ACCU Training Courses
on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2021

Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

ACCU Training Courses on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2021

Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Edited and Published by
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
437-3 Somanouchi-cho, Tenri city, Nara, 632-0032, JAPAN
Tel: +81(0) 743-69-5010
FAX: +81(0) 743-69-5021
e-mail: nara@accu.or.jp
URL: https://www.nara.accu.or.jp
Printed by SHOBUNSYAⒸ Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) 2022

Preface
Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) was founded in Tokyo in 1971, one year before the General
Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage in Paris. ACCU was established in collaboration with the Japanese government and the private sector, withthe aim to contribute to the development of culture and education and to foster mutual understanding and friendshipamong countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Subsequently, ACCU established the ACCU Nara Office in 1999 as a centre for activities promoting cultural heritage
protection in the region. Since then, ACCU Nara has advanced international cooperation for the protection ofcultural heritage through various training courses, international conferences, workshops, publication of internationalcorrespondents’ reports, and so on.
Since we launched the programmes, we have coordinated them in close cooperation with international organisations
such as UNESCO and ICCROM and research institutes and museums under the Japan’s National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage. We have also received generous support from the regional organisations throught Japan to conduct
the training courses.
Due to the impact of COVID-19, all 22nd ACCU training programmes were held online in 2021. Regrettably, for thesecond year in a row, we were not able to meet the participants in Japan. It was also regrettable that the participants
were not able to visit the archaeological sites and museums to observe the activities of cultural property protection in
Japan.
As we entered the second year of the global pandemic, the issues of online training have become clearer. Of course, it
is a huge advantage that learning with video materials has almost no restrictions either on the number of participantsor the time of participation. Participants can access the material and study at their convenient time. However, it
is becoming challenging to keep the pace required at a training course and learn online, while at the same time
continuing the normal, everyday work. In face-to-face learning, one can easily concentrate on the lesson by being‘on-site’ and having hands-on experience. Acknowledging this, we are trying to improve the learning efficiency byimplementing simultaneous, bi-directional communication platforms, and by encouraging a real-time interaction
between the participants and the instructors. Nevertheless, online sessions cannot fully replace practical training
courses. It is therefore necessary to understand the positive and negative aspects of both, face-to-face and online
learning, in order to create strategies for more efficient implementation of the training courses.
Outline of the training courses in 2021
Group Training Course (Online)- Target participants: young professionals with 5-10 years’ experience- Training period: 1 September – 30 September (for 1 month)- Theme: Investigation, Preservation, and Management of Archaeological Sites*Usually we set the themes ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Conservation of Wooden Structures’ every other year.
- Number of participants: 12 from 8 different countries (number of certificate recipients)-	Curriculum: video lectures, online discussions/Q&A sessions, introduction videos on cultural heritage in Nara

Thematic Training Course (Online)- Target participants: mid-career professionals with 10-15 years’ experience- Training period: 8 - 21 October (for 2 weeks)- Theme: ‘Photographic Documentation of Heritage Buildings’*The theme is set based on the requests from the participants’ country.
- Number of participants: 8 from Indonesia who belong to Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology
and Center of Indonesian Architectural Documentation- Venue: online platform (Indonesia – Nara, Japan)*The course normally invites 5-6 participants from 1-3 countries to Japan.
-	Curriculum: video lectures, online discussions/Q&A sessions, introduction videos of cultural heritage in Nara
Regional Workshop (Online)- Target participants: young professionals (depending on the request of the host country)- Training period: 10 - 21 November*The workshop normally takes place in the target country for about a week.
- Theme: ‘Photographic Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts’*The theme is set based on the needs of the host country.
- Number of participants: 15 from Myanmar- Venue: online platform (Nay Pyi Daw, Yangon, Pyay, Bagan and Myauk-U, Myanmar – Nara, Japan)- Curriculum: video lectures, online demonstration lecture, online discussion/Q&A session
International Workshop (Online)- Target participants: senior professionals/ decision makers- Training period: 10 - 15 December including two-day symposium- Theme: ‘Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region—Current State and Issues (1): Emergency Response Case Studies’- Number of participants: 10 from 7 countries- Venue: online platform- Curriculum: online discussions and presentations
The two-day symposium was open to 114 observers from 10 countries.
This year, the programmes were conducted in a different way from usual, but I believe that the participants could
acquire the technical knowledge and practical skills as well as broaden their experiences throughout the online courses.
I would like to express my profound appreciation to the distinguished lecturers who kindly shared their expertise and tothe organisations that provided generous supports. I also thank all participants for their active participation and mutual
cooperation to acquire the knowledge and techniques in ACCU programme. Lastly, I would like to extend my gratitude
to all related personnel from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, ICCROM, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage for
their cooperation and continued support for our training courses.

MORIMOTO Susumu
Director
The Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)Contents
Preface
I.

Group Training Course
1. General Information ………………………………………………… 9
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 16
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 38

II.

Thematic Training Course
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 47
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 51
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 58

III.

Regional Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 67
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 69
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 73

IV.

International Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 81
2. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 86

V.

Appendix
1. Group Training Course …………………………………………… 90
2. Thematic Training Course………………………………………… 92
3. Regional Workshop ………………………………………………

93

4. International Workshop …………………………………………

95

5. Acknowledgements ………………………………………………

97…………………………………

98

6. Staff Members of ACCU Nara

I. Group Training Course
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Group Training Course for Young Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2021

