JCIC-Heritage’s 29th Seminar

Preservation andinheritance of information
related to cultural heritage
For Whom and What Purpose
Lion dance in the Town of Onagawa, Miyagi Prefecture

ReportJapan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage

JCIC-Heritage’s 29th Seminar

Preservation andinheritance of information
related to cultural heritage
For Whom and What Purpose

ReportLion dance in the Town of Onagawa, Miyagi Prefecture

Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage

Explanatory noteThis report includes presentations and discussions made at the JCIC-Heritage’s 29th Seminar(Webinar) “Preservation and Inheritance of the Information related to Cultural Heritage: For Whom andWhat Purpose” held on August 9, 2021 under the sponsorship of the Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation in Cultural Heritage. This report consists of transcripts of voice recordings, which have beenslightly edited into a report format. All photographs of unknown sources and used in presentations areprovided by the presenters.
We hereby express a sense of gratitude to the experts below for giving their great contribution toholding this seminar.

IIDA Taku (Professor, National Museum of Ethnology; Chair of Subcommittee for Africa JCIC-Heritage)
FUTAGAMI Yoko (Head, Cultural Properties Information Section, Department of Art Research, Archives andInformation Systems, Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)

ISHIMURA Tomo (Head, Audio-Visual Documentation Section, Department of Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)

Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
Editorial Board
TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General)
NISHI Kazuhiko (Assistant Secretary General)
FUJII Ikuno (Planning, Main Editor, Poster design)
CHIU Chunni (Editor)
MAEDA Koki (Editor)
HIRONO Satomi (Assistant Editor)

Contents
Program・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Opening Remarks

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

4
5

OKADA Yasuyoshi (Vice chairperson of the JCIC-Heritage)“The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project and the Use of Ainu artifacts”

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

6

SAITO Reiko (Associate Professor of the Department of Cultural Research, National Museum of Ethnology)“Recording and Applying Information Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage”

13

・・・・・・・・・

KUBOTA Hiromichi (Head of Intangible Folk Cultural Properties Section, Department of Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)“40 Years of the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage Database: Its Development,
Transformation, and Challenges”
19・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

HAYASHI Kengo (Associate Professor of the Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo)

Discussion
Moderator: KONDO Yasuhisa (Associate Professor of Research Institute for Humanity and Nature)
Panelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

27

Closing Remarks

35

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General of the JCIC-Heritage)アットゥシ ：アイヌの樹皮繊維製衣服（国立民族学博物館所蔵）

第 29 回
文化遺産国際協力コンソーシアム研究会

文化遺産

実演記録「常磐津節」（東京文化財研究所）

にまつわる

宮城女川町の獅子舞

情報の保存と継承８月９日開かれたデータベースに向けて2021 年(月・休)14:00 ▶ 16:00（13:45 接続開始）

会場： Zoom ウェビナー
参 加 費： 無料（要事前登録）

申込方法： 詳細は HP をご参照ください
https://www.jcic-heritage.jp/

開会挨拶・趣旨説明

岡田保良（国士舘大学

名誉教授）「フォーラム型情報ミュージアムプロジェクトとアイヌ民族資料の活用」
齋藤玲子（国立民族学博物館

人類文明誌研究部

久保田裕道（東京文化財研究所

無形文化遺産部

准教授）「無形文化遺産に関わる情報の記録と活用について」

無形民俗文化財研究室長）「アジア近代建築遺産データベースの 40 年：その展開・変容・課題」
林憲吾（東京大学生産技術研究所

准教授）

ディスカッション：「文化遺産にまつわる情報の記録と国際協力への展望」
モデレーター：近藤康久（総合地球環境学研究所

閉会挨拶

友田正彦（文化遺産国際協力コンソーシアム

准教授）

事務局長）

Program
14:00-14:05

Opening Remarks
OKADA Yasuyoshi (Vice chairperson of the JCIC-Heritage)

14:05-14:25“The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project and the Use of Ainu artifacts”
SAITO Reiko (Associate Professor of the Department of Cultural Research, National Museum of Ethnology)

14:25-14:45	“Recording and Applying Information Related to Intangible Cultural

Heritage”
	
KUBOTA Hiromichi (Head of Intangible Folk Cultural Properties Section, Department of Intangible
Cultural Heritage, Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)

14:45-15:05“40 Years of the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage Database: Its
Development, Transformation, and Challenges”

	
HAYASHI Kengo (Associate Professor of Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo)

15:05-15:55	Discussion: “Documenting Cultural Heritage Information: Challenges

and Prospects for International Cooperation”
	Moderator: KONDO Yasuhisa (Associate Professor of Research Institute for Humanity and Nature)
Panelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

15:55-16:00

4

Closing Remarks
TOMODA Masahiko (Secretary General of the JCIC-Heritage)

Opening Remarks
OKADA Yasuyoshi

Vice President of the Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage ( JCIC-Heritage)

Hello, everyone. Let me start by expressing my heartfelt thanks for participatingin the seminar of the Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural
Heritage ( JCIC-Heritage) today. On behalf of the organizer, I would like to say a
few words.
The JCIC-Heritage organizes seminars twice a year, where not only members
but the general public can take part as well, with a view to communicating Japan’sinternational activities to safeguard cultural heritage widely. Today’s seminar is thefirst this year and marks the 29th one in the JCIC-Heritage’s history.
Let me briefly explain the purpose of today’s seminar, which is titled“Preservation and inheritance of the Information related to Cultural Heritage—For Whom and What
Purpose”.
The preservation of cultural heritage evokes strong connotations of how objects per se should beprotected both spatially and physically. But in essence, cultural heritage encompasses a wide variety of
information throughout its long history, and this is the source of its value. The World Heritage Convention
also states that considering that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage
constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world.
Today, the information on the internet has become an indispensable part of our lives. Along with this,
it is becoming increasingly important to make information collected and accumulated in the field of cultural
heritage widely available on the internet. Further, in parallel with the publication and communication ofsaid information, I heard that new interactive efforts are being made to continuously consolidate the uniquecultural information handed down from people living in various regions in Japan and the rest of the world
into a database. Moreover, such information could be used in ways that we may not have thought of, or
could contribute to society in new and unexpected ways. In this context, we recognize that people withvarious perspectives are involved in how information related to cultural heritage should be preserved, towhom it should be communicated, how it should be used or applied, and ensuring that the methods fordoing so are increasingly diversifying.
From this perspective, in today’s seminar, three specialists who are working on the creation or use of
databases in the fields of tangible/intangible and movable/unmovable cultural heritage will makepresentations on their respective fields. This will be followed by a panel discussion with the presenters anda new moderator joining us. We will discuss the most appropriate way to preserve and pass on information
related to cultural heritage. As a member of the consortium, I would be more than pleased if we could takethe opportunity to think about the possibility of international cooperation in these fields in the future. I also
hope that the participants will enjoy today’s seminar.
This concludes my brief remarks on behalf of the consortium. Thank you very much again.

5

Lecture 1

29th Preservation and inheritance of information related to cultural heritage

Lecture 1

The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project
and the Use of Ainu artifacts

SAITO Reiko

Associate Professor of National Museum of Ethnology
After graduating from Hokkaido University, she worked as a curator at Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples and joined the
National Museum of Ethnology in 2011. She has been studying the material culture of Ainu and Northern indigenous peoples
and also takes an interest in the history of museum collections. Her main writings and editing work include “Memories of Life in
the Arctic and Forest: The Art of the Inuit and Northwest Coast Peoples” (co-edited by Keiichi OMURA and Nobuhiro KISHIGAMI,
published by Showado in 2010) and ‘200 Years of Ainu Crafts: Overview of Its History’ in “Ainu Art in the World” (edited by YAMASAKI
and ITO, published by Center for Ainu & Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University in 2012). She was in charge of “Special Exhibition:
Treasures of Indigenous Peoples” in 2020 and “Thematic Exhibition: A World Full of Life: The Art of Fujito Takeki, an Ainu Master
Carver” in 2018, which were held at the National Museum of Ethnology and other venues.

6

Thank you for the introduction. My name is
SAITO Reiko.
As the title shows (Fig. 1), today, I will give an
overview of the project that our museum is
working on, and will also discuss the database of
Ainu artifacts that I am in charge of.
My presentation will proceed as shown here
(Fig. 2). The National Museum of Ethnology isalso known as “Minpaku”. It is located in the Expo
’70 Commemorative Park in Suita City, Osaka. I
started working here 10 years ago. I will discuss
the research and projects that I have been involved
in since.

