices due to commonization
among the market will be trigger of wide distributionof them in future, not so far but in near.
Generally speaking, when the resource is limited,
it is necessary to concentrate upon priority object
for optimizing the performance. This is same in thefield of cultural heritage conservation. For instance,
spending limited funding resource to high-end

行動を通じた当事者意識の涵養• 課題1：機材・運用コスト、教育訓練コスト• 基本的な物価水準の差 →「身近な最新技術」でもコスト感は異なる• インフラ整備状況 → 電源・通信環境☞ 経済環境による想定外の改善／技術の発展により解決• 課題2：データのハンドリング、マネジメント• インフラの脆弱性• 災害・武力紛争の影響 → デジタルデータはバーチャルだがサーバーやストレージは物理的存在☞ クラウド、分散化、冗長性の確保
iPhone LiDARなら小学生でもスキャンできる

Figure 40「自分たちでできる」ことの意義

Figure 42「誰でもできる」ことのアドバンテージ• スマートフォン3D計測の普及• 3D写真計測• LiDAR計測☞ 専門的機材から個人所有の日常的機器へ• BackUp Ukraineプロジェクト• 誰もが持つスマートフォンで紛争地の文化遺産の記録を!!
• アプリ開発企業+UNESCO
・ブルーシールドの官民連携

Figure 41

Figure 43

Lecture 3

Note 1: http://doi.org/10.24484/sitereports.69974-11964;
https://current.ndl.go.jp/ca2017
Note 2: NOGUCHI Atsushi, “Bunka isan no sanjigen kiroku
e no torikumi to kadai: Pakistan no jirei (Approaches
and issues in 3D recording of cultural heritage: The
example of Pakistan),” Kikan kokogaku (Archaeology
Quarterly) 140, 2017
NOGUCHI Atsushi, “3D kiroku e no atsui manazashi(A passion for 3D recording),” Archaeology Quarterly
140, 2017
Note 3: https://isac.w3.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/report/
mayaproject_20220914.html
Note 4: https://hidasuke.com/events/event/sekibou_3d_2022/
Note 5: https://poly.cam/ukraine
Note 6: https://mobilescan.jp/「何を使う」「どう使う」から「何をするのか・すべきか」へ• 専門家のタスク• まず「何をするのか」• 目的に沿った精度・使用方法の検証• マニュアルの公開• 専業・専従からシステム構築と運用支援へ

誰でも文化遺産の記録に携われる未来へ

https://mobilescan.jp/

Figure 44

Figure 46「ハイロー・ミックス」による補完• 専門性の高い技術• 普及型の技術• 専用的なので効率・効果が高い⇔ 導入・運用コストも高い• 汎用的なので効率・効果は低い⇔ 導入・運用コストも低い

ひとつでも多くの文化遺産を☞ 重点対象の選別専門家・高度技能人材の集中
機器・技術の運用による成果☞ 重点対象以外への適用
非専門家・一般人材の活用「仕組み」を作り展開する

それを見たことのない次の世代に受け継ぐために限られたリソース（予算・人材）で最大限の成果を得るために

Figure 45

Figure 47

33"Extending Cultural Heritage Protection Using the Latest Technologies at Hand: Towards Documentation which Anyone can Work together "expensive equipment and use them at high priority
site is appropriate decision. In the case, consumer
products with cutting-edge technologies can coverothers, and those who have such devices can engage
project, of course not only experts but also nonexpert citizens. Experience of actual engagement
makes people aware of being stakeholder of cultural
heritage with satisfaction to contribute to social
activities. In this regard, we can gain both data as theresult of 3D documentation and strong supporter or
enthusiast who can work together. (Figure 45)
Working toward the future that everyone, notexperts alone, can be participated in documentationof cultural heritage, we need to make more goodpractices on use of technology in order to preserve
cultural heritage securely for the coming generations.
For their experience in future we will work on andkeep on it. (Figures 46 and 47)
Thank you for your attention.

Panel Discussion
Moderator：
Panelists：

TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)
KAMEI Osamu
SHIMODA Ichita, NOGUCHI Atsushi

Panel
Discussion

TOMODA Masahiko(Secretary General, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)

34“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

TOMODA Masahiko was born in 1964. He is registered as a first-class architect, and a Professional
Engineer (Discipline of Civil Engineering).
He specializes in architectural history and cultural heritage conservation. From 1994 on, he served
as Field Director for the Japanese Government Team for Safeguarding Angkor, working mainly on
the restoration of Northern Library of Bayon Temple in Cambodia.; thereafter he has been involved inplanning, design, and supervision of numerous archaeological and architectural heritage conservation
projects in Japan and overseas. From 2008 on he has been engaged in international cooperation
projects for built cultural heritage at the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, working
on survey research, conservation and repair support, and nurturing technical human resources inIndonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal and elsewhere.
Since 2019, He is placed in Director of the Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. He also serves as a Board member of the
ICOMOS Japan National Committee.