“Investigation, Preservation, and Management of Archaeological Sites”(Online)1. BackgroundDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 22nd ACCU Group Training Course on Investigation, Preservation, andManagement of Archaeological Sites was held online, from 1 to 30 September, 2021. The online course, following
the one last year, aimed at providing new knowledge in the investigation theory and practice of archaeological sites
through the lectures and discussions, although excluding on-site training this year . The curriculum of the 22nd grouptraining course is designed for young professionals and comprises comprehensive basic knowledge and techniquesin the fields of investigation, preservation, and management of archaeological sites.
In the Asia and Pacific region there are various forms of cultural heritage which are of great significance from a
global point of view. In order to safeguard this important cultural heritage for future generations, it is necessary to
train heritage professionals in proper investigation, analysis, and preservation. Acknowledging this, ACCU Nara, inpartnership with ICCROM and Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan, has been organising training courses since 2000
on specific themes with particular focus on building the capacity of professionals involved with cultural heritage
protection in the region.
2. Dates and Method
Dates: 1 September (Wed) – 30 September (Thu) 2021
Method: online (self-learning by the educational resources offered by the lecturers of the training course and several
online-discussions with the participants)
3. Organisers- Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan: financial support of the course- Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU): overall course planning and administration-	International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM): thewelcome address at the opening ceremony, two lectures and follow up discussions on Zoom were offered by
Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM Special Adviser, on 3-4 September and by Joseph King, Director of Partnershipand Communication, who also provided lecture videos and a speech at the closing ceremony on 22 September.
ICCROM supported the selection of participants and provided professional assistance as well.
-	Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: offered the lecture and the discussion on Heritage
Impact Assessment.
-	Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: nine professionals provided various lectures andlearning materials and facilitated the discussions on Zoom, also advised on overall course planning.
Support- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan- Japanese National Commission for UNESCO- Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage (JCIC-Heritage)- Nara Prefectural Government- Nara City Government

9

Course Curriculum
File Title

Video No.

Course Orientation

U0-1

World Heritage in Nara: Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara

U0-2

World Heritage in Nara: Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area

U0-3

World Heritage in Nara: Nara Palace Site

U0-4

Report Date of Deadline of checkNo. upload
point report

LecturerAug. 16

Live Session: Pre-Meeting (13:00-15:00)

August 20

Welcome Address

Sep.1

ACCU, ACA, ICCROM

Unit 1: Current Issues and Global Perspective on Preservation of Archaeological Sites
Global Trends of Cultural Heritage Protection and International Charters (Part I)

U1-1

Global Trends of Cultural Heritage Protection and International Charters (Part II)

U1-2

Sep. 1

Sep. 10Gamini Wijesuriya(ICCROM)

Sep.1

Sep. 10INABA Nobuko(University of Tsukuba)

Unit 2: Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan
Cultural Properties Protection System in Japan

U2-1

Live Discussion 1-2: Discussion and Q&A Session (14:00-17:00)

Sep.3-4

Gamini Wijesuriya(ICCROM)
INABA Nobuko(University of Tsukuba)

Unit 3: Research and Documentation of Archaeological Sites
Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites I

U3-1

Sep.5

Sep.17

HAYASHI Masanori (NNRICP)

Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites II–Typology, Stratigraphy, and Dating–

U3-2

Sep.5

Sep.17SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)

Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites III (3D Documentation) Part I

U3-3

Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites III (3D Documentation) Part II

U3-4

Sep.5

Sep.17YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(NNRICP)

Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites III (3D Documentation) Part III

U3-5

Live Discussion 3: Q&A Session (14:00-17:20)

Sep.10HAYASHI Masanori
SHODA Shinya
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(NNRICP)

Unit 4: Research and Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts
Registration and Storage of Artefacts

U4-1

Sep.10

Sep.24JINNO Megumi, WAKASUGITomohiro (NNRICP)

Introduction to the Zooarchaeology

U4-2

Sep.10

Sep.24YAMAZAKI Takeshi(NNRICP)

Biomolecular Archaeology

U4-3

Sep.10

Sep.24SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)

Live Discussion 4: Q&A Session (14:00-17:30)

Sep.14

Environment Control for Storage of Archaeological Artefacts

U4-4

Basic Knowledge of Cultural Properties Photography

U4-5

Types of Image Format: RAW, TIFF, JPEG

U4-6

Photography Techniques for Archaeological Sites

U4-7

Basic Lighting Setups

U4-8

How to Build a Photography Set for 3D Objects

U4-9

Photography Techniques for 3D Objects

U4-10

Photography Techniques for Flat Objects

U4-11

JINO Megumi
WAKASUGI Tomohiro
YAMAZAKI Takeshi
SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)

Sep.10

Sep.24

WAKIYA Soichiro (NNRICP)

Sep.10

Sep.24NAKAMURA Ichiro,
KURIYAMA Masao(NNRICP)Live Discussion 5: Demonstration and Q&A Session (14:00-17:10)

Sep.17

WAKIYA Soichiro
NAKAMURA Ichiro(NNRICP)

Unit 5: Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage
Preservation and Improvement of Historic Sites in Japan (Part I)

U5-1

Preservation and Improvement of Historic Sites in Japan (Part II)

U5-2

Heritage Impact Asessment

U5-3

Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage (Global perspective) Part I

U5-4

Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage (Global perspective) Part II

U5-5

Live Discussion 6: Q&A Session (14:00-15:00)

Sep.17

Sep.30NAKAI Masatsugu(ACA)

Sep.17

Sep.30NISHI Kazuhiko (TNRICP)

Sep.17

Sep.30Joseph King(ICCROM)

Sep.22NISHI Kazuhiko (TNRICP)
Joseph King (ICCROM)

Live Session: Closing Ceremony (17:00-17:30)

Sep.22

ACCU, ACA, ICCROM

Live Session: Free Session for Participants (14:00-16:00)

Sep.28

ACCU

Lecture and Q&A Session (15:00-17:00)

Submission of Final Report & Course Evaluation

Sep.30

ACA: Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan ICCROM: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
TNRICP: Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties NNRICP: Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