First of all, let me give you a brief introduction
to Minpaku (Fig. 3). The museum was founded in1974 following Expo ‘70. It opened to the public
in 1977. In addition to doing research on cultural
anthropology and ethnology, the museum collects,
stores, and exhibits objects related to ethnic groups
from all over the world. Further, the museum wasoriginally established as an inter-university
research institute, so researchers from universities
and institutes both at home and abroad can use its
facilities, equipment, and materials, and do joint
research. In 2007, which marked the museum’s
30th anniversary, we planned to drastically revamp

Fig. 1

Fig. 2the exhibitions in the main building, and renovatedthem from FY 2008 to FY 2016.
The next major project, the Info-Forum
Museum project, was launched in FY 2014 (Fig.
4). The rationale for this Info-Forum Museum
project is that since the 1970s, cultural
anthropology had been less actively studying
material culture, so the need arose to review
research that focused on the relationship between
objects and people. Also since the mid-1980s, theproblem of one-sided cultural representations of“the Other” by researchers had been recognized incultural anthropology and ethnography. Behind
this is the notion that the researchers who makepresentations should collaborate with therepresented, as well as the public, who sees andreads those representations. As the current
director-general of the museum, Dr. YOSHIDA
Kenji, has written several books on this subject,
this project was created with the aim of “turning
the museum into a forum”. For over 40 years, themuseum has researched and collected tangible and

Fig.3

Fig. 4

Lecture 1

The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project and the Use of Ainu artifacts

intangible ethnic materials. The Info-Forum
Museum was conceived as a new type of museum
to organize and manage these materials as cultural
resources for humanity, share them with people
around the world, and pass them on to future
generations.
One hallmark of this project is that the
database is developed in collaboration with thesociety that originally held the materials, whosematerials were collected or recorded as images andsound (also known as source community), andresearch institutions and universities within thesociety. Another feature of this database is that it
is multilingual with local languages and English
always included. Since FY 2014, we have beenworking on two types of several projects
concurrently: large-scale database establishment
project (maximum four years) and database
improvement project (maximum two years), manyof which have already been completed. For more
information, including a list of the projects, please
visit our website. Though we have created many
databases and are making them publicly available,
we still have issues to resolve, like how to integrate
and update them and how to handle copyrightand personal information.
This is an illustration of the Info-Forum
Museum’s structure (Fig. 5). I do not have time to
get into the details, so please take a look at our
website later. Many projects are going on (Fig. 6).
They include not only the specimens and objects
but also video and audio materials in the museum’s
collection.
In fact, the number of Info-Forum databasesthat are currently open to the public is rather
small, given the total number of projects. Many

Fig. 57

Lecture 1
8

databases are open to the public inside themuseum, but these are the ones that can beaccessed only from our website (Fig. 7). Of these, Ialso helped with the Cultural Resources ofIndigenous Peoples in Northern North America
Database, but the Ainu collection database is only
available inside of the museum currently. I will
mention the reason later.
Next, I would like to briefly explain therelationship between the culture of the Ainu
people of which I am in charge and the museum
as the background for the database (Fig. 8). While
our museum has exhibits from around the world,
the exhibition of the Ainu culture opened to the
public in 1979, two years after the museum
opened. Thirty-seven years later in FY 2016, wecompleted renovations. The Ainu people of
Hokkaido assisted us in making folk tools andreconstructing the traditional houses when the
exhibition hall was built. When the museum wasrenovated, the Ainu people from all different
walks of life were also involved in planning,

including selecting materials and supervising, as
members of a committee.
As Minpaku carries out various projects incollaboration with the Ainu people, a large numberof materials have come to be stored. At the
moment, we have about 5,400 items related to
Ainu. In recent years, partly because the Japanese
government has made a concerted effort topromote the Ainu people and their culture, wehave received an increasing number of requests tolend out materials for exhibits, research andsurveys. In this context, I started to think about
the need to publish an easy-to-use databaseoffering accurate information.
Shortly after I was assigned to Minpaku, I
conducted a joint research project on the prewar
collection at Minpaku. After the joint research, wecreated a database over four years from FY 2016
to FY 2019 in an info-forum museum projectcalled “Re-examination and Documentation of
the Ainu Collection at Minpaku”.
As part of the joint project between the Ainu

Fig. 6

Fig. 8Fig. 7

Fig. 9people and Minpaku, we signed an agreementwith the Ainu Association of Hokkaido and holda ritual prayer to the deities called “kamuynomi”
every year (Fig. 9). In this ceremony, we use objects
from our collection, especially ritual tools. We
collect a tool called an “inaw” that is made bycarved wood for every ritual. We also film andrecord the ritual. As a general rule, we invite
people from Ainu associations from each place of
Hokkaido every two years to contribute materials
to our collections and keep records of rituals.
Further, we have welcomed craftspeople sent by
Ainu associations who make Ainu items likeembroidery and wood carvings as guest researchers
in a craftspeople technical training project overthe past 20 years or so.
As I mentioned earlier, the Ainu people fromall walks of life not only helped with the renovationof exhibition but created artwork for thepermanent and special exhibitions, provided
photos or videos, and lectured at an event likeseminars and demonstration workshops as well.
They also helped us with the production oflearning kits that we lend out to schools called“Minpack”, and provided comments from theartists on how they use the kits and how they
made them.
The joint research that I mentioned earlier
has a long name and title (Fig. 10). Minpaku wasestablished in 1974 but holds many older materials
collected before the establishment. For instance, itholds 5,000 to 6,000 items.
The Department of Anthropology, Faculty of
Science, University of Tokyo, has collected since
the Meiji period. There also used to be a museumof ethnology affiliated with the Japanese Societyof Ethnology which had been built before W. W. II
in the former city of Hoya in Tokyo (currently,
Nishitokyo), and some 20,000 items from thatmuseum collection have been transferred to
Minpaku. However, some of these materials were
misunderstood or misinterpreted when they wereacquired, and when they were transferred, somedata was lost or there were errors in transcriptions
or inputs, so the database itself was not always
entirely accurate.
In terms of the Ainu people, the databaseincludes valuable materials collected before
W. W. II from Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands,
among others. So the first thing that we did was toset up a joint research group to study the processof how these materials were acquired, as well as toappend appropriate information to them. As it
turned out, we examined these materials in
preparing to create this database.
A thick ledger called “The catalogue of Folk
Objects” at that time (upper two photos, Fig. 11) is
attached to the materials that were transferredfrom the University of Tokyo. That ledger included
sketches of where, when, and by whom thematerials were acquired, but not all of that
information had been included in Minpaku’s
database. So we had to go back to the original
sources, recheck them, and reinput them. In
addition to these original records, we checked thewritings of the collectors and discovered somelittle-known documents containing information
about when a certain item was collected or had
photographs of the time, so we added these to the
database. For example, the University of Tokyo
published a book series called Illustrated Collectionof Domestic and Foreign Folk Objects (Hounsha)

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Lecture 1

The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project and the Use of Ainu artifacts

9Lecture 1

from 1938 to 1939, containing photographs oforiginal conditions and collectors’ information, so
we have been examining these carefully andadding them to the database (Fig. 12).
The first and foremost goal of the Ainu
artifacts database which I am overseeing at theInfo-Forum Museum is to provide a moreaccessible database for those interested in Ainu
culture in Japan and the rest of the world. The
number of special uses for lending, research, andreproduction is increasing but the databaseavailable on the website only provides very basic
information, like the name of the item, the year it
was received, and the region, which is no more
specific than Hokkaido. So we wanted to makemore detailed information available on theinternet as well (Fig. 13).
Another problem is that the names ofmaterials have not been standardized; I assume all
museums face this problem. Items collected in the
distant past are registered under their original
names in many cases, and as time goes by, theirFig. 12Fig. 13
10

names change and we sometimes cannot search.
So the idea is to keep the name of the material as
they are while making them easier to search byclassification so that people can get to the materials
that they look for. Besides, as for the Ainu
materials, the database is mainly in Japanese since
the local community uses Japanese as their primarylanguage. However, the English pages include thenames of the materials translated into English, thenames of the places where the materials werecollected, and the names of the producers if they
are known, both of which are romanized.
Further, there are Ainu and Russiantranslations of the material names. Russian
researchers are also interested in Ainu culture andmaterials, including those collected in the Kuril
Islands and Sakhalin, we added Russian names tosome of the items. To ensure that the databasefunctions as a forum, we have set up a privatecomments section. If you register by email and get
approved, you will be able to log in and commenton the materials.
I would like to show you the database (Figs.
14 and 15). You can search by selecting “Displayall”, or by keyword, item, category, or region. You
can choose between Japanese and English. It has
categories, such as subsistence, clothing, food,dwelling. In the clothing category, you can view all
clothing, as well as search by subdivision, such as
headwear and footwear. This makes it easy to findwhat you look for even if the names of thematerials are not known.
Further, the category of regions is divided into
Hokkaido, Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, other, andunknown. As Hokkaido is a very big region, it issubdivided into administrative units called

Fig. 14

“subprefectural offices” as well (Fig. 16). We havemade it possible to search by region because wehave received many requests from local people tosee or create something from their own region,
whether it be Hidaka or Iburi, for instance. We
also include the data when it was registered alongwith the most current data. You can compare what
the data looked like when first collected andregistered with the newly revised or added data
after research was conducted. That is what it looks
like (Figs. 17 and 18).
We hope that, using this database, you willcontinue to access Ainu collection in the future,
and we believe that they can be used not only for
research on material culture but also for the
research history of the Ainu people through thecollection of objects since the Meiji period. They
can not only be used for exhibitions at Minpaku
but also be lent to other institutions. Another key
point is that they can be used to pass on culture.
As I mentioned earlier, they can be used for rituals
and for research on older items to revive production

techniques that have been forgotten with thepassage of time (Fig. 19).
However, there are challenges as well. One of
the reasons that it is only open to the public at themuseum is copyrights. We are working on making
all of the copyrighted works that we have viewable,
but only as thumbnails and not as enlarged images.
We are working on opening databases, but it istaking a while to sort out which works are
copyrighted and which are not.
In addition, regarding Ainu materials, inparticular, protecting personal data is also an issue.
I do not think that there is a problem with thecollectors and researchers, and it may beappropriate to disclose information about who
originally owned the materials for research
purposes if they are famous and prominent keepersof the Ainu cultural tradition. However, in thecases where such individuals or their families may
not want the information made public, we will
make it clear that the data is in the database but
will not be made public. For more information, letFig. 15

Fig. 17

Fig. 16

Fig. 18

Lecture 1

The ‘Info-Forum Museum’ Project and the Use of Ainu artifacts

11Lecture 1
12

me refer you to our publication Minpaku Tsushin,which you can read online in Japanese.
Though currently, this database is only open
to the public in the museum, we can provide moredetailed information if you contact us through theinquiry form on our website or contact us directly.
This concludes my presentation (Fig. 20). Thankyou very much.