TOMODA
Thank you all very much for your presentations.
My name is Tomoda Masahiko and I am Secretary
General of the Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation in Cultural Heritage. Along with Dr.
Kamei, I will serve as moderator of the discussion.
To begin with, the thrust of today’s seminar is“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage fromthe Viewpoint of Technologies.” This may have led
some people to expect that technology itself would
be the topic, but I hope we can focus more on how
we approach and work with technology, in particular
new technologies, within international cooperationin cultural heritage. In this sense, we have asked
Dr. Kamei to join us today for hearing his opinion,
including criticism, regarding what we do, from aperspective outside the field of cultural heritage.

Therefore, I’d like to start the discussion by asking
Dr. Kamei to provide anything he wasn’t able todiscuss fully in his own presentation, as well as
his reflections on all three presentations, including
the two presenters who followed him, along with arundown of the issues to be discussed in our debate
today.
KAMEI：I apologize for myrushing presentation. I’m afraid
it was not easy to follow, withinsufficient explanation. Thankyou very much, Mr. Tomoda. I
was able to talk with peace ofmind, leaving him responsible
for moderation.
I’d like to begin with the point that technology is35“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

Figure 1

on an everyday basis, simply experiencing it once
is not enough, but it is still better than nothing.
Craftsmanship must, after all, be passed on by amaster over a long period of developing experience.
In an era when labor costs -- lifestyle and personnel
costs -- were socially cheap enough, it was also
possible to pass on experience over time along witha master. In times like ours, when these costs cannormally no longer be borne by the individual or
society, and when there are alternatives available aswell, it is important, as Dr. Shimoda says, to pass on
the technologies that constitute a means to an end
by other methods. This often means not passing on
artisanal work but introducing new technologies. I
was very struck by the reference to the importance ofworking with what you have, even if it is not enough,to the point that this does not mean passing ontechniques of the past.
This is exactly what he means when he says thatdevelopment in an international context will shift from“support” to “cooperation.” The issue of cooperation is
one in close discussion with the current internationalsituation and the topic of today’s seminar. Of theeconomic or technological gaps large enough tomake a one-way declaration of support realistic,
there are not as many left in the world as we old
fellows think. If anything, there are more and morecases in which our full-fledged support is not evenclose to sufficient from the other side’s perspective. I
have also heard of cases in which fully economicallydeveloped parties are willing to accept any support
being handed out.
In industry as well, Japanese manufacturing once
had an overwhelming advantage over the rest of
the world. And yet these days, when buying afactory, for instance, it is possible to acquire not justthe technology of the manufacturing machinery but
also that of the operation and management as aset on the spot, including some very high-quality
information. People in the Japanese manufacturingindustry were once convinced that the lack of knowhow and operating technology made manufacturing
overseas impossible. And yet, before they knew it,transfer of operation and management technologies
has now become routine. These days, all you have to
do is buy a “factory set” to manufacture a reasonableproduct almost anywhere in the world. While Japan’s
manufacturing industry is struggling with the principleof technology transfer standing up here as well, forhumanity at large it is a blessing.

Panel
Discussion

a means to achieve Objectives. While it is true thattechnology itself sometimes becomes the objective,
groups taking this view are in the minority in society.
We often hear about technological development
but not about the feelings of the people using thetechnology. The same thing sometimes occurs inindustrial technology: many people care little about
how technology will be used as a means for ordinary
people and society overall to realize something.
Leaving aside any talk of science for the moment,
the normal practice is to use existing technology tosolve problems when it can be used, and otherwise
to use or develop other technologies for the purpose.
The preservation of technologies which are no longer
in regular use in the form of artisanship, etc., must be
understood as an exceptional and recondite practice.
The balance, or form of compromise, among
the three circles in Figure 1, the economy, theenvironment, individual life, and so on, depends
on what stage the individuals and societies havereached. Those with money will use expensive
technologies, while those without money will use
cheaper ones. Locations where labor is cheap canuse labor-dependent technologies, while thosewhere it is expensive must use technologies lessreliant on human labor. Each case is different. The
presiding rule is to use what comes to hand, existing
things if possible, better still if they have a reliable
record of use; if nothing is there to use, then comeup with whatever takes the least trouble to develop.
I am entirely in agreement with Dr. Shimoda’s
argument that actual experience is necessary tounderstand something through the senses, andthat making time for this experience is difficult. I’mreminded of the onsite saying that “experience is what
you get after you need it.” The difference between
having experience and lacking it is significant. In
order to retain technology which is no longer used