10

ACCU

4. Objectives
The objectives of the training course are to provide participants with- knowledge of the principles and methodologies for cultural heritage protection;- knowledge of skills-based techniques for the documentation and analysis of archaeological sites;- knowledge of skills-based techniques for the preservation and management of archaeological sites;-	opportunities to share their knowledge of heritage protection based on their professional experiences in the field
and to build heritage protection networks in the region.
5. Course Curriculum
Units:
The course of this year was divided into five interconnected units. It included lecture videos, interactive Q&A
sessions and discussions, and introduction video of archaeological sites in Nara, Japan (Please refer to the course
schedule).
1. Current Issues and Global Perspectives on Cultural Heritage Protection
2. Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan
3. Research and Documentation of Archaeological Sites
4. Research and Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts
5. Management and Utilisation of Archaeological Sites
Contents and Schedule:
The course was carried out for four weeks and was divided into five units, each lasting from five to ten days. Each
unit was led by several lecturers; the Q&A session/a unit was held on Zoom for an hour.
Online Platform (ACCU iPAGE):
The training course used two platforms ‘L-step’ and ‘SMARTSTREAM’, provided by NTT Smart Connect
Company. ‘L-step’ is an e-Learning system and ‘SMARTSTREAM’ is a site for watching video files. We named
the e-Learning as ‘ACCU iPAGE’. ‘iPAGE’ platform has multiple uses, including a chat function ‘Talkboard’,
assignment submission function ‘Check-point report’, a reference material upload and download feature ‘Library’,and an information transmitting function ‘News’. In addition, there is a function to display the progress level on thehome screen, allowing participants to check the tasks at a glance. This year, ‘Talkboard’ function was actively used
for exchanging opinions among participants and for asking the questions to the lecturers.
During the one-month training period, a total of 24 lecture videos, or 10.4 hours of content, was streamed. The
participants submitted questions for each unit beforehand and the lecturers answered them during the online sessions.

Examples of pages from ACCU e-Learning site ‘iPAGE’

11

Digital Environment Requirements for online Learning
Operating System and Browser
Windows 8.1, 10Internet Explorer 11.0; Microsoft Edge (Windows 10 only);
FireFox (latest version); Chrome (latest version)

Mac OS X

Safari (latest version)iPad, iPhone iOS 10 or greater

Safari (latest version)

Android 5.0 or greater

Chrome (latest version)

Other requirements
CPU (Central Processing Unit)

Celeron 1 GHz or greater, Core Duo 1.66 GHz or greater,or other CPU comparable to these in performance

Internet connection speed

For upload: 512 kbps or greater
For download: 256 kbps or greater

6. ParticipantsAnnouncement and Response
The training course was offered to participants from the following 42 signatory countries to the UNESCO World
Heritage Convention from Asia and the Pacific:
Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,
Republic of Korea, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.
The course announcement was published on the ICCROM and ACCU Nara Office websites in April 2021. By theclosing date 20 June 2021, we received 24 applications from 13 different countries. The number of applications
decreased and made only one-third of the number of applicants attending the course in Japan before the Covid-19.
Selection of Participants
The group training course is targeted toward participants who:(1)	are young heritage professionals with 5-7 years’ working experience in the preservation of archaeologicalsites and are willing to make an effective use of the outcome of the training;(2) have a good command of English to follow the lectures and write reports in English;(3) are able to participate in the entire programme;(4) are able to submit all required documents listed below within the defined deadline;(5) are willing to continue interaction and professional exchanges with the ACCU after the training course;(6)	have not previously participated in any ACCU group training course including online course under the themeof ‘archaeology’;(7) are able to organise a digital learning environment.
The documents necessary for application were as follows:(1) Application form (designated format)(2) Letter of recommendation from the institution of the applicant (designated format)(3) Short paper (2 pages)
			 This paper should be written by the applicant and describe the following:		 - reasons for application;
		 - a brief summary of the applicant’s work related to the preservation of archaeological sites;		 - future plans to utilise and develop the learning outcome in the applicant’s country.

12(4) Certificate of English proficiency(5) The letter of recommendation from NATCOM:
			 *It was required before 2020, but due to the pandemic situation, the letter of recommendation from NATCOM
is not necessary until the course is held online.
All Applicants (24 from 13 countries)
GenderRegionCentral Asia,1,
4%

Female,12,50%

Male,12,50%East Asia,2,8%South East Asia,5,21%Training information source
Other,1
NATCOM,1
4%
4%
ACCU,2
8%
Colleague/friend,313%West Asia,6,25%South Asia,10,42%

Affiliatedinstitution,1146%

ICCROM,625%*ACCU/ICCROM: Websites
NATCOM: National Commission for UNESCOACCU screened and made a preliminary selection of candidates and then shared/consulted them with ICCROM.
After ICCROM announced the information of evaluated applicants, we worked together to select 15 applicants from
11 different countries. ACCU conducted not only screening of documents but also confirmed the English proficiency
by a phone call. In early July, ACCU notified the successful candidates and respective NATCOMs.
The final group of participants consisted of:- 12 participants from 8 different countries: Southeast Asia-3, South Asia-7 and the Pacific-2 (refer to Appendix).
-	6 participants had backgrounds in archaeology and worked on restoration sites. 2 participants were working in
the architecture field. Other’s backgrounds include anthropology, geography and engineering.
-	8 of the participants worked for central government, 3 were from NGOs/NPOs and 1 was from university /research institute.
- The youngest participant was 25 years old, the oldest 46. The average age was 36.1.
- There were 5 male and 7 female participants.
Training Participants
GenderRegionFemale,7,58%

Pacific,2,
17% South East Asia,3,25%Male,5,42%

South Asia,7,58%

Affiliated institution
University/research
institute,1,8%

NPO/NGO,3,
25%

Years of experience
Less than 4 years,1,
8%

Central government,8,67%

11 years or more,5,42%8-10 years,
1,8%5-7 years,5,42%

13

South Asia,7,58%

Affiliated institution
University/research
institute,1,8%

NPO/NGO,3,
25%

Years of experience
Less than 4 years,1,
8%

11 years or more,5,42%Central government,8,67%

5-7 years,5,42%

8-10 years,
1,8%Major at university(graduate school)

Chemical Engineering,1,8%

Civil Engineering,1,8%Geography,1,8%Anthropology,1,
9%Archaeology,6,50%

Architecture,2,
17%

Certificate of Completion
12 participants submitted a final report/evaluation form by the deadline (30 Sep.) and were awarded a certificate
upon completion of the course. This year, three participants were unable to complete the course due to the civil
unrest in the country, Covid-19 infection, and insufficient participation.
7. The role of the participants during the course
English is the working language throughout the course and participants need English proficiency. During the course
period, each participant is required to make 13 check-point reports, pass a final test and submit an evaluation formby the scheduled deadline.
Check-point report
Submitting check-point reports which included answering the questions from each lecturer was necessary to let theparticipants deepen their understanding of the lectures after watching the videos.
Final Test Format
Name

Country

1. Long-term and short-term action plans developed from the training outcomes.
(What you have to do, what you want to do, what you can do)
2. Possible solutions for the challenges mentioned in the country report (other than lack of budget and humanresources).