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

Lecture 2

Lecture 2

29th Preservation and inheritance of information
relatedto culturalInformation
heritage Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage
Recordingand Applying

Recording and Applying
Information Related to
Intangible Cultural Heritage
KUBOTA Hiromichi, Head of Intangible Folk Cultural Properties Section,
Department of Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

After his stint as a university lecturer, he joined the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (Tobunken) in 2013.
He is involved in a wide range of research mainly on folk performing arts and festivals and their preservation at the Department
of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In particular, his aim is to build a nationwide intangible cultural heritage database on the basis ofa folklore cultural asset database created after the Great East Japan Earthquake for the affected areas. He has also been engaged
in ethnographic research on pre-earthquake lives in selected affected areas, and has shared the results with residents. Furthermore,
after the April 2015 Nepal Earthquake, he conducted a survey on annual festivals of Kathmandu Valley to compile a booklet
aimed at raising awareness on intangible cultural asset inheritance. He is the author of “Detailed Picture Book of JapaneseFestivals” published by X-Knowledge, and has co-authored “Guidebook to Explore Japanese Performing Art” published by
Kokushokankokai, among others.

I would like to make a presentation about
intangible cultural heritage (Fig. 1). When it
comes to “intangible cultural heritage”, it is verybroad in scope and is comparable to “tangible
cultural heritage”, so it is difficult to sum it up in asingle sentence. Of course, there are similar
problems in this record and database as Ms. Saito
mentioned in her presentation, but I assume thatwhat I will discuss today should be about themuch earlier, preliminary stages.
First of all, I would like to broadly explain thetypes of intangible cultural heritage. What does
this term cover? It is a quite tricky question. In
Japan, it is categorized into intangible culturalproperties, intangible folk cultural properties, andconservation techniques for cultural properties(Fig. 2). However, UNESCO’s categorization

Fig. 1covers an extremely wide range and includes
everything that is not tangible and everything thatpeople do. Since all have their distinctive
characteristics, I think that it is important to think
about each of them separately in recording or
creating a database.
According to Japan’s categorization, inparticular, traditional performing arts byprofessionals fall under intangible culturalproperties. Meanwhile, traditions, such as those
performed at local festivals, would be consideredintangible folk cultural properties. These havedifferent characters, so today, I would like to focus
on these intangible folk cultural properties (Fig. 3).
As for folk cultural properties, the cultural
heritage is tied to the local community, and theissue is how to record the cultural heritage of that

Fig. 213

Lecture 2
14

community. In Japan, there is the unique premisethat intangible folk cultural properties of a region
are usually protected by a preservation society andso a preservation society needs to be created for
those properties to be designated as a culturalproperty, so they are easy to keep track of.
Now, let me move on to how we created the
database specifically. Following the Great East
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, westarted this database because we wanted to identify
the post-disaster status of intangible culturalproperties, the many folk performing arts andfestivals in the Tohoku region, from Iwate to
Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, among others(Fig. 4). At first, I can say that we had no basic
information about what was there. In particular,
there were many arts other than those designatedas cultural properties, and when I counted themlater on, I found that there were about 1,000 to
1,100 folk performing arts alone, just along thecoastal areas of the three prefectures. Of those,
designated ones accounted for only about 10%. In
addition, it was not easy to get information on theextent of the damage to the cultural properties,
and what kind of support was available. So we
decided to make a table that would help us
understand the situation of intangible culturalproperties. At that time, I was not yet working at

Tobunken, but I have cooperated with mycolleagues in creating this database in Excel.
After that, Tobunken used the National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Resilience (NIED) system in Tsukuba and made amap (Fig. 5). They made available ane-Communication mapping system to be used by
local governments. For example, the area shown in
Fig. 5 is around the Oshika Peninsula in Miyagi
Prefecture. Whether information is available or
not is marked in blue and red. We created a
database as a means to gather information for theareas on which there was no information as well.
Also, at that time, the fact that folk performing
arts and festivals were affected by the disaster was
not widely known, so we made this in order to callattention to it and increase public awareness.
In addition to the list and mapping, thedatabase also contains videos and images, which
are essential in allowing people to understandintangible cultural heritage concretely. For thisreason, we added an archive of images and videos(Fig. 6) as well. Due to system limitations,embedding videos and images into the databasewould overload the system, so we create themseparately and then add links. In addition, we
uploaded the videos via YouTube to reduce theburden on the server.

Fig. 3Fig. 5

Fig. 4

Fig. 6

Once we made a database of intangible
cultural heritage in the areas affected by the Great
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, a number ofdisasters occurred in other regions throughout
Japan, so we began to realize that we needed a
database for the entire country. Unfortunately,
until then, there was no comprehensive list ofintangible folk cultural properties in Japan. Thus,
we decided to create a nationwide database, and so
we began working on it (Fig. 7). We have beencollecting information in cooperation with thelocal governments responsible for culturalproperties in each prefecture. Actually, it has yet tobe completed, but if you are interested, please visit
our website and search for our database in the
Department of Intangible Cultural Heritage:(http://mukeinet.tobunken.go.jp/search), and you
are able to view what we have completed thus far.
We thought that as long as this is a database,it has to be searchable. On the left side, you cansearch by region, festival, folk performing art, or
what month the festival or performing art is held.
The right side shows a list of the search results.
Then, when you select an individual item from thelist view, the mapping information comes up. Or,on the right, you can see the individual information(Fig. 8). The specific information on the said folk
art comes up. While we have yet to begin operating

it, we have actually built in a blog page where
people who hand on those properties can add
their own information to these individual pages.
The reason is that we want to make it possible toshare information, but also for those passing on
the heritage to share with us interactively.
Next, I would like to discuss what should berecorded. The first items are the fundamentals,
which are basically the information that wasreported when the property was registered with
the Agency for Cultural Affairs or designated as acultural property. In essence, this is the fundamental
information on the cultural properties (Fig. 9).
In the Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami, for example, many Japanese lion headmasks were washed away, and even if we wanted torestore them, it was difficult because all the
documentation was also washed away. For
example, this is a small portion of the partmeasured by people from Miyamoto Unosuke
Shoten, which deals in festival equipment. We
need to record their measurements, the features ofthe shape, and others as well (Fig. 10).
In addition, this is for passing on heritage tofuture generations (Fig. 11), which may not beclear, but on the left, the dance sequence forkagura, sacred Shinto music and dance, is shown.
The middle shows a lion dance formation, andFig. 7

Fig. 9Fig. 8Fig. 10

Lecture 2

Recording and Applying Information Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage15

Lecture 2
16

these on the right are moves for the Bon festival
dance. In order to be able to revive a lost art form,
we have to record these movements. Using videos,of course, is the best, but videos alone are notalways clear to communicate them precisely. On
the right, for example, how high should you raise
your hand. These are called critical movements or“geitai”, performative movements and gestures of
the art. It is vital to record these.
Further, we were told after the Great East
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that if we want togather information, we should post it because
information is drawn to where it is posted. So, we
created a website for lion dance fans in the generalpublic and have been posting information on thatsite in parallel (Fig. 12).
As you can see, what is vital to record are thefour items that I have mentioned so far (Fig. 13).
The items on the right are just a tentative list, but
I believe that these items will be very important increating an intangible cultural heritage database.
Finally, I would like to consider whether thekind of database that we have developed in Japan
could be used for international cooperation (Fig.
14). This shows Sulawesi Island in Indonesia,
where there has been damage from a tsunami andliquefaction. So, I went to investigate what kind ofdamage the intangible cultural heritage sustained

and how it was being restored. I spoke with a city
official, who was personally creating a database ofintangible cultural heritage. The items listed here,
for example, have already been included in the
database that is still under development. This is a
literal translation so it may be hard to follow also
for myself, but even a quick glance shows
traditional ceremonies, oral traditions, performing
arts, cuisine, and religious traditions. In short,there is an extremely wide range. The next section
lists many of the organizations involved, and thelist also includes information of inheritors,
including their parents, their social position, andso on. I was also impressed by how detailed they
made their inventory.
In the global community, people talk about
how advanced Japan is in the creation of intangible
cultural heritage inventories. It is true that wehave handled a great number of designatedcultural heritage under the cultural properties
protection system, so in this regard, we are certainly
advanced. However, our method for making
inventories per se is not exportable at all. I thinkthat what should be considered intangible cultural
heritage largely depends on each country’s way of
thinking. So I find it quite hard to say that Japan’s
approach can be replicated in the rest of the worldin creating inventories.