PanelDiscussion

36“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

In terms of money as well, the gap in GDP perperson is almost visibly shrinking. The world is nolonger that of the two-peak distribution; everyonein the world is becoming affluent. The presentation
brought to mind for me that the technologicalcooperation now becoming possible is suited to thesituation in which many countries and regions are
now economically capable of providing funding.
Mr. Noguchi’s presentation enabled me to realize
once again that familiar advanced technology is
becoming immensely significant. Familiar heremeans that the technology is widespread enoughto become a part of daily life. This widespread
acceptance has its own reasons and significance.
For example, the products that reach us are suited
to how we operate them and the attitudes used indaily life, as well as being mass-produced, meaningthat they are easily affordable and also have goodcost-performance compared to products developed
as one-offs. As in the examples provided, the methodof using widespread technologies of this kind is likely
to become more and more important in the future.
While I know I am preaching to the choir, the divisionof labor is among the most important technologies
that has created modern society. This may involvethe division of labor among regions, between people,
in terms of tasks, or in terms of time. In any of thesecases, the technology of grasping the entire process,analyzing it, dividing it accurately and moving on withthe work is a tremendous invention.
Technologies with a shared objective will becomea future issue in the sense of awareness of thetechnological development that keeps society
running. I was very impressed with the stancefocusing on the development not only of mechanicaltechnologies but also of social technologies withshared objectives or involving social decision-making
such as education systems.
There are many other points I want to emphasize
as well, but I will yield to my colleague here.
TOMODAI’d like to organize some of the many points ofdiscussion that have arisen. While we tend to use theterm “international cooperation in cultural heritage”
unconsciously, in fact it has various meanings. As
one point particularly relevant to our discussion today,
while I’d like to hear Dr. Kamei’s opinion on whether
this is specific or not to the use of a given technology
on cultural heritage, we first need to address the

topic of how to work with new technologies in thecontext of the protection of cultural heritage.
Next, adding the context of international
cooperation -- here, international cooperation in
the field of cultural heritage in particular -- we must
discuss the problem of using these technologies invarious environments and with different partners.
On this basis, we can relate these points to theprospects for the future of international cooperationin cultural heritage, the question of how we ought tomove forward with the use of new technologies. I’dlike to divide the discussion into these three stages.
First, regarding new technology in cultural heritage
conservation, I’m sure everyone here has noticed
that today’s presentations focused on surveying
technologies. While this owes something to chance
as well, as Dr. Shimoda mentioned previously, thetechnologies used for cultural heritage conservation
are extremely diverse; addressing them all separately
might diffuse the discussion, and so my intent is as
well to focus deliberately on topics related to thefamiliar issue of surveying technologies.
To that end, today’s presentations have covered
mainly surveying and recording technologies; I
know everyone here is also very much interested intechnologies for conservation. In almost all cases ofsurveying and recording, the cultural heritage itself
is not physically affected. Conservation technologies
are somewhat different, in the sense that they
involve physical interaction with the cultural heritage.
The presentations today have not yet touched on
this point. I’d like to hear how our speakers feel
about the issues calling for attention in conservation
technologies, as different from survey and recording.
Dr. Shimoda, will you start us off?
SHIMODAAs Mr. Tomoda pointed out just now, technology
usage in cultural heritage
can be roughly divided into
“technologies for surveys andresearch” and “technologies forconservation.” We must notethat both forms of technology
are premised on the point that
cultural heritage is not a venue for technologicalexperiments and verification.
Surveying almost never involves the risk ofdamaging monuments, but one example whether it issometimes necessary to use damaging methods inTOMODA
These are all very important points. The issue
which arises when using new technologies is how
far the technology must be verified to become
acceptable for use. As each individual object isdifferent, when bringing a given technology tobear thereon, it is impossible to predict the resultscompletely. Dr. Kamei’s presentation also touched on
the increasing difficulty of prediction, referring to theblack box. In this sense, I’d like to hear from both of
you about how technology stands up to verification.
SHIMODAI find the issue of how far cutting-edge technology
must be verified in order for adoption to be acceptablea very difficult one. The verification line which is thestandard for judgment varies depending on the37“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

TOMODAI’d like to hear from Mr. Noguchi as well. Your
presentation referred to the division of special
technology and general-use technology, using theterm “high-low mix.” I feel that to a certain extent, thisapplies both to the aspect of surveying and to thatof conservation. I’d like to hear what you think about
the combination of ready-made and made-to-ordertechnology.

NOGUCHII myself am not in close
proximity to the field ofconservation, with almost no
direct involvement in projectsof this kind, so I am, as it were,taking an outsider’s view inthis case. The high-low mix format I discussed in
my presentation can be addressed not only withinconservation but also with regard to the combinationof conservation with the surveying and measurement
technologies discussed in this seminar.
For instance, while I agree that irreversible
approaches to cultural heritage are difficult andthat caution is thus required, if we are now capableof conducting advance surveying and recordingwith greater precision than ever before, we canthus attempt more challenging projects as, even if
deformation or displacement of some kind takes
place, we can guarantee conservation in the formof the existing records. This process also involves
selecting the target carefully, as Dr. Shimoda pointed
out. I feel that combination in this sense should also
be feasible.
On this point, as the greatest advantage of thesurveying technologies Dr. Shimoda and I havediscussed today is that they are non-contact andnon-invasive, with these as a premise, even wheninvasive technologies must inevitably be applied, weshould be able to create records via non-contact,
non-invasive surveying technology as a guaranteewith regard to their impact.