148. Secretariat
ACCU Nara Office
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director of Programme Operation Department was responsible for the overall course
planning and arrangement. SUZUKI Sonoko, Chief of International Cooperation, HIRAYAMA Naoto and
YOSHIDA Machi, staff of International Cooperation Division were responsible for disseminating the course
information and making the training materials. AOKI Aya, project staff, was in charge of liaising among theparticipants and the moderator for the live sessions. HATA Chiyako was Japanese and English interpreter on live
discussions. The Planning Coordination Division also assisted the course.
ICCROM
Joseph King, Director of Partnership and Communication, Valerie Mager, Unit Manager, Programmes, and IKAWA
Hirofumi, Projector Manager, Programmes Unit, assisted ACCU with selection of participants. Additionally,
Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM Special Adviser, gave opening message, lecture videos and an interactive session at
the beginning of the course. Mr King kindly attended the closing ceremony and also gave lecture videos and led
interactive Q &A session on the final day of the course.

15

2. Course Summary
This year, the entire curriculum was hosted online. The procedure of conducting the lectures was as follows.
1. Participants viewed pre-recorded lecture videos on iPAGE (ACCU e-Learning website) and sent questions to thelecturers through the course platform.
2. Two-way Q&A sessions were conducted with the lecturers through Zoom, and opinions were shared in real time.
3. Participants submitted check-point reports after each lecture.
4. Participants submitted final report and written evaluation by the end of the course.
Based on the survey conducted last year, we made the following improvements:• Set up more Q&A sessions and real-time discussions, where participants could talk with all the lecturers face toface (total of 17 hours this year compared to only 4 hours in the previous year)• Implemented a chat system called ‘Talkboard,’ which allowed to share the posts and data such as pictures andother resources on cultural properties. Throughout the course, there were more than 100 posts on Talkboard
including questions, and information exchanges.
16 August: Orientation
The training materials were distributed from August 16, about two weeks before the start of the course. The handouts
contained the information on the training schedule, participants’ list, lecturers’ list, Final Report format, video
messages from the organisers, and an orientation video. In the orientation video, we introduced the framework of the
ACCU, the purpose of the training, how to take the online course, and the required submissions. Additionally, we set
up a face-to-face meeting for the participants on 20 September, to check the Internet environment and some othertechnical matters.

Orientation video on the ACCU programme

ACCU e-Learning platform

16

Introduction of ACCU

1 September: Opening Ceremony
Morimoto Susumu, Director of ACCU Nara, Toyoki Hiroyuki, Councillor of Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japanese
government, and Gamini Wijesuriya, Special Adviser of ICCROM opened the training course by delirering welcome
speeches to the 12 participants.

MORIMOTO Susumu (ACCU Nara)TOYOKI Hiroyuki (Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan)

Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM)
Welcoming Addresses from Organisers

1-4 September■Unit 1: Current Issues and Global Perspectives on Preservation of Archaeological Sites
Video Lectures: ‘Global Trends of Cultural Heritage Protection and International Charters’
Lecturer: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM)
In the first Unit of the course, Dr Wijesuriya introduced two video lectures. The first video described how theapproaches to Heritage Management have changed throughout history, with a particular focus on current trends andprinciples. The second video related to the management of the archaeological sites and introduced the diverse values
and characteristics of the sites, and the factors the archaeologists need to consider to return the heritage benefits tothe societies.

17■Unit 2: Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan
Video Lecture: ‘Cultural Properties Protection System in Japan’
Lecturer: INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba)
The lecture introduced the legal background of cultural heritage protection in Japan. Dr Inaba explained how theJapanese system has developed following the changes of the society and the demand of the people. The video
presentation also illustrated the categories of cultural properties and the approaches to each of them. The participantsalso learned how these approaches had been implemented into the heritage protection system. At the end of thelecture, Dr Inaba presented the most recent trends and the situation that Japan has reached in the cultural properties
protection system. It was particularly useful information for the participants as they could compare Japaneseapproaches to the ones in their own countries.

3 September
Live Discussion 1 (14:00 – 16:00 JST)
Lecturers: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM) and INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba)
Mr Morimoto, Director of ACCU Nara, opened the session and introduced the lecturers. Subsequently, Dr Gamini
Wijesuriya and Dr Inaba Nobuko led the Q&A Sessions. Following short self-introductions of the participants,
Dr Wijesuriya briefly explained about the organisation and visions of ACCU and ICCROM, and the contents ofGroup Training Course. Dr Inaba remembered how she and Dr Wijesuriya had built up the Group Training Coursewith ACCU and ICCROM in 1999. Both lecturers expressed their regret that due to this year’s restrictions, theparticipants could not personally attend the course in Nara.
Next, Q&A session for Unit 1 and Unit 2 was held. The participants first watched the lecture videos of that day andprepared the questions they wanted to ask the lecturers. The transcription of some of the main questions is given
below.
(Questions to Dr Wijesuriya)
Q: How can we find a balance between Tangible & Intangible aspects of Heritage Sites, especially Living Heritage
Sites with focus on the quote ‘Your Monument Our Shrine’ or in many cases ‘Our Homes’.
A: Tangible and intangible heritages are different but inseparable values and conservation decisions must be basedon the assessment of all these values. There is no universal recipe as such, however the decisions on which tangible
or intangible values to retain and put forward must be made collectively.
Q: How much reconstruction should be considered for partial ruins, especially war ruins, as the destruction is also
a key part of their historic fabric?
A: Historic fabric is important, but at the same time, there are other values to the societies, which are beyond thelimits of fabrics. Sometimes we need to keep these damaged things so that visitors can see the trusties. You needto discuss what the value you would like to keep. We can offer proper technical viewpoints or so, but each case it
universal and you need to discuss internally and agree with each other eventually.
Q: Could you kindly elaborate on the concept of reburial technique and where would the same be feasible. I would
like to know where these techniques are applied, and the reason why this is ideal.
A: It is a well established system for various reasons but it is not ideal. There have been various reasons you have18