Fig. 11

Fig. 13

Fig. 12Fig. 14

Having said that, however, intangible cultural
heritage is highly subject to change. That is why it
is imperative to record that heritage. This picture
is an example from my research in Merak ineastern Bhutan (Fig. 15). They have a kind of lion
dance called “yak cham”, which has a yak as a motif.
I took the photo on the left when I visited there
about 20 years ago. But when I returned about two
years ago, the yak cham had become very cute andI thought that was not the same at all. When I
asked the village chief about it, he told me that hehad seen something like it in India, and brought itback with him about seven years ago. He said thateveryone had been tired of the old yak cham, sothey were happy to have this. We talked about theimportance of the succession of the tradition as
well. Not that change is bad, but I think that weneed to convey the importance of recording
intangible cultural heritage, including changes,
too.
Lastly, I would like to share with you ourefforts in Nepal (Fig. 16). There is a small village
called Khokana in the Kathmandu Valley. As you
may know, in 2015, there was a major earthquake
in Nepal, and many houses were also destroyed in
the village. So we extended support to preserve
historical villages and reconstruct them as part of
the Exchange Project for International

Cooperation in Cultural Heritage commissionedby the Agency for Cultural Affairs. We surveyed
traditions to investigate the damage that intangible
cultural heritage in Khokana suffered. According
to interviews with local residents, they have many
ceremonies year-round. These are pictures of someof them. They have many forms of intangible
cultural heritage, from large scale to small, down
to rituals held at home. They were not necessarily
damaged by the disaster directly, but we realizedthat changes in lives due to the disaster beganaffecting their intangible cultural heritage. So, we
thought that first and foremost, it should be
important to raise awareness that these many
ceremonies are cultural assets.
When it comes to intangible cultural heritage,
major festivals that attract many visitors are easily
covered in other countries. But what Japan would
call folk cultural properties, which are minor, tend
not to be easily appreciated. In fact, I believe thatJapan has an advantage in this regard. In Japan,
the folk cultural property system has been used toprotect even these small things, so I think that it isimportant to create an inventory, including themas well. Further, intangible cultural heritage does
not exist in isolation but is linked to places,buildings, and other tangible cultural heritage(Fig. 17). So by considering the protection of bothFig. 15

Fig. 17

Fig. 16

Fig. 18

Lecture 2

Recording and Applying Information Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage17

Lecture 2

intangible and tangible cultural heritage, we canprotect both simultaneously, and we can get people
to reaffirm the identity of their local area. On topof these, I believe that this should, in turn,contribute to promoting tourism and sustainable
development as well.
So what we did was to make a booklet about
the annual events of the Khokana community(Fig. 18). The idea was to distribute them toresidents of Khokana, but we haven’t been able to
do it yet due to the COVID-19 pandemic. What
was good about the event was that we got local
people to gather together in the process, as shownin the photo on the right. There are groups that
perform various roles in festivals, such as dance,musical instruments, management, or rituals, andwe had them gather and dialogue each other. It

18seems that they didn’t have that kind of opportunity
to share their views and opinions in the past, sothey were all very enthusiastic and talked a lot. In
this way, it is important to build those networks
within local communities. Plus, if this is held in
Khokana, it will likely spread to other villages. I
believe that this will, in turn, help to create
networks between communities.
In other words, I believe that we should exert
an effort to enhance public awareness of theintangible cultural heritage of their area before
creating a network around it. I suppose that thesemoves are essential in making databases, as well as
being one of the impacts of creating a database.
This concludes my presentation. Thank you verymuch.

Lecture 3

Lecture 3

29th Preservation
andinheritanceinformationHeritage
related to
cultural heritage
40 Years of theModernAsianof
Architectural
Database:Its Development, Transformation, and Challenges

40 Years of the Modern AsianArchitectural Heritage Database:Its Development,
Transformation, and Challenges
HAYASHI Kengo

Associate Professor of the Institute of Industrial Science, the University of Tokyo
Born in Hyogo Prefecture in 1980, he completed the doctoral course at the Department of Architecture, the University of Tokyoand later received Ph.D. in engineering. After working as a project researcher at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature(RIHN) and others, he became a lecturer at the Institute of Industrial Science (IIS), the University of Tokyo in 2017, and has been
an associate professor at IIS since 2020. He has been studying modern/contemporary architecture and urban history and creating
an inventory of modern architectural heritage of Indonesia and other southeast Asian countries. At RIHN, he was the subleaderof the “Megacities and the Global Environment” project (leader: MURAMATSU Shin) where he studied the relationship between
megacities in emerging nations and the global environment. His publications include “Megacities Vol. 5 Sprawling Megacities”(co-editor/author, published by the University of Tokyo Press, 2017) and “Correlated Area Studies Vol. 3 Justices which Conflict
and Reflect” (co-author, published by Seikyusha, 2016).

I am HAYASHI Kengo from the Universityof Tokyo. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to make a presentation today. I would like to givea presentation titled “40 Years of the Modern
Asian Architectural Heritage Database” (Fig. 1).
I work on the history of modern cities andarchitecture mainly in Southeast Asia. I specializein the field of Indonesia, in particular (Fig. 2). My
affiliation, the Institute of Industrial Science (IIS)of the University of Tokyo, succeeded the Second
Faculty of Engineering, which was established in
1942. As such, it is home to many engineering labs
which carry out advanced engineering research,
includingtechnology
development. Ourlaboratory is practically the only one of these to dohistorical research. So far, five professors havepresided over the IIS architectural history

laboratory. Let me point out that what I will
mainly talk about today is the Modern AsianArchitectural Heritage Database with which thelab is involved; it is an outcome of accumulated
activities of the Lab after Dr. MURAMATSU
Teijiro, in particular, not my personal achievement.
My presentation today is made up of roughly
three parts (Fig. 3). First of all, I will explain what
the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage
Database is. Then, I will talk about how it has
evolved and transformed in the history of the Lab,and finally, I will share with you the effects andissues that it has raised.
First, in a nutshell, the Modern AsianArchitectural Heritage Database is an inventoryof modern architecture in Asian Cities, a heritage
registry (Fig. 4). We record information for eachFig. 1

Fig. 219

Lecture 3
20

building on data sheets one by one and make a listof these for each city. This is stored as a list, anddata is made public in book, map, or website form.
I will use the word “database” for today’s seminar,
but we usually use the word “inventory”. So please
note that I may use “database” and “inventory”
interchangeably in my presentation, but I mean
the same by them.
As I mentioned, this project has more than 40
years of history. Before expanding into Asian
countries, it started off in the 1960s as a way to
document modern architecture in Japan. Then in
1980, A Comprehensive Guide to Modern JapaneseArchitecture came out as a compilation of the work
(Fig. 5). After that, our lab conducted the same
research in other countries in Asia, first in East
Asia from the 1980s to the 1990s, then in
Southeast Asia and Central Asia in the late 1990s.
I joined the lab as a master’s student in 2003 rightaround the time we began research in Indonesia,
so I ended up using Indonesia for my subject of
research.
Our inventory focuses on modern architecture,
but what constitutes modern architecture is a very
difficult question to answer. Opinions differ fromregion to region that you target, researcher toresearcher. For instance, Western architecture
history
stressesindustrialization
andrationalization, but in Asia, Westernization andcolonization were major factors reshaping
architectural culture in the region (Fig. 6). Of
course, regional differences exist, but our databasehas covered the late 18th and 19th centuries, whenmodern architecture has developed rapidly, as thestarting point until the mid-20th century whenthe Asian nations achieved independence.
Besides this definition, there is anotherimportant aspect in modern architecture. That is,they are a legacy of the near past (Fig. 7). Our main
focus is on buildings between 50 to 200 years old.
According to a study by Mr. KOMATSU Yukio
and others that shows the relationship between
building age and survival rate, building survival
rate falls to below 50% around the age of 50 years.
To put it another way, there are still a lot of modernbuildings in the city, but at the same time, it meansthat they are increasingly demolished. For example,
some representative buildings of the 1960s
Metabolism movement have been demolishedrecently. The former Miyakonojyo Civic Hall,
Miyazaki Prefecture, which was built in 1966 by
Mr. KIKUTAKE Kiyonori, was demolished in
2019.
Because of this nature, we believe that it isimportant to draw up an inventory. Because thenumber of buildings is visibly decreasing, we have

Fig. 3Fig. 5

Fig. 4

Fig. 6

to record them while they are still standing.
Further, their historic value may only be recognized
after they are recorded. We believe that in order tobe able to start a debate on how we should care forthose buildings in the future based on their historicvalue, first and foremost, recoding is needed.
Now, let me go on to explain how we create an
inventory. We call this method “the comprehensive
survey” (Fig. 8). As I mentioned earlier, a large
number of modern buildings in the city remainburied in oblivion. In this survey, we visit thoseplaces to conduct a visual inspection. We first
define our research scope as the urban areas wheremodern architecture construction flourished in its
heyday, walk all of its streets, look at all thebuildings, assess its modern architecture, andcompile a list. We divide local and Japanese
students into several teams and go around the citywith a map in one hand. It is a down-to-earth
survey that requires much legwork.
Each team is made up of two or more people(Fig. 9). One person fills out a data sheet duringvisual inspection or interview while another takes
photos and fills in the map with the location andbuilding number. The left side of the data sheet
includes the building ID, basic information about
the building, its design features, information
obtained from interviews, and information about

the owner (Fig. 10). The right side includes exterior
and interior photos. For example, the data sheet
shown in Fig. 10 is for a house in Padang,Indonesia. The previous owner of the house, who
visited Japan during the war, showed us photos
from that visit, which were also attached to thedata sheet. In addition, the survey assessment of
the building is listed under the photos. One of the
key features of our survey is that we do thisassessment, and I will explain the reason later.
An inventory consists of all these data sheets
on a city-by-city basis. For example, Fig. 11 shows
the results of survey for Jakarta and Bogor, a city
south of Jakarta. The survey covers buildings built
up to around 1960 in Jakarta, and the total numberof data sheets reached 3,429, which shows that a
considerable number of buildings were extant.