Panel
Discussion

order to investigate the internal structure of buildings
or monuments. However, even in that case, giventhat cultural heritage is the object, the intervention isrequired to be minimized.
Another issue often raised is the importance ofreversibility. My sense is that much of the work we dois only technically reversible. Realistically, in termsof reversibility, we tend to proceed on the basis that
execution should be possible.
In any case, the application of new technology
to cultural heritage requires a perspective willing tominimize the effects on objects; on the other hand,
however, while cultural heritage is both unique andrare, it is also categorized, and each category has
its own representativeness. Some types of cultural
heritage are representative in themselves, whileothers include multiple categories.
In these cases, for example, when dealing withsomething which has not been registered as partof World Heritage or a national cultural property,
it is also important to make active use of newtechnology, to some extent, in surveys and researchor in conservation, toward the development of further
surveys, conservation, and organization.
As it is very difficult to assign the relative merits ofcultural heritage, the question of which objects canbe permitted what degree of the active intervention of
new technologies is very difficult to judge on a uniform
basis, requiring case-by-case judgment. However,as, for example, surveys requiring disassembly or
research involving partial destruction can makemajor contributions to a deeper understanding of thecultural heritage in question, we need to use newtechnologies with suitable judgment, based on thelong-term prospects suited to the target within theoverall scope of cultural heritage.

PanelDiscussion

38“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

target, as well as the nature of the intervention totake place. If a given technology has been judged
through various advance experimentation to be thebest option, it will be put into use; thereafter, however,it will become the touchstone, so technologies mustbe put into practice through sufficiently cautious
verification. We must not forget that doing nothingis also a valuable option: I feel that we must beaware of the fact that when judgment is impossible,
deciding to hold back from intervening and wait andsee is an extremely important option.
When making use of new technologies upon a given
degree of verification, naturally the results thereof
must be monitored long-term from a comprehensive
perspective, and their helpful and harmful effects
verified. Thereafter, the widespread sharing of theresults of this verification will provide importantresources for the subsequent use of technology
as well as for development. In the case of cultural
heritage, failure is not an option, but verification withthe actual object can unquestionably also provide
important data for subsequent work, monitoring postapplication is as important as advance verification.
TOMODAI’d like to hear from Mr. Noguchi as well. I believe
your presentation discussed the handling of data
gained from technology in particular; could you talkabout this here?
NOGUCHIIn response to Dr. Kamei’s presentation at the
beginning as well, I’ve been drawn to reconsider
various points; I believe that the black-boxificationof technology as it develops is itself no longer
reversible. Elsewhere, my reaction to the idea ofusing technology “as is,” as a black box was thatnew roles and tasks will arise for us as experts; I
addressed this a little in my own presentation as well.
The developers are working on general surveying
technology, not special technology specificallyintended for the cultural heritage industry. The
catalog specs are presented as such and such. The
use of background technologies is also indicated.
We experts examine, given a general level ofknowledge of these background technologies, how
the catalog specs will actually be applied and realized
in the context of cultural heritage, and how they will
be reflected in the outcomes. This is something thetechnology developers cannot do; it will, I believe,

also come to be positioned as something pioneeringexperts need to carry out before the technology
becomes widely accepted and used onsite by many
people.
Therefore, I felt that rather than the two optionsof open or black-box, gradations may also come toexist. The format in use will shift from a total black
box to one suited to each specialist field as experts,
in tech terms, “hack” the technology to some extent.
The role of experts will shift and expand to creating
manuals and guidelines based on this process.
I was thinking as I listened to the presentationthat the early 21st-century new form of overseas
cooperation (allowing for some exaggeration!)
may be for Japan, or any given country with awell-developed field, to expand it overseas througheducation, training, and transfer.
TOMODAOne of the key words in Mr. Noguchi’s presentation
was “the latest technologies at hand,” which strikes
me on reflection as an extremely contemporary
expression.
I feel that cutting-edge technologies were once notso close at hand. Since that time, new technologies
have made rapid progress, with smartphones asjust one example; these days, they become widely
accepted and used in no time. In this context, nota little of us in the field of cultural heritage are still
cautious about the adoption of these new and untried
technologies. Our two presenters today are rather
progressive actively adopting new technologies, butothers may not be.
I may be the one among old-fashioned; I’d liketo hear from Dr. Kamei about how we in the fieldof cultural heritage should approach technology, inparticular regarding the adoption of new technologies.
KAMEI
I get the sense that people are nervous about
the adoption of new technologies. It seems to me
that if issues arise, they can simply be solved withtechnology. Technology is improving and changing,including its usage methods. Any given technology
remains in use while it is needed, and then falls outof use and become lost when another convenienttechnology, or a cheaper one, is developed -- that’s
just how it is.
The generation before mine took for granted thatpencils were sharpened with a knife. My generation