to rebury them, such as potential research in the future, to avoid dangers, etc. There are also many issues for the
reburials. There are regulations such as using same soils, monitoring resistivities to physical and biological decay,
the difference between low and high temperature, maintenance fee, etc. You need to decide whether the burials
should be permanent or tentative based on each item.
(Questions to Dr Inaba)
Q: Could you elaborate on the concept of Natural Heritage as Cultural Heritage and difference between the sameand conventional nature conservation?
A: Currently, the priority of nature conservation is how to save the species and nature, in general, from deterioration.
However, we also need to talk about the advantage of having natural and cultural heritage linked with each other.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th-century people started to realise the importance of nature in their
history, culture, including literature, religion and customs. Now nature conservation is separated from people,
but linking nature and culture helps to understand how human beings lived with nature. Thinking about nature
conservation through the lenses of culture is also important for sustainable development. In Japan natural heritage
stays in the cultural heritage department until now and these two sectors are closely interlinked.
Q: Could you elaborate the fundamentals of residential heritage and how could one find a balance between
conserving heritage and allowing development and improved livelihood of local residents?
A: This is the core point of how to develop the residential heritages. In Japan, the conservation of residential heritage
started in 1960s’. There are two points which are important: 1. legal structure / appropriate organisation to deal withthe day-to-day management without going until the top authority. 2. resident groups: it is crucial to let the residents
decide for themselves. Heritage experts should facilitate and help them think a little more about the heritage aspects
and conservation. Residential heritage conservation does not mean freezing things. How much material conservation
can be accepted depends on the day-to-day negotiations between you and residents.
Q: In a scenario where a cultural heritage, for example a market place/or not so significant part of a historic
district, comes in way of development, how is the decision making done? Also, with reference to the preservation
district system, are there times when a conflict of interest arises? If yes, then how is it resolved?
A: A market place is in a cultural landscape category, and the decision making is done by a mayor, but he or sheneeds to listen to the resident people’s opinions. Then the discussions among the resident people and municipal
officers start, and it takes a long time for the final decisions. For market places, there are many choices: complete
reconstruction respecting the original atmosphere, material preservation, etc., Basic regulations and conservation
management plans are made by the municipalities listening to the residents’ needs and according to theirpermissions. Central government professionals are backups and only intervene if the local municipalities cannot deal
with certain issues.

All participants with Dr Wijesuriya (3rd row from top, 2nd from left) and Dr Inaba (right end of the top row)19

4 September
Live Discussion 2 (14:00 -17:00 JST)
Lecturers: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM) and INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba)
The session on Day 2 started with the opinions and questions from the lecturers to the participants. The conversation
was based on the Country Reports that each participant had submitted beforehand. The main points of discussion
derived from the Country Reports were related to climate change, legislation, community development and capacity
building.
General Discussion-Climate change
The impacts of climate change on cultural heritage have been a major issue all over the world. As all the participantsof the training course represent Asia Pacific countries, the current situation from the region has been highlighted.
For example, Sarah Phear from New Zealand noted that since the country is surrounded by the sea, she has beeninterested in the discussions related to water, such as coastal erosion, inundation, high tides, which cause the coastal
sites to degrade at a higher pace. The archaeologists are trying to develop strategies for managing and monitoring thesites and decide whether or not to excavate before they can be totally destroyed. Also, Shahin Alam from Bangladesh
shared the country’s state, reporting that they face salinity problems in the coastal area due to climate change.
Deterioration of mechanical, chemical, biological matters had occurred. The specialists cannot calculate the levels of
deterioration precisely due to the lack of access to modern technical equipment although are planning to get funding
for the subsequent budgets.
-Legislation and Inventory
Dr Inaba mentioned that according to the Country Reports, there were issues related to the lack of heritage catalogs,
mapping, and inventory data. Emphasising the importance of inventory in cultural heritage management, Dr Inaba asked
two questions to the participants.
-Who is the most suitable person for doing the inventory in your country?
-Who is capable of undertaking these activities in the local areas?
Related to the questions, Dr Inaba introduced the case of Japan. In Japan, the central government asks the local
governments to map cultural resources. Local government hires school teachers for doing this job. It is a collaboration
work among local authorities, cultural heritage officers, and the school teachers. ‘In either way, we need to notice how
important it is to manage and protect heritages not only from central government but from the multiple layers of people,’commented Dr Wijesuriya.
Ugyen Dorji from Bhutan raised the topic of decentralisation for collecting data and mapping. Jiten Desai and Mauli
Mishra from India and Sarah Phear from New Zealand also shared their opinions on the ways of managing culturalproperties in countries which are too big to be controlled only by the central government.
- Community Development and Capacity Building
Dr Wijesuriya’s view
We need to understand the importance of multi-layered heritage management, from international organisations to central
governments, institutes, practitioners, and communities. Of course, the heritage organisations’ activities aim to serve theheritage sectors in general, but these activities are not limited to site nominations and monitoring. The world has shownthat training and capacity-building programs play a significant role in the sustainable conservation and managementof heritage. Capacities reside in three main actors that can contribute to the protection of sites to heritage conservationin different levels and ways. These are institutions (policy and decision-makers at the highest level), practitioners likeourselves, and communities and networks. Several relevant documents on how to expand the notion of building capacities
are publicly available from World Heritage websites. However, capacity building is not only teaching and training thecommunities. We, practitioners, also learn a lot from them in exchange. What is important in this process, therefore, is toempower the communities and increase their ability to engage with heritage specialists and policymakers so that we allcollectively make an effort. Such multi-layer approaches are especially vital in big countries like India, for example.