Fig. 7

Fig. 10

Fig. 8Fig. 11

Lecture 3

40 Years of the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage Database: Its Development, Transformation, and Challenges

Fig. 921

Lecture 3
22

The data sheets were duplicated and shared
between Japan and those sites.
Part of the data is also available on the website(Fig. 12). In order to publish the data on the web,
we have to digitize the data, which requires a hugeamount of work. For this reason, the current
database is incomplete as it covers not every city
but only selected buildings of high importance.
Though the database is incomplete, by making it aweb database, we can extract buildings from acertain period of time, or perform spatial searches
to extract buildings in a specific area (Fig. 13). So I
think that it is important to make the databasepublicly accessible online because it is easier to use
than the paper counterpart.
That was an overview of A Comprehensive
Survey of Modern Architecture in Asia and its
database. Now let me move on to the changes thathave occurred over the past 40 years as we
published A Comprehensive Guide to Modern
Japanese Architecture and expanded the scope ofactivities into various Asian countries (Fig. 14).
As I mentioned earlier, the survey in Japanwas completed in 1980 and the same method wasapplied to survey East Asia, and then Southeast
and Central Asia (Fig. 15). This is because there
was concern that the problems that modern
architecture faced in Japan would occur in Asia

later on, too. The 1970s, when this project was
launched in Japan, paralleled with the period
when Japan’s high economic growth ended andthe country became relatively affluent. It also
coincided with the period when urban development
was increasingly accelerating. In other words, therisk of demolition of buildings from the Meiji andTaisho periods, which were more than 50 years
old, rapidly increased during that time. I can safely
say that this is the very reason that making theinventory of modern architecture made progresswith a sense of crisis. This same risk will naturally
shift horizontally to other Asian nations. For
example, if you look at the change in GDP ofJapan and countries in Asia, Japan in the 1970s is
in part similar to Southeast Asian nations in the2010s. In other words, we shared the sense of crisis
that we learned in Japan with our friends in Asian
countries.
However, the expansion from Japan to Asian
countries was not a simple repetition of the survey
in Japan. There are several changes in the process.
One of the changes in the process was the way
we communicated. We have added a digital data
version via a website to a book version of theinventory (Fig. 16). We have also been focusing on
creative ways to get the public more interested inmodern architecture. For example, we made a

Fig. 12Fig. 14

Fig. 13

Fig. 15heritage map in Jakarta, which summarizes
information on modern architecture and isfoldable so that it can be used for sightseeing as
well. The key to the preservation of modern
architecture may be for citizens to take an active
interest in it. However, it is not easy to raise publicawareness by just creating an inventory. It is
important to communicate what you have learned
from the inventory to the general public effectively.
For instance, besides the heritage map, weorganized a heritage tour with citizens in Jakarta(Fig. 17). Further, in Japan, we held an Origami
Architecture exhibition from April to June 2021
(Fig. 18). This is not directly related to theinventory, but it is an initiative that derived fromthe same awareness of the issue. There are origami
architects, who express architecture using a sheetof paper, and we worked with them in holding theexhibition of Origami Architecture. By using
Origami paper to convey the appeal of architecture,
we expected people to show interest in the actualmodern architecture. We also did this project on
Facebook, and when we posted it, a person who
lived in the buildings that we featured leftcomments,
which
produced
unexpectedconnections.
There is another change in our assessment
method. The reason we assess buildings is that

there are a great number of modern buildings and,strikingly, many of them are at risk for demolition.
However, it is not practical to save every building.
We need to make a choice. In this context, I
believe that we need to express their current value
as experts. For example, A Comprehensive Guide toModern Japanese Architecture, i.e., the results of acomprehensive survey in Japan, has its
recommendations circled on the list (Fig. 19).
Indeed, assessments like these are always subject
to criticism, because it can be judged that buildings
with low ratings deserve to be demolished. But
not evaluating them at all may be irresponsible.
Rather than not evaluating them, wouldn’t it beimportant to not give someone’s evaluation
absolute priority? I think that it is important toraise awareness of local people simultaneously sothat they can make their own evaluations.
Due to this perspective, the evaluation method
kept changing markedly in the process of
expanding to Asia. Specifically, not judging only
from expert views, our evaluation axis has shiftedto include consideration of the value of thebuildings to people living there and society. The
result is this evaluation axis called the “Heritage
Butterfly” (Fig. 20). Under the conventional
evaluation method, the value of the historicalmaterials, the uniqueness of the buildings, and theFig. 16

Fig. 18

Fig. 17

Fig. 19

Lecture 3

40 Years of the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage Database: Its Development, Transformation, and Challenges

23Lecture 3
24

state of preservation were evaluated from anexpert’s perspective. We paired this evaluation axisof expert views with their value to the citizens, orhumanity, with the keywords, “memory”,“happiness”, and “loved”. We placed them rightand left using the wings of a butterfly. No matter
how high the expert evaluation, if the citizens’ islow, the butterfly will not be able to take off,
meaning that the architecture will not be able tolast for long. In other words, this is to relativize
experts’ evaluations.
Then, why did we come up with this evaluation
axis when we went abroad? The reason is that it
has to do with the memories of colonies in Asian
nations. For instance, you cannot evaluatebuildings from the Japanese colonial period on thebasis of their physical condition alone. You have totake into consideration the memories of citizens
and the local social context when evaluating them.
As we traveled in Asia, we came to come across a
lot of these cases. This led to the creation of theevaluation axis that ensured awareness of the needfor evaluation not just from the perspective ofarchitectural experts on the part of the researcher.
In an example from Jakarta, you can see manydifferent types of evaluation axis “wings” (Fig. 21).
One of the advantages of this evaluation
method is to be able to find a way for the futurefrom the current shape of the wings. Even if thecurrent shape of the wing is distorted, all you haveto do is to make an effort to rectify the irregularityof the wings (Fig. 22). For example, if there were aheritage site highly regarded by experts but not by
citizens, it would be meaningful to carry out
activities to share the evaluations of those experts
with those citizens. Conversely, for buildings
rather poorly regarded by experts, but fondly
remembered by citizens, activities to enhance theirarchitectural value may be effective. A workshop
where citizens and architects get together andthink about an effective renovation plan should bemeaningful. That is, the purpose of heritage
evaluation is not confined to showing the current
value of a building, but it is also a way to diagnose
what kind of prescription should be given to thebuilding in the future.
Lastly, let me discuss what we have achieved
through these efforts and the challenges in making
these inventories in Asia (Fig. 23).
The first is the ripple effect on the local
communities (Fig. 24). There are several examples
of local members who participated in the programand have since expanded the inventories orcontributed to the management of heritage sites
in their own hometowns.
The second effect is mutual learning (Fig. 25).

Fig. 20

Fig. 22

Fig. 21

Fig. 23

When it comes to the making of an inventory, theinventory in itself is valuable, but I feel that theprocess of creating the inventory has an evengreater effect in terms of learning from each other.
For example, the history of modern architecture ismostly discussed with focus on the West. Yet,actually beholding the modern architecture therewith the local students provided us an opportunity
to discuss in-depth what modern architecturemeans to their country and Asia.
Thus, we can experience diverse forms ofmodernity through such discussions and thediverse architecture that we actually see (Fig. 26).
In Southeast Asia, researchers had focused on the
grand colonial architecture of the suzerain states.
But modernization also affected the dwellings ofindigenous people and Chinese. In plantationarchitecture, there are a number of uniquebuildings combining indigenous materials andmodern techniques. The inventory also highlights
how architecture played a major role in representing
a new nation when a country gained independence
after W. W. II.
The third effect is the use of the inventory indisasters. Padang, Indonesia, suffered anearthquake several years after the inventory wascreated. In the case of the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami, an inventory wascreated in response to it. But in Indonesia, theearthquake happened after we created theinventory. That allowed us to check whichbuildings were damaged after the disaster. We didcheck some buildings to see if they had collapsed
or could be repaired, but, to be honest, I cannot saythat we were able to make full use of the inventory
this time (Fig. 27). I think that how to positively
apply the inventory for different purposes needs
to be reviewed as a future challenge.
Yet the most important challenge with theinventory is updating the information (Fig. 28). As
years have passed since the survey, many buildings
have gone and errors persist in the data sheets.
However, conducting a regular, comprehensive
survey is hard, so the help of citizens to correct
and add information is indispensable. For instance,