KAMEI
I too came across instructors in industrial drawing
who would say you were no good if you couldn’t
sharpen a ruling pen. My friends and I received
instructions of this sort with a chilly lack of interest-- when would we ever use it? There was certainly
a time when ruling pens ruled all. I remember being
told by a senior colleague that official documents
must always be written with a fountain pen, nota ballpoint pen. And I hardly need explain where
matters stand now.
Incidentally, I think I was probably one of the firstpeople to get the authorities to accept an approval
document printed out from a computer. We won’t
even get into gathering up affixing one’s seals event
left as they were. I’m grateful to the older students
and colleagues who taught me so much back then,but I do have a few things I’d like to say to them.
TOMODA
We could discuss this forever, but for now let us
move on to the next topic. International cooperationis, of course, not a matter of cultural heritage alone,
but cultural heritage as one of the many fields inwhich international cooperation takes place, is the
position from which we work.
My impression of the main points of Dr. Shimoda’spresentation today was the issue of what happens
when new technology is adopted, as the subject
using the technology. Elsewhere, Mr. Noguchi’spresentation focused on the issues arising whenconveying an in-use technology to others, especiallyto others overseas.
I’d like to hear about the difference between youruse of new technology overseas, in a context ofinternational cooperation, projects, et cetera, andyour normal use in Japan. One characteristic islikely to be the diversity of the targets; I believe Dr.

39“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

TOMODAI had quite a shock recently. My field is architecture,
and a little while ago, in industrial fields as well,everyone used a tool called a ruling pen to draw
plans. There are still just a few people using it now,

but first it gave way to the rOtring technical pen, andnow the rOtrings are being discontinued too. I was
made to realize we are now in an age where it’s
normal to produce drawings via computer.
While the conservation of traditional technologies
is another topic again, which I will pass over lightly
here, it struck me that careful thought is needed – forwhat purpose, even when we keep using what wealways have, like when we adopt new technologies-- to make a conscious choice either way.
Dr. Kamei, I’m sure you have more to say.

Panel
Discussion

uses a pencil-sharpener. Some of people in our
generation had been told when they started school
to use a knife to sharpen their pencils, even thoughpencil-sharpeners were available. Today, not only the
pencil, but the hand writing instrument itself is used
only in limited situations as a work tool. In the larger
scheme of things, we can see that it was somethingthat was passed down from generation to generationin the belief that it was important in the past andwould be useful someday, in other words, it was afantasy of the one who passed it on.
Going out of our way to preserve old technologies
which have fallen out of use alongside newtechnologies is a highly expensive proposition. Also,
the expense only increases with time. To use thepencil example again, it would have been morerational to start using pencil-sharpeners right away,
or to introduce mechanical pencils and concentrate
on research and development of study methods
within that system. Passing on technologies in orderto resolve problems has ended up as an effort toconserve the technologies themselves, when theywould otherwise have been lost. Myself included,
we must make sure we are not doing the same thingnow.
The use of general-purpose technologicalproducts is often a faster, more effective way toreach the goal than the development of technologies
from scratch. For any widely accepted technology,
an even newer successor technology will appear.
There will also always be consideration regarding
the transfer from old to new. Dedicated development
does lead to purposive technologies, but theirdevelopment, operation, and upgrading all involve
significant costs. With fewer users, new technology
development will lag, and with no users that will be
the end. General-purpose products are in demandby definition. As long as demand exists, they willcontinue to be sold, even if the format and the sellers
change. It is entirely natural to put them to use for
specialist applications as well. Uniquely accumulated
technology is important, but it has to be capable ofupgrading with the times -- I want to emphasize thisgeneral point.

Shimoda mentioned the distinction from traditional
technologies that came up previously, as well as
the importance of manual technology. I would liketo hear your thoughts on the applicability of newtechnologies including this perspective, in particularin the overseas contexts. Dr. Shimoda, if you would.
Panel
Discussion