20

As an example of successful cultural heritage management, Ugyen Dorji from Bhutan shared a programme called
Stewardship Plan, which started with the people in the local community and aimed to utilise the cultural property in asmall traditional village Punakha Dzongkhag. In the framework of the programme, the traditional house had been restored
for adaptive use as a restaurant that the local people could run. The purpose of this programme was to rejuvenate thecommunity and its economic resilience while also maintaining the unique architectural piece, its history, and the cultural
practices.
Dr Inaba’s Information (cultural resource map in Japan)
For the town conservation, the organisation asks elementary school children to walk around the town and select the mostimportant and interesting things for them. Sometimes elderly people are also asked to do the same. These activities often
have positive results. Asking schools to do such activities can be effective in other countries, too.
In the end, the lecturers asked questions and made comments on each participant’s Country Report, which concluded thesession. Mr Morimoto, Director of ACCU Nara, thanked Dr Wijesuriya and Dr Inaba for their contributions and closed thesession.

Questions and comments from the lecturers on each participant’s Country Report

5–17 September■Unit 3: Research and Documentation of Archaeological Sites
Video Lecture: ‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites I’
HAYASHI Masanori (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (hereinafter NNRICP))In this lecture on the process of archaeological excavation and methods of recording in Japan, the detailed explanations andphotographs for each step were shared. It was also noted that nearly all excavations in Japan are conducted ‘in conjunction
with development’, so it is necessary to make detailed records as the remains will completely vanish with development.

Video Lecture: ‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites II–Typology, Stratigraphy, and Dating–’
Lecturer: SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)In order to survey archaeological sites, there is a method to date by observing its stratigraphy and artefacts besides the21method of physicochemical dating. The lecturer introduced the method which can determine the dates of the artefacts
by the principles of superposition, cross-cutting relationships, and some other factors related to the soil layers witharchaeological artefacts as well as a typology which is the result of artefacts classifications according to the forms,
techniques, and decoration. The participants also had the opportunity to take a look at the actual cases through photos.
They learned how to compare the regions and comprehend the changes in lifestyles.

Video Lecture: ‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites III (3D modelling by SfM)’
Lecturer: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (NNRICP)
Regarding 3D recording using SfM-MVS (structure-from-motion, multi-view-stereo) techniques for surveys ofarchaeological sites, the methods of photographing, the equipment to be used, and its utilisations were explained in thefirst half of the lecture. The second half of the lecture was a practical session, with participants downloading free software
based on the lecturer’s instructions and making 3D images with photographic data supplied for the session.

10 September
Live Discussion 3 (14:00 – 17:20)
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi, SHODA Shinya and HAYASHI Masanori (NNRICP)This session was held at Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP). NNRICP was establishedin 1952 and is a national institute in charge of comprehensive research of cultural heritages. The institute specialise inarchaeology, and the outcome of their research is exhibited and disseminated in museums. It is also in charge of providing
training programmes for the experts and carrying out the advisory procedures for the various archaeological sites both inJapan and overseas. We had three lectures by three researchers from this institute.
‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites III (3D modelling by SfM)’
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (NNRICP)Dr Yamaguchi introduced three devices, used for documentation and recording purposes: a handy box with LED lights
with a turn table, a 3D laser scanner, a LiDAR, which is a movable 3D laser scanner equipped with a camera and GPS. He
also showed the participants the replicas of wooden tablets (ancient artefacts in Japan), which were created based on thedata obtained by SfM-MVS. The participants were interested in these latest devices and asked quite a few questions on
how to utilise them in their field.

22

Handy box with LED lights and turn table3D laser scanner

LiDAR

Replicas of wooden tablets (ancient artefacts in Japan), which are made based on the data obtained by SfM-MVS(From left to right) Ghilman Assilmi (Indonesia), Dr Yamaguchi, and Mauli Mishra (India)‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites II–Typology, Stratigraphy, and Dating–’
SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)
After Dr Shoda introduced himself, he asked about the current situation in each of the participant’s countries. He also
encouraged them to ask questions on his lecture video. Participants were particularly interested in dating methods ofdifferent kinds of material, the types of equipment used in Japan, and so on. Furthermore, Dr Shoda asked the participants
to share how the excavation is decided to take place in their countries—through the plan by academic archaeologists or
through the process of construction plans by the private companies. In case of Japan, it is more likely to be the latter way, it
is usually constructing companies that create an opportunity for excavation. The conversation showed that the procedures
vary from country to country.

23

Dr Shoda (left) and Md. Shahin Alam from Bangladesh (right)‘Survey and Excavation Methods for Archaeological Sites I’
HAYASHI Masanori (NNRICP)First, Mr Hayashi highlighted the importance of proper management of excavation, which includes negotiations withowners and government authorities, issuing budgets, etc. He also introduced the manuals created by the institute in order tocompare the results. The participants could take a look at the parts of the manual so that they could refer to the proceduresin their countries. Mr Hayashi also covered the questions on financing the excavation works in Japan. He explained thatthe excavation expenses in Japan are usually paid by the private or governmental bodies who are doing the infrastructure
works, such as road construction, or building a shopping mall. Though Japan has the law for the protection of the culturalproperty, it does not clearly indicate who is responsible for financing archaeological works. So repeated negotiations canhappen, sometimes even ending up in court.
Furthermore, the participants asked questions about dendrochronology, the use of drone cameras, and the flow of the
excavation procedures with special focus on the responsibilities of an archaeologist on and off the site. Mr Hayashi
answered that dendrochronology could be used for dating, sharing both its benefits and demerits. About drone cameras,
he shared that they had been used for some surveys in Japan since the cost had dropped these days. Regarding facilitating
the archaeologists, Mr Hayashi noted that, in Japan, archaeologists work both on and off site, depending on the fragilityof the artefacts. Japan has private excavation companies to do the work, but the local government intervenes when they
are not able to perform the works accordingly. Mr Hayashi closed the session by encouraging the participants to share
their experiences on overcoming the difficulties mentioned above. He also expressed hope that they would keep the basic
principles in mind and choose appropriate methods in case of facing challenges not experienced before.