Fig. 24

Fig. 27

Fig. 25

Fig. 28

Lecture 3

40 Years of the Modern Asian Architectural Heritage Database: Its Development, Transformation, and Challenges

Fig. 26

25

Lecture 3
26

a system to update the inventory from the bottom
up using a website may be effective. This means
converting paper sources into digital data, but I
must admit that making progress is hard due tothe vast labor required.
The second challenge is the difficulty
inventorying postwar architecture (Fig. 29). Oneof the criteria for cultural heritage sites is that they
be 50 years old, which means that the number ofsites of the near past that are 50 years old or older
keeps increasing. When we comprehensively
surveyed Southeast Asia, we mainly surveyedbuildings from the colonial period. But now weneed to evaluate buildings up to the 1970s as
historical buildings. Currently, we are working on
the mASEANa (modern ASEAN architecture)project in Southeast Asia, and updating ourinventory primarily with post-independence
modern architecture that we had not covered fully.
However, we face the problem that ourconventional survey cannot grasp buildings fromthis period comprehensively. This is because theurban areas were considerably broad in the 1970s,
making it impossible to walk to cover every area
where many buildings may have been built duringthat time as we did previously. But in recent years,
the reproduction of real landscapes in virtual space
like Google Street View has progressed much, so

we may be able to grasp heritage sites with virtualcomprehensive surveys and other new methods.
The third challenge is associated with fixedpoint observation. Better virtual spaces make iteasier to revisit the sites once surveyed (Fig. 30).
As I mentioned earlier, the inventory has a numberof errors, and data obtained from the field survey
is not always reliable. Then, where is the strengthof the data? I believe that it lies in thecorrespondence between the photos and theirlocations. So it is possible to check via personal
computers whether those buildings are extant or
not. This is an advantage as the buildings cannot
be moved easily. For example, it may be possible tostudy the relationship between cultural heritage
and urban development in emerging nations fromthe viewpoint of urban history, studying how
many modern buildings have been maintained, orconversely, how much cities have been developed,
over the last 20 years.
In this sense, several decades have passed since
the database was created, and I feel we are now inthe second round of reevaluating the value of thedata. At the same time, I would also like to see thedevelopment of the data in other parts of Asia orother regions, such as Africa, where inventories
have not yet been initiated.

Fig. 29

Fig. 3029th Preservation and inheritance of information related toPanelists:
cultural heritage
SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

Documenting Cultural Heritage
Information: Challenges and Prospects forInternational Cooperation

Panel Discussion

Panel Discussion

Moderator: KONDO Yasuhisa
Panelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

KONDO Yasuhisa

Associate Professor at Research Institute for Humanity and Nature
His expertise includes archaeology, spatial information science, and open science theories. He was the leader of RIHN’s core
project “Information Asymmetry Reduction in Open Team Science in Socio-environmental Cases” from FY2018 to FY2020. While
conducting archaeological expeditions in Oman, his main work site, he has been working as the project leader of the Grants-inAid for Scientific Research Fund for the Promotion of Joint International Research (Fostering Joint International Research (B))“Restoration and Inheritance of Living Heritage under a Vulnerable Social Environment of a Port City in Southern Oman” since
FY2020 the aim of which is to pursue international joint studies for cultural heritage preservation.

KONDO: I am KONDO Yasuhisa from the
Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. I
play a moderator role for this discussion. I lookforward to a productive session. I would like tohave a panel discussion with the three speakers,
but if you are viewing today, feel free to ask
questions through the Q&A, and we will answer
them. We will answer general questions, inparticular, in the latter half of the discussion.
I would like to start by recapping the three
speakers’ presentations. The theme of today’s
discussion is “Documenting Cultural Heritage
Information: Challenges and Prospects forInternational Cooperation”. As I listened to thethree presentations, I found that the common
theme was the relationship between cultural
heritage, which includes objects or events, andpeople. Ms. SAITO’s presentation was about
Ainu ethnic materials and material culture. Dr.
HAYASHI’s was on modern Asian urban
architecture. Dr. KUBOTA spoke on intangible
cultural heritage. I believe that the common theme
was the relationship between these and people.
We speak of people living “now” who obtain dataand information, but it was made by people in the“past”. At the same time, it will be inherited bypeople in the “future”.
After listening to the three presentations, you
may have thought that “though the theme of thisseminar was about databases, they did not deal
with things technical very much”. In fact, we did
not focus on technical points even though themain theme is about databases, but that was ouraim for today’s presentations. Rather than focusing
on the hard side of technology, we asked the
speakers to focus on the soft side, because it isnone other than the human beings who actuallyretain, preserve, and succeed information about
cultural heritage.
From today’s talks, there are two major
questions that I would like to consider with you in
the coming panel discussion. The first question is,“What should be documented or what do we wantto preserve about these cultural properties orcultural heritage?” Since the three presenters
touched upon this in their respective presentations,
I will begin by asking you to briefly reflect on thisquestion.
The second question is regarding the prospects
for international cooperation, “How can Japan’s
27Panel Discussion

experiences be used for international cooperation?”
Specifically, Dr. KUBOTA presented his efforts in
Nepal and Indonesia, and Dr. HAYASHI shared
his experience interacting with local people basedon actual fieldwork, especially in Indonesia. I
would like you to share your views and opinions
on what kind of challenges to address in terms ofapplication for international cooperation and how
we can overcome them.
The first major issue is Question 1: what to
document and preserve. I would like to ask eachspeaker to briefly reflect on what they would liketo document and preserve.
Let’s go in order of presentations. Ms. SAITO,
you spoke about Ainu cultural heritage, thematerial culture database, and the Info-Forum
Museum Project that lies behind that. In yourreport, you mentioned the need to record andpreserve material culture, but I wonder if you
could tell us what you pay particular attention toor bear in mind when you do so.
SAITO: Basically, thematerials that I discussed
today have already beencollected, but we arecontinuing to collectthem and will keep doing
so into the future. Of
course, we need to keep
records of who createdthe materials, where they were created, whocollected them, and how they were created. But
for older materials, in particular, I think that weneed to supplement the lack of information withresearch and add references so that future users
can learn a great deal more about them. It is crucial
to clarify what and where something was written
about the materials that we have now and add thatto the database.
KONDO: So by studying those materials, especiallythose collected long ago, and supplementing themwith research on the materials that we missed, we
can increase their academic value and utilize. Is
that correct?
SAITO: Yes. Correct.
KONDO: In a similar vein, I would like to ask Dr.
28

KUBOTA about how to preserve what is old andwhat is being lost. You mentioned four objectives
or axes in the intangible cultural heritage archives.
First, you have to preserve everything anyhow ascultural properties, at least what is there. You said
that this will lead to disaster preparedness and also
to the inheritance and spread of cultural properties.
What do you think is important about preserving
them, in particular?
KUBOTA: I may not havetouched on this in mypresentation,butultimately, deciding whatshould be covered is avery tricky question. For
instance, if it is a
traditionalfolk
performing art, it should
be preserved to hands down, but if it is Japanesedaiko drumming, Yosakoi Soran Festival, or evenhula dance, it is extremely difficult to decide whereto draw the line and to what extent it should be
included.
In this context, there is the idea of emphasizing
historicity and so-called authenticity under thecultural properties protection system in Japan.
Meanwhile, there is the idea of emphasizing
diversity on the part of UNESCO, and instead ofchoosing historical, old or authentic things, thefocus is placed on how it is currently valued in that
community. Based on this, Japanese taiko
drumming, Yosakoi Soran Festival, or hula dance
can be the targets. Which idea should we choose?
I think that the big question is whether to preserve
them as cultural properties or as local cultural
heritage and which to focus on.
But what we need to do here is, ideally, torecord various types of intangible cultural heritage
comprehensively. By making them the subject of adatabase, for example, we can get the local people
to realize them again, and objectively realize theimportance of continuing to do them. To conclude,
I feel that the importance of databases and records
lies in doing that.
KONDO: As Dr. KUBOTA said that we want tosave everything, but sometimes we have to draw aline, and the issue is, what should be covered, andwho should recognize authenticity?

Panelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

HAYASHI: Similar towhat Dr. KUBOTA said,
there is naturally quite a
bit of arbitrariness indeciding on how old abuilding should be for it
to be documented. As I
mentionedinmypresentation, we basicallytake historical properties that have been aroundfor a certain period of time, such as 50 years, andwe designate them as historical buildings.
However, for example, the big problem is notfor known buildings originally protected on maps
and documents, but for those that you naturally
notice on your walk of which outer appearance
seems to have been built around the same period.
All of these things get recorded, but in otherwords, they are largely influenced by the eyes of
the investigator or their literacy. So, in that sense,
I feel that we are unable to say with finality thatthey are objective standards. This is why I thinkthat it is important to be able to re-examine them.
The buildings are real properties, and because ofthis nature, it is very hard to move them. So I
think that it is extremely worthwhile to record thelocation and their appearance on maps and inphotographs.
KONDO: You mentioned being able to re-examine
things at the end. Once something has been
documented, as time goes by and research
progresses, evaluation criteria for the past records
may change. Dr. HAYASHI, you showed us the“Heritage Butterfly”, new architecture evaluation
criteria that incorporate another criterion of how
attached to it the residents and neighbors are, on
top of criteria that were previously used by experts.
I think that you have to reevaluate things when a
new criterion appears. Speaking of thisreevaluation, Dr. KUBOTA, is this reevaluation

possible in your work with intangible cultural
heritage?

Panel Discussion

Now, I would like to ask you, Dr. HAYASHI,
about cities in Asia, Jakarta in Indonesia, inparticular. When you conduct a comprehensive
survey in Jakarta, what should you focus on andwhat should you preserve? Should you teach yourstudents to recognize whether historical properties
are authentic or not? What are some of the issues,
thoughts, or points to bear in mind, if any?