40“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

SHIMODAI don’t usually keep technology especially in mind
when working overseas, but this discussion has
made me freshly aware of the important perspective
technology constitutes. Regarding your questions, I
have three points in mind, from varying perspectives.
The first is the point raised previously by Dr.
Kamei, with regard to the need to select technologies
based on the objective or the method, with which I
agree. I’d like to go further and say that in the case of
repair and conservation, it’s important that the use oftechnology be closely suited to and shared with theprinciple, if you will, or theory of the work.
For example, we need occasions to consider the
integrated relationship those providing support andthose receiving support, and between principles
and technology. The use of traditional technologies
and of supplementary cutting-edge technologies
are also important options. My first point is thattraditional technologies can offer opportunities for
new technological development to the providers of
support, making it important to be actively preparedto learn about the traditional technologies used
locally, as well as to be aware of the potentials for thecreation of new technologies based on melding these
traditional options with cutting-edge technologies.
My second point, pointed out by Mr. Noguchi
in his presentation, is the adoption of the optimal
technologies for the local environment, the targetedmonuments, etc. A little more than ten years ago, I
worked with Professor Aoki, who introduced today’s
event, in a JICA project selecting equipment for the
Jordan Museum. While I was hardly more than anaide, it was an excellent learning opportunity. The
mission was to conduct the necessary research on
heritage required to establish this national museumin Jordan, and to select the conservation scienceequipment. We spent about a week talking withthe local people and selecting equipment which
could be managed locally and would be suitable forthe targets. This experience enabled me to learn
from Professor Aoki the importance of selecting
equipment which was basically at the right levelof specs, had the functions needed by the cultural
heritage onsite, and could be managed locally. My
second point regarding technology in international
cooperation is the selection of suitable specs andthe adoption of technologies that can be sustainably
managed locally.
My third point, from a somewhat different
perspective, is the reality that technologies are forgedonsite. Cultural heritage sites sometimes involve
extremely problematic conditions. With ordinary
targets, a failure can be remedied with repeatedefforts; you use technology, and if it doesn’t work youfind something new from there and try again. With
cultural heritage, however, failure is not an option.
The general stance is that pushing the envelope withthe use of technology is a bad idea. However, the useof new technologies in difficult onsite conditions canalso be extremely beneficial for new technologicaldevelopment.
It is extremely important to use technologies
with potential of this kind onsite, and to aid theirdevelopment along with that of their technicians, if
Japan as a country is to continue and sustain its
policies of technical cooperation in cultural heritage.
Empirical results onsite come in useful at the nextsite, and are shared among experts. This point isimportant.
Therefore, my third point is that in order to carryout sustained international cooperation in cultural
heritage, I feel we need to push the envelope tosome extent with the use of technology to thecultural property which is not the highest state ofsignificance.
TOMODAYou mentioned previously that the results gained
from the adoption of LiDAR cannot be entirely
predicted in advance, and that its results evolve
new analysis methods and data usage methods.
Then, they in turn will lead to new technologicaldevelopment as well.
SHIMODA
Yes, exactly.
TOMODAI’d like to hear from Mr. Noguchi as well, bringing
in the issue of technology transfer if you prefer.
Particularly, I’d like to hear your opinion on appropriate
methods of introducing technology, including thequestion of whether there is a gap between thereceiver’s perspective and that of those bringing in
the technology.

41“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

TOMODA
When considering technology transfer, the amountof technology which can be transferred within a

PanelDiscussion

NOGUCHI
While this may seem to contradict or conflict withwhat you and Dr. Shimoda have been saying, I feelthat education and transfer have become mucheasier thanks to the introduction of new technologies
close at hand, as I discussed earlier. Something thatcame to mind when considering why this might be so
was that traditional methods are extremely physical.
To some extent, we ourselves have muscle memoryof the things learned over long training, which is apositive aspect in itself; conversely, however, it isvery difficult to convey cultures of physical sensationand physical skill to people who do not share them.
With regard to archaeological materials and survey
drawings, we Japanese produce extremely precise
drawings; it’s come home to me that this is based
not only in university education, but in a backgroundgoing back to elementary school craftwork andsubsequent technology classes.
Professors who never draw their own diagrams
sometimes, in Pakistan for instance, see ourdrawings and say, we want to draw like this, teachus how. But say we start at ten in the morning withJapanese methods, no one comes back after lunch.
They say it’s impossible. Because they have neverbefore manipulated a pencil or a set of dividers, theuse of the Japanese method would involve startingfrom the elementary or secondary level.
However, when it comes to smartphones andcomputers, regardless of anything studied in school,
most middle-class households have them thesedays; smartphones in particular are now widely
available at very low prices, so that people who have
not reached middle-class incomes know how to usethem as well. This means that they already have themuscle memory, the physical manipulation skills I’ve
been referring to. As I may seem to be presenting
only the positive side, this point is showing muchbetter results than traditional methods. Conversely,
even when the Japanese method is not employed,in countries which teach various technologies atthe elementary and secondary levels, educationand training are possible along lines the same asor similar to our method. This suggests to me thatwidely accepted new technologies are being put touse in closing the gap of social contexts such as

culture and education.
Another point is that, as Dr. Shimoda pointed out,
the introduction and development of new technology
have been changing rapidly, particularly in the last
two or three years: the developers of smartphone
apps are frantically searching for users and their
feedback on social media. When talking with thesepeople, I found that app downloads can be viewed
by region, in Japan, although there are a lot ofusers who are posting about their 3D renderings
on social media, there is almost no feedback forthe developers. In the West, however, they arebombarded with comments about how hard the app
is to use, even though users there are hardly making
use of it at all. Therefore, we end up getting direct
messages asking what the Japanese usage habitsare.
The Mobile Scan Association members use Google
Translate when their English is not up to the task,
receiving one request after the next -- I want suchand-such a function, such-and-such area needs
improvement, and so on. This leads to invitations
from the developers for beta testers, asking them to
use the product and provide their opinions, a process
which is making notable progress recently.
I realized thereby that while experts in cultural
heritage, archaeology, architecture and so on havedone their share of joint technical development,
they have made relatively few direct requests withregard to general-use, wide use, or consumer-use
technology. Major development of new technologies
has been possible in the context of massive researchfunding or government-level cooperation, between
governments, but I feel we need, if anything, tocommit actively to the new technologies beginningto develop at the grassroots level. We don’t need
to worry about how many users are involved with
cultural properties or cultural heritage, or whether
the technology will stand up as a business; we canleave that to the corporation in charge of marketing,and take the stance that we want such-and-such,
we’d absolutely use this if it were available, if itcomes into use such-and-such a product would also
be commercially viable. We are going to need to workwith the developers in future in this way to createtechnologies best suited to our use.

limited time has to be narrowed down, which leads tothe problem of whether the provider side can makethe choice entirely on its own. What do you think
here?