Mr Hayashi (left) and Davangi Pathak (India)

10–24 September■Unit 4: Research and Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts
Video Lecture: ‘Registration and Storage of Artefacts’24Lecturers: JINNO Megumi and WAKASUGI Tomohiro (NNRICP)The process of repairing artefacts was illustrated with photographs and explanations, starting from their removal fromthe site, followed by washing, documenting, registering, and storing. In particular, a detailed demonstration video wasintroduced regarding the making of scale drawings as a method of documentation.

Video Lecture: ‘Introduction to the Zooarchaeology’
Lecturer: YAMAZAKI Takeshi (NNRICP)
Zooarchaeology is the study of faunal remains excavated from archaeological sites. These faunal remains include not
only mammals but also fish, shells, birds and some other various animals, which enable us to restore the lifestyle ofancient people. For example, the kinds of food they ate, how they were cooked by what kind of tools, and further surveys
can even teach us what was the weather like and what kind of lifestyle people led at that time. This lecture showed how
archaeologists should record and survey the faunal remains and also shared the variety of possible findings that the
information could make. The lecturer had also created the English version of “Handbook for Survey of Zooarchaeology,”
which was distributed to the participants.

Video Lecture: ‘Biomolecular Archaeology’
Lecturer: SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)In this lecture, Dr Shoda introduced the concept of biomolecular archaeology, and shared three case reports of analysis aspractical examples. Biomolecular archaeology is the study of DNA, protein, carbohydrates, and lipids, which are foundon the archaeological artefacts, and which help to restore the lifestyle of that time. The lecturer also overviewed 1) pottery

25lipid residue analysis, 2) stable isotope analysis of bone collagen, 3) proteomics of organic remains. As for 3), which is
the research subject of the lecturer himself, the methodology to restore the diet back in those times through the analysis oflipid adhering to potteries had been presented. Based on his own research outcomes, Dr Shoda also shared the practicalmethods of survey such as sampling, the analytical equipment, and the results that can be obtained through them.

Video Lecture: ‘Photographic Techniques for Archaeological Artefacts’
Lecturers: NAKAMURA Ichiro and KURIYAMA Masao (NNRICP)This lecture focused on practical demonstration of photographic techniques for excavated or museum collections
artefacts. On the examples of Asian cultural properties, the photo techniques were explained from setting up a platform toappropriate lighting for various subjects. Photographs are one of the most accurate data record on cultural heritage, and theappropriate safeguarding of that data is required. In these lectures, the necessary techniques for taking photos, the camera
functions, and methods of preserving the data were explained alongside the practical demonstrations.

Lecture by Mr Nakamura

26

Lecture by Mr Kuriyama

Lecturer: WAKIYA Soichiro (NNRICP)Video Lecture: ‘Environment Control for Storage of Archaeological Artefacts’
Providing appropriate environmental conditions for the museum or storage can reduce the risk of deterioration for
artefacts. The appropriate temperature and humidity for different types of objects were explained, and knowledge essential
for environmental monitoring was provided.

14 September
Live Discussion 4 (14:00 – 17:30 JST)
Lecturers: JINNO Megumi, WAKASUGI Tomohiro, SHODA Shinya and YAMAZAKI Takeshi
The first half of this session was delivered from a pottery and earthenware research room in NNRICP, and the last part ofthe session was streamed from the zooarchaeology laboratory.
‘Registration and Storage of Artefacts’
JINNO Megumi and WAKASUGI Tomohiro (NNRICP)
After introducing themselves, Ms Jinno and Mr Wakasugi encouraged the course participants to ask questions on the video
lectures. The participants were particularly interested in water-soluble solution called Binder and its usage, as well as theprocedures of storing the earthenware from marine sites, especially when there are soluble salts and calcium layers, which

Ms Jinno, Mr Wakasugi and Dwi Astuti (Indonesia)

27can affect metal artefacts. There was also a question about whether the missing fragments of the excavated artefacts should
be kept untouched or repaired with the newly added parts, and Ms Jinno answered that the artefacts that have missing
fragments should be restored only when they are to be exhibited to the public. “For the archaeological study, you should
not restore/reproduce the missing parts, but when you teach people or let them know the history, shape or structures of
the artefacts, restoring is one of the methods,” said Ms Jinno. Participants eagerly asked quite a few practical questions toapply to their work, so it was an active Q&A session.
‘Biomolecular Archaeology’
SHODA Shinya (NNRICP)
Prior to the Zoom session, Dwi Astuti from Indonesia posted a question on Talkboard—discussion board on the website
created for this course. So, this Zoom session started with her question to Dr Shoda. She shared the case of a giant wok
found in Yogyakarta. Based on the stories from the local communities, there were several Persians who used this kind of
wok to hold water to drain for sugar cane plantations, but afterwards, it was considered to serve as a water pump reservoir,or used for preventing soil from sinking due to pumping water from the ground. She wanted to know what this wok was
really used for through biomolecular archaeology. Dr Shoda made some assumptions to which she could refer after gettingback to work. Also, Dr Shoda asked the participants about the case study on biomolecular archaeology that they had heard
of. Each participant shared the information they knew, which made this Q&A session even more practical and interactive.