KUBOTA: It is hard to generalize about intangible
cultural heritage because it varies from property toproperty. As for folk cultural properties that I
discussed in my presentation, it is impossible toput a value on them in the first place. We doclassify things by time period, such as before andafter the war, but what constitutes value in thisarea? Up to now, we were drawn to considering
the value of tangible cultural properties and tended
to evaluate cultural heritage in terms of historicalvalue and authenticity. But now, when there aremany similar objects, how do we find value inthem? I think that we can say the fact that there
are so many objects is per se a value. It is hard toassign a value like that, to begin with.
I thought that it might be great to incorporate
Dr. HAYASHI’s heritage butterfly idea of asking
the local people about their opinions, but thequestion of just who to ask is a big issue. Dependingon the age group of the people involved, opinions
change. People in their 70s might say that it isimportant, but those in their 20s might say thatthey don’t want it. Men and women may also
differ in opinions. So coming up with any objective
value is very difficult indeed. Or, even if we rejectsomething at the time because it is new, it ispossible that it keeps going and have a massive
value in the future. Therefore, I don’t think that weshould put a value on it based on its contemporary
value.
KONDO: I think that you have raised an important
point that it might be better not to assign a value
at this moment. Dr. KUBOTA mentioned that
evaluations may differ by age group or gender. Dr.
HAYASHI, I would like to ask you again about
your heritage butterfly axis. How do you devise anevaluation index?
HAYASHI: The assessment in itself is done in thefield by the researcher, so it is indeed the evaluationof that researcher. Ideally, I think that it would bebetter if the evaluations were posted on a web
database and people could comment on theevaluations,
showing
theiragreements,
disagreements, or new perspectives, for example,
saying that those buildings should deserve a higher
29

Panel Discussion

or lower value. Ideally, the evaluation axis should
be more responsive and flexible. In other words, I
think that it is critical not to consider theevaluation an absolute, but rather consider how it
can be relative and use it as a seed for debate. To
that end, we rack our brains over how to better
leverage database technology.
KONDO: I would like to ask you, Ms. SAITO,
about this issue of assigning value, because it isvery important. I do not think that assigningvalues was at the forefront of your database of
Ainu material culture. If any of the research
involves the researcher’s judgment, please sharewhat you are doing or what issues you are facing.
SAITO: This may not be a direct answer to yourquestion, but Japan was a little late in developing
museums and ethnology compared to the rest of
the world, not just with regard to materials about
the Ainu, but in general. Many collected items of
the past included little information with them. It
is natural to think that an item is of little to noworth if there is no information about it. But likearcheology, if similar objects exist, we can compare
and examine them. Doing so, we can use theshape, design, and materials to determine where tosituate this artifact. So by looking at materials inother museums and other regions from a crosssectional viewpoint, we can add information tothings that we did not understand before. Later,
we may understand things that have no
information and little value today. As it is
becoming possible to analyze materials and findout what they are made of, or, for example, where
glass beads were specifically made, more and more
information may become available. I work on the
database in the belief that what we do not know
now may become valuable in the future.
KONDO: In other words, I take it that you areemphasizing the scalability of the database inorder to be able to find out new things in the
future as research progresses.
Then, I would like to ask you both, Dr.
KUBOTA and Dr. HAYASHI, about how you
ensure or prepare for the scalability of data andinformation from the time you collect it with aview to future use. Could you share with us what
you are doing or what issues you are facing?
30

KUBOTA: Scalability is not much of an issue, tobegin with, in the case of intangible heritage, inparticular, since it keeps changing. So I think that
we have no choice but to document things at thismoment. What we have now will change in the
future, so it is unlikely that we will find out
anything new in the future, as we do with material
research. The biggest bottleneck is keeping trackof things in constant flux, and as for intangible
heritage, you have to keep updating the database,not just create it and be done with it.
Even if we have a database of the intangible
cultural heritage, it is also a living thing, so inorder to make use of the database indefinitely, weneed to put more emphasis on how to update theinformation and how to continue to collect that
information, rather than on scalability.
KONDO: So, it is more important to keep updating
and to ensure continuity. How about you, Dr.
HAYASHI?
HAYASHI: In terms of the scalability of databases,
I believe that we need a system to update
information interactively. I think that it would begreat if we could create interactive heritage maps
through interaction with users, where people
could collaborate on editing or add new heritage.
But an idea like this is something that has been
said for a long time, so technically, creating thatkind of system is doable. The issue is how to create
something interesting so that people will want toparticipate in it. Like Origami architecture, things
that seem unrelated to the database can attract
people to the database. I have been thinking latelythat we need such ideas.
The other thing is that in architecture, I haverealized yet again that the perspective thatbuildings are real properties is critical. With theremarkable development of GPS, Google Street
View, and AI, I feel that it is possible to update
information with image recognition to someextent. The first time we evaluate a building, theresolution needs to be as high as what we see onsite. But once we have the data, we can determine
whether the building still stands and pretty muchmanage the data using image search and AI
technology without having to go to the site. I
think that it would be interesting to be able toupdate the information or expand a region to bePanelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

KONDO: Information processing technology,
among others, is developing at a remarkable pace,
and today, we are becoming able to use AI,
machine learning, and superimposed images todetermine what is different about similararchitecture. My understanding is that the idea is
to use technology to recognize differences
especially in architecture, where data is alreadyavailable through Google Street View.
We are now talking about how to update
information, how to continue activities, and how
to involve various people in them. I would like togo back to the second big question here. That is,
how can Japan’s experience be applied tointernational cooperation? This is related to thebackground of the establishment of the JCICHeritage, but changing the perspective slightly,
what is the status of the research that you and yourrespective organizations have done from aninternational perspective? Or what are the issues
associated with migrating your projects overseas
and getting other countries and areas to use them?
I would like to ask Ms. SAITO. I assume thatyou have many international counterparts within
the Info-Forum Museum at Minpaku. Could you
appraise your efforts in comparison to the efforts
being made in other countries, and how yourefforts with the Ainu ethnic materials fit in?
SAITO: There are many different Info-Forum
Museum projects at Minpaku indeed, and thecontent varies greatly depending on the related
researchers and the region, so it is difficult to sum
it up in one sentence. There are several projects
where people from the local source community areinvited to come to look at our materials one byone, document them, and make them available onvideo for publication. There are also projects toreturn information to local communities, such as
the Taiwanese and Ainu materials collected in theJapanese colonies before the war.
In terms of Ainu materials, Europe, theUnited States, and Russia took an interest in the
Ainu people and collected numerous materials
during the Meiji period and brought them back totheir homes. They also made their own databases,
respectively. But since most researchers of Ainu

culture are in Japan, it is important to make thematerials collected in Japan available in English
and Russian so that people may be able to find outthat they have similar materials in their own
countries, conduct research and exchange
information mutually. I think that we can provide
a database that will be a good starting point forthat.

Panel Discussion

covered by a database by leveraging modern andnew, leading-edge technology.

KONDO: So you think that making it multilingual
would provide a good opportunity to startinternational collaboration and joint research,
don’t you?
SAITO: Yes. In fact, in FY 2019, we held a small
symposium by inviting curators from Russianmuseums and staff from museums in Japan that
hold Ainu ethnographic materials to discuss how
to carry out lateral collaboration.
KONDO: Now the conversation has turned tomultilingualism and how to handle that. Now, I
would like to ask you, Dr. HAYASHI. I recall thatthe worksheets used in making an inventory or
database in each country were in English. I saw
the photo of the heritage tour in Jakarta, Indonesia,
and I assume that the explanation was given in thelocal language. When you use the inventory incommunicating with the local people, whatstrategies do you use, for language issues, inparticular?
HAYASHI: Data sheets are always written in both
English and the local language. The local andJapanese students always go together to conduct
surveys. But the interviews are done by local
students, and the Japanese and local students
communicate in English. At the moment, the web
database is mainly in English, so I do not thinkthat we have enough support for multiple
languages for citizens to see as yet.
KONDO: I would like to follow up with Dr.
HAYASHI. In the Info-Forum Museum at
Minpaku that Ms. SAITO described, they invited
local community members there to see the actual
exhibits and exchange views and opinions. Do you
intentionally provide opportunities for local
people to see the actual architecture and exchange
opinions with you?
31

Panel Discussion

HAYASHI: The tour that I have mentioned in mypresentation was held about three years ago. We
consciously started doing such activities, since we
had not had many opportunities in the past tocommunicate directly with local citizens while we
conducted surveys.
KONDO: In terms of communication with local
people, I assume that you also have experience, Dr.
KUBOTA. In your presentation, you said thatbringing in Japanese techniques or databasestructures themselves would not work in
exchanging with local people because of thedifferent ways of understanding culture and that itwas not enough to just emulate them. When you
work with local people to document the intangible
cultural heritage of a site, are there any specificpoints that you need to pay attention to or bear in
mind?
KUBOTA: I do not have much experience in
conducting surveys overseas, but let me take Nepal
for example. When we conducted a survey in
Khokana, the local language was Newar in
addition to Nepalese. People had no word for“intangible cultural heritage” in Newar and they
did not understand the concept. So it was hard forthem to understand us unless we mentioned
specific things, such as festivals, performing arts,
or annual events.
In the case of general cultural properties, mostof them have experts, in the area of fine arts andcrafts in particular, who generally know more thanowners. But with intangible cultural properties,
basically, experts have limitations and can never bemore knowledgeable than their transmitters or
local people. So how do we need to make up forthat?
Ultimately, it would be best if we could live
there for years and continue to conduct research,
but that is not feasible. So, what is most importantis to find collaborators who know the area very
well and are familiar with the academic frameworkand standpoint. Communicating with thosepeople and sharing our knowledge will allow us toaccumulate knowledge.
On their part, having a foreign perspective or
opinion, especially from outsiders, will also have agreat impact. Even in Japan, when Tokyoites go toa rural performing arts center, they may find32