Panel
Discussion

42“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

KAMEI
As you know, technology is influenced by locationand climate. To give a representative example,
stainless steel in England is not at all “stainless”
at Okinawa in Japan. No matter how the provider
argues that stainless steel is what it is, when it rusts
in use, it can no longer be considered stainless. It
depends on the receiver whether the technology
considered good enough by the provider actuallyworks. The evaluation of technology rests on whether
it solves the receiver’s problem. This is the vital pointof technical cooperation and technology transfer.
TOMODA
Technology once transferred must then have its
effects verified and so on; to what extent should
the transferring side take responsibility for how it
develops thereafter, including sustainability?
KAMEI
It’s a difficult question. The historical facts ofindustrial technology show that bridges using newtechnology have fallen this way and that, while ships
likewise have breached their hulls and sunk in droves.
History also tells us that technological development
has kept moving through failure. Regarding theassignment of responsibility, technical ethics
struggles here as well, but basically I believe that theuser of the technology ought to take responsibility for
its results, improvement, and continued transfer.
In terms of actual phenomena, we know
surprisingly little and must often try something out
to understand it. The results of such attempts tend
not to go well. Guarantees against failure tend tobe “probatio diabolica,” the impossibility of proving
a negative. In medieval Europe, groups of experts
called alchemists or blacksmiths historically usedtheir “secrecy” to adjust the level of the technologies
they released. Nowadays, in the era of science whichguarantees reproducibility and falsifiability throughknowledge made public, the responsibility lies not
only with those expert groups but also with users andthe general populace.
While it may be hard to swallow for experts in cultural
heritage, a certain degree of failure is inevitable intechnological development. Cultural heritage is thesame as general technological development. We
need the technological, institutional, financial, andpsychological support that will enable the people
onsite to take risks through trial and error, assessing
the degree and severity of risk without fear of failure.
Where possible, I consider it important to shareknowledge, including technology, with people, andthus to create empathy. I hope to have an opportunity
to put into practice the method Mr. Noguchi mentionedof providing feedback for general-use products inorder to bring them into the relevant field.
TOMODA
Mr. Noguchi was saying that culturally shared
physical technology is difficult to transfer. Dr.
Shimoda, do you have a view on this?
SHIMODAI’d like to take a new tack here, including theprevious discussion, and consider the targets andmethods of technology transfer as well as theexperts involved. In my presentation, I addressed thecategories of elemental technologists and applied
technologists, saying that the approach to cultivating
the human resourcelatter was particularly important.
I believe that it’s the most important with regard tovarious technologies to cultivate people like orchestra
conductors, working out how they can acquire thecapacity to select the appropriate technologies.
Elsewhere, the side providing support must
collaborate with elemental technologists, technicians
if you will, and regional scholars. In particular, theimportance of regional scholars is their familiarity
with the needs of cultural heritage, the area, andthe country, as well as their awareness (even if at a
generalized level) of elemental technologies. Further,collaboration between regional scholars and national
policy-makers is also important. In part, it is importantfor both sides to have a deeper understandingof the effects brought about (other than cultural
policy) by various cultural activities. Moreover, thecompanies developing technologies can also benefit
from the admixture of a broader perspective on
cultural heritage. To this end, I consider it importantin order to select the technologies that meet existingneeds for regional scholars to come in contact withprivate-sector companies developing technologies
and constantly encounter new technologies.
For the developers as well, although the field of

cultural heritage is a small enough market to be
short on profits, the use of equipment in cultural
heritage is also the locus of technology developed
to solve intractable issues; it can also contribute tobrand image improvement and international namerecognition. It is regional scholars who need to play
the connecting role here to achieve these ends.

SHIMODAIf we start from the incredible diversity oftechnology, it will be quite a task to determine abasic policy for the use of technology in international
cooperation. That said, if Japan is to continue withthe preservation of cultural heritage as one of its
methods of international cooperation, we will needsome kind of guidelines, as it were, organizing ourbasic stance.
If we could organize some kind of basic principles-- for instance, prioritizing the use of traditional
technology where it is effective, or shifting to cuttingedge technology, or a hybrid thereof with traditional
technology, when the monuments or materials have
major damage from the start -- these may or may
not be appropriate ideas, but it would be significant
to be able to convey Japan’s attitude concisely to thecountries receiving support.
In addition, the conservation of cultural heritagein Japan has the major advantage of there being anestablished culture of retaining post-conservation
reports. These reports are valuable assets asbackground for the verification and use of newtechnologies. Heritage conservation projects indeveloping countries and so on often take placein settings where the culture of making thoroughreports is not a given, so we need to sharetransfer
this practiceculture along with the technologies
involved. At the same time, it would be immensely
helpful if we had a framework within Japan for unified
management and provision of the reports filed aspart of international cooperation.
TOMODA
Dr. Kamei, may we hear from you? The discussion
just now has come from perspectives within the fieldof cultural heritage; I’d like to hear your expectations
from an outside point of view as well.