Q&A session on the case of Indonesia (left), question from Sarah Phear from New Zealand (right)(From left to right) Mauli Mishra (India), Dr Shoda, Janani Namal Seneviratne and Diveesha Rukma (Sri Lanka)‘Introduction to Zooarchaeology’
YAMAZAKI Takeshi (NNRICP)Dr Yamazaki first commented on the question related to handling unearthed fragile bones. He explained that the mostimportant thing is to take the data and precise records of measured drawings before those fragile bones got picked
up. Since the best bone condition is the time when they are excavated, archaeologists always have to remember toprioritise taking data or records before picking them up to consolidate or coat chemicals on the surface of them. Then,the participants asked Dr Yamazaki several questions, such as how to deal with the chemical to consolidate bones, whoworks on the excavated bones in Japan, and the characteristics of bones found in the river or shell middens. The lecturer
said that the bones were often excavated by the riverside because the muddy soil can pack bones excluding oxygen and28

microorganisms which degrade them. In Japan, since there are a lot of volcanos, shells also help to neutralise the soil,
and the bones can remain in relatively better condition. Dr Yamazaki closed the session after sharing the uniqueness ofzooarchaeological study, which helps us understand the seasonal aspects of the site. For example, the analysis of the
fish or animal bones can tell us the season the animal or people lived there, and this is one of the unique findings thatzooarchaeology can make.

Dr Yamazaki (up left), a Zooarchaeology laboratory (up right), and group photo of participants (bottom)

17 September
Live Discussion 5 (14:00 – 17:20 JST)
Lecturer: WAKIYA Soichiro and NAKAMURA Ichiro
The live session was held at a photo studio in Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
‘Environment Control for Storage of Archaeological Artefacts’
WAKIYA Soichiro (NNRICP)
Dr Wakiya answered the questions sent from the participants prior to the Zoom session. Most questions focused on themethods for controlling humidity in order to keep the artefacts in a good condition. “The most important parameter is
not maximum value of RH (Relative Humidity) fluctuation but the changing rate of humidity,” said Dr Wakiya. He thenrecommended to keep artefacts under RH less than 60% with moderate fluctuation to avoid the growth of mould. He also
introduced an airtight collection cases which can keep the temperature and RH stable after turning off the air conditioner
especially in the summertime in Japan. To control mould, it is desirable to store wood objects at about 55% RH. However,since the wood itself absorbs and desorbs moisture, it is not possible to confirm whether the object is really stable just bymonitoring the temperature and humidity inside the case. Therefore, it is desirable that there is little change in temperatureand humidity in the environment. Given the characteristics of wood, it is used as storage cases for artefacts to reduce RH
fluctuation, except for metals which need to be kept under low absolute humidity. Several participants asked how to deal

29

with mould or moss and prevent artefacts or the sites from deterioration. Dr Wakiya encouraged them to find out the cause
first, and then not only to terminate the mould but also the water source if that was the cause. However, as mentioned Dr
Wakiya, if the surface of the house dries up, it may cause fluctuation of moisture inside and outside of the structure andstress the wood. The lecturer noted that in such cases, we can use the special equipment which can reduce the humidity
gradually without causing big fluctuation like an air conditioner. He also answered the questions on conservation of metal
artefacts and mural paintings as well as how to display artefacts in the open-air museums and those that were excavatedfrom the sea.

(From left to right) Dr Wakiya, Jiten Desai (India), and Ugyen Dorji (Bhutan)“Photography Techniques for Archaeological Sites”
NAKAMURA Ichiro (NNRICP)In this session, Mr Nakamura answered various questions from the participants. The questions covered several topics
from basic knowledge of photography to more practical methodology such as the type of image format, lighting setups,
techniques for 3D objects and flat objects.
Regarding the photography techniques, the participants were interested in how to take photographs outside considering
the direction of the sunlight, shadows, and context surrounding the artefacts or buildings. Mr Nakamura answered bydemonstrating and explained the importance of not getting the camera faced against the sun. When the sun is behindthe photographer, the contrast will not be good. He also recommended to use lighting system if there is too much shade,especially for taking photographs of mural paintings inside the caves. For the question whether they should include ascale in a photograph or not, Mr Nakamura noted that the usage of scale is handy to know the overall size of the objects
but when the purpose for photographs of 3D object is to record the precise images, not the size, it may not be necessary.
The participants also asked about the best camera setting and its format, as well as the methods to organise documents
effectively and the utilisation of software to process images, and they seemed to be able to cultivate a better understandingof photography as the lecturer gave a demonstration on the spot.

30

Mr Nakamura answered various questions from the participants while demonstrating at a photo studio in NNRICP

17–30 September■Unit 5: Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage
Video Lecture: ‘Preservation and Improvement of Historic Sites in Japan’
Lecturer: NAKAI Masatsugu (Agency for Cultural Affairs)
The lectures provided a wide range of information on the maintenance and management of Historic Sites in Japan. Basedon Japanese case studies and centering particularly on Historic Site management, the methods and goals of site preparation,and the organisation of relations among persons involved in management following preparation, and approaches to local
residents, were illustrated.

Video Lecture: ‘Heritage Impact Assessment’
Lecturer: NISHI Kazuhiko (Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (hereinafter TNRICP))
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been an important theme for conservation of cultural properties, including world
heritage sites, and it is indispensable for heritage management. The lecturer explained why HIA had been necessary,noting the new types of heritage and development pressure as a background factor. He also mentioned that HIA had been
incorporated into the legal system of the World Heritage and introduced Operational Guidelines for the Implementationof the World Heritage Convention and Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment published by ICOMOS in 2011.

31

Furthermore, the lecturer talked about the challenges that had come up and how he dealt with them while working on theactual case of world heritage in Japan (Okinoshima Islands in Fukuoka prefecture).

Video Lecture: ‘Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage (Global perspective) Part I’
Lecturer: Joseph King (ICCROM)
The lectures covered two major topics. In the first presentation, Mr King introduced the mission and activities of
ICCROM— International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, created in 1956
and located in Rome. From this lecture, the participants learned the framework and structure, as well as the main areas,
aims, and missions of ICCROM. Mr King also shared the information on training courses, capacity building, and flagshipprogrammes that ICCROM provides for all its 137 member states. Next, Mr King talked about three flagship programsof ICCROM in more detail and introduced the