things valuable that the locals consider worthless,tell them that they are great, and the locals areencouraged to protect them. I believe that it is thesame thing overseas. So I think it is important toencourage people to provide an outsider’s
perspective and do it together, thereby building
networks. That way, I believe that we can further
mutual understanding.
KONDO: Now, I think that I have some experiencein this area. When I go to a foreign country fromJapan for international cooperations, I am an
outsider, a stranger. As a stranger, it is hard to go
into the most vital part of the region or to masterall of the traditional knowledge and indigenous
knowledge of the region, which is exactly why you
have to look at it from an outsider’s point of view
so you may have fresh insights. That is a kind of
mutual learning, and it may produce interaction
with the local community.
I used the term “mutual learning” because Dr.
HAYASHI mentioned in his presentation thatIndonesian students and students from Tokyo
shared a mutual learning experience. On thispoint, I would like to ask you one more thing, Ms.
SAITO. For example, when Ainu people come tothe museum as visiting researchers and examine
the collection materials and items, do you, yourself,
who is present there, ever learn or realize somethingfrom their research?
SAITO: Yes, I do, of course. Though I haveconducted my research on material culture, I
cannot know everything. To take a garment, forexample, if you look at the way it is sewn, the way
the needle moves, and other details from theperspective of the makers of the clothing, you will
be able to gain fresh insights as to how thetechniques were used at that time, which is highly
instructive. I also think that in order to choose
target survey materials, it is important for them tohave some understanding through the database
before they come to see what we are doing.
KONDO: I understand that having the database at
the front entrance gives researchers who maketheir initial visit to the museum a clear idea of theissues or interests. And the added bonus is that it
makes it easier to link the research to those issues.
Thank you very much.

Panelists: SAITO Reiko, KUBOTA Hiromichi, HAYASHI Kengo

KUBOTA: In the case of intangible cultural
heritage, this problem is very likely to occur. It has
happened to me many times. For example, whenshooting a video of performing arts, a dancer madea mistake or misstep on numerous occasions. This
year, I went to record an event, but it was scaled
down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so wedebated whether to record it as a record forposterity or not. But I think that it is important tokeep a record of things that were different or thechanges that took place along with the
documentation.
One of the ways to handle this is to play therecorded video and watch it together. For example,
a certain dance with the person who danced it or
the masters of the dancer, and have them talkabout what they did wrong, or could have done
better, and things like these. It would be a goodidea to record this in tandem, too, so we would
have an objective record. Or, in some scenarios,
the performer may be asked to explain what they
are doing, which may be a bit more of a high bar
for the performer. But by doing this, we mustrecord as objectively as possible, noting any change
and not ending with a one-time record, I would
say.
KONDO: Thank you very much. How about you,
Ms. SAITO? What do you think of the concernof the database taking on a life of its own?
SAITO: With respect to intangible culture, I can’t
add much to what Dr. KUBOTA has just said.
Whether intangible or tangible, I think that it isessential to disclose the time period, the date, theregion, and the source together in the database.

Databases generally provide that information. But
when it comes to exhibitions, there are many items
that do not have a specific period or region in thecaptions. So at the very least, I think that it isimportant to make sure that those who areinterested may be able to find information about
the item, such as the period in which the item wascreated, via the database.

Panel Discussion

Now, I would like to move on to questions
from the floor. I will read out questions first. This
question is for you, Dr. KUBOTA, and then Ms.
SAITO. “If we record and share intangible cultural
heritage like folk performing arts, Ainu rituals,
and dances, we run the risk that what we sharewith the general public will be considered official
because intangible cultural heritage is subject tochange continuously as you mentioned in yourpresentation. While documenting is important, itruns the risk that the documentation will bevalued in a way that contravenes the original
intent. What do you think about that?”

KONDO: I would like to pose this question to you
as well, Dr. HAYASHI. You have made part ofyour inventory available on the web. You
mentioned that the Origami architecture
exhibition produced an unexpected response fromthe person who lived in the building. What are
your thoughts on how we should respond to such
unanticipated development and effects?
HAYASHI: I take unexpected effects as a rather
positive thing. So if anything, I think that it isimportant that those things get triggered. In termsof attaching value, it has something to do with mypresentation. If you say, “This is a magnificent
building”, then that can become an authoritative
statement, giving a sort of seal of approval. So I
think that the challenge for any database in any
field is how to relativize this flexibly.
I believe that the safest way is not to evaluate
at all, not to put any value on it, to make it neutral.
But I think that we need to think very carefully
about whether that is the right thing to do.
KONDO: In other words, Dr. HAYASHI, althougharchitectural evaluation should be done objectively
and scientifically, as a researcher, do you think that
there is a need to go one step further and actively
assign values?
HAYASHI: Yes, I do. In a sense, the act of
documenting itself is a kind of authoritative act. In
a way, the very process of selecting anddocumenting it as a subject of study is like anevaluation in itself. So I think that the key is to beaware of the fact that we are doing that to someextent, to be sensitive to the issue of value, and to
avoid making it an absolute.
KONDO: I understand that it is critical to avoid
putting absolute values, to assign values with theawareness that they are relative and subject to33

Panel Discussion

change.
I would like to wrap up by asking each one of
you to answer this question from the floor. Let meread it out. “I think that you all indicated thatsharing information with the general public aswell as experts was vital to pass on cultural heritage.
Is there any role that you expect citizens to play?
Conversely, are there any aspects or situations inwhich you are expected to play a role by citizens?”
In other words, I assume that the term “citizens”
here probably includes people other thanprofessional researchers, people who are involvedin the field, and other such people. What are yourexpectations for the role to be performed by thesepeople in passing on information to us?
KUBOTA: In the case of intangible culture, as I
said earlier, researchers are not necessarily
specialists. Very often, the local people andpractitioners know more about it. On the other
hand, experts often have a more extensive or
broader range of knowledge. Thus, mutual respect
is important. Regardless of whether one is anexpert or not, all parties should work together tocollect such data, create a database, and build up
such a system. Thus, I think that we need to build
up a system where we can work together from thispoint onward, including verification of whether it
is better for the authorities to do this or whether
to resort to other means.
SAITO: With respect to Ainu culture, the numberof people who are interested in it has risen
dramatically over the past few years. So, of course,
we would like those people to see the database. On
the other hand, I am a little bit concerned about
one thing. There is no problem if people use thepatterns of clothes in the database for theirpersonal use, for example, by embroidering them,and there are some older patterns for which
copyright is no longer an issue. But there are also
copyrighted items made by contemporary artists.
We may not be able to show large-scale images of
the newer copyrighted works on the internet. On
a positive note, I would like people to look at the34

old and the new and realize that the patterns arealso changing and that there is an artist’s touch
through the database.
There is also the problem of using the patternsof Ainu attire and other items for commercial use,even if they are old patterns from the material.
Some believe that these patterns are construed ashaving meanings or power, and are concerned
about them being used in the wrong ways. How tocommunicate this in the database is an additional
challenge for me.
HAYASHI: I am not sure if this is an expectation,
but if we can visualize the attachment that citizens
have to their buildings, it will change the urban
development projects. For example, recently, social
media have become so popular, and in Indonesia,
people are taking photos of old buildings in frontof them and posting them on the internet, saying,“Instagrammable”. Whenever they do that, theirphotos now get geo-tagged, enabling datacollection of what buildings are photographed andwhere.
This means that if we can see that in advance,
we can anticipate whether there will be a largescale opposition movement if we demolish thisbuilding, for example. So we can start to think
about development based on such information.
When it comes to the traditional way of preserving
architecture, normally only after the building isslated for demolition, a preservation movement
tends to begin. So it would be great if we could
create a system by leveraging current technology
to visualize how much a building is loved bypeople long before proceeding with development,
which should make a big difference.
KONDO: I am sure that the three of you have a lot
more to say, but I would like to close our discussion.
As we could not answer all the questions we had
today, we will answer them via the consortium’s
website later. So please be a little patient and lookforward to that as well. Again, thank you verymuch for your time.

Closing Remarks
TOMODA Masahiko, Secretary General of the JCIC-Heritage
Thank you very much, Dr. KONDO. I would also like to express my heartfelt
thanks to all three of you for your presentations. Last of all, on behalf of the JCICHeritage, the organizer of the seminar, I would like to make a few closing remarks
and announcements for the audience.
First of all, thank you very much for taking time despite your hectic schedule
to participate in the 29th Seminar of the JCIC-Heritage: “Preservation andinheritance of the Information related to Cultural Heritage—For Whom andWhat Purpose”. I believe that you have provided very insightful presentations on
a wide array of difficulties and challenges associated with the creation and use ofcultural heritage databases, and on how to bridge the gap between researchers and various stakeholders,
including local communities, in particular. We will be extremely pleased if today’s seminar was meaningful
to all participants, and provided an opportunity to consider the future development and prospects forinternational cooperation in the area of cultural heritage mediated by databases as the organizer of theconference.
With this, I would like to conclude today’s seminar. Again, thank you very much for participating all
the way through our program.

35

Report on the 29th Seminar
Preservation and Inheritance of the Information related to Cultural Heritage
For Whom and What Purpose
March 2022
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)
Printed by : Choyodo Printing Co., Ltd.
© Presenters of the 28th Seminar and Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.