43“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

NOGUCHIIn relation somewhat to Dr. Shimoda’s previous
comment, to the best of my knowledge thecorporations developing new technology, particularly
the developers themselves, are not so much focusedon increasing profit; rather, they get extremely excitedwhen their technologies are used for something new,something where technology has never been used
before. I said before that marketing and monetizing
can be left to the company; as Dr. Shimoda
mentioned, in the field of cultural heritage, the issue
is not just simple market economics but also, forinstance, how to commit to policy. Conversely, if weexperts can play the connecting role successfully, we
should be able to provide a foundation from which
the developers can take the next step.
In that sense, through today’s discussion as awhole, one thing that stands out to me more clearly
than before is, for instance, the importance of placing
technologies at the core and creating a network
connecting them. Experts will be called on to act
as liaisons for the establishment and maintenanceof communication connecting local experts, people
involved as regional scholars, those involved as
experts in various academic fields, technology
developers, and so on; my feeling is that this is areal change from the roles and positions of experts
as envisioned in the 20th century. At the same

TOMODA
Dr. Shimoda, what about you?

Panel
Discussion

TOMODAMy impression is that both of you agree on
the point that it’s important for people involvedin various capacities to share information whileproviding feedback working toward newer and better
technologies.
As we have only a little time left, I’d like to start
wrapping up our session. Based on the discussion
so far, what else would you like to consider, and what
expectations do you hold, in respect of international
cooperation on our part in cultural heritage
conservation, as well as ways to approach newtechnology and its use? Let’s start with Mr. Noguchi.

time, the process is still in its infancy; I am often
called on to play multiple roles at once, and I think
Dr. Shimoda may feel the same. Listening to thediscussion, I felt that in the future the roles needed
will be better organized, shifting to a division among
those suited to each role, for instance with specificcommunicators, or with managers specializing inmanagement. That’s all I have to offer.

PanelDiscussion

44

KAMEI
I have the impression that research can easily
become dependent on individual capacities.
Therefore, in the sense of passing on these individual
abilities, the question of how to bring them into the
public space is very important. In addition, while I
think the other two speakers have covered the topic
of the choice of technologies effectively, and I don’t
have much to add in that regard, I still had somequestions about the approach to cultivating a social,or governmental, awareness regarding the use oftechnology to conserve cultural heritage.
The conservation of cultural heritage is atechnology of sorts, when viewed broadly, and its use
requires positioning in terms of “how do we want toaffect society,” “how do the people around here wantto lead their lives” and so on; otherwise, it will end up
at the surface level of “reports were written,” “records
were made using the correct methods,” with no real
sense of what the conservation actually means. It’s
not sustainable, in that case. In this context, I feelthat cultural heritage conservation will attain a solid
position within society if the people working with it
can take sufficient care with regard to the position
they want it to have.
Reference: Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties (2023) “Recording and Utilizationof Cultural Property Information via Digital
Technologies Vol.5” Nara National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties Research report 37
http://doi.org/10.24484/sitereports.130529“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage from the viewpoint of technologies”

Closing Remarks
Today’s discussion has covered a number of very

This suggests that we constantly face the question

valuable points. The topics have ranged too widelyof how to use various new technologies better, one

to be summed up in few words but let me attempt at

which applies just as much in our world of cultural

least to do so.

heritage and in that of international cooperation.

First, as the obvious premise, technology itself is

While many topics remain unaddressed by today’s

not the end but the means to solving problems andseminar, JCIC-Heritage will be presenting more

resolving issues. Given the premise, to what ends doseminars and symposia to come, in consideration

we use technology? This is the question the users ofof the various opinions lodged with us. Regarding

technology must be aware of -- beyond the level ofthe points raised earlier on the creation of networks“how it is used” to “what we need to do with it.” Forconcerning technology and of the significance of

example, it has become clear here that based on thismultinational cooperation, we at JCIC-Heritage arepoint, it is important in technology transfer as well toreminded that we have a major responsibility to fulfill

convey the context along with the technology.

in these contexts.

Today’s seminar has been conducted as a webinar

While I’m sure our presenters have more to say,with the new Webex technology. Although we began

our time today terminated, and the seminar mustusing this technology as a necessary measureconclude here. Thank you very much.

in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it has
already become everyday practice, with its various

TOMODA Masahiko,advantages along with, in comparison to face-to-face

Secretary General of the JCIC-Heritage

seminars, its limitations gradually becoming clear.

Report on the 31st Seminar“International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
from the viewpoint of technologies”
March 2023
Published by:
Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
C/O Independent Administrative Institution National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
13-43, Uenokoen, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-8713, Japan
Tel: +81-(0)3-3823-4841 / Fax: +81-(0)3-3823-4027
Edited by:
FUJII Ikuno(Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage)ⒸP
 resenters of the 31st Seminar and Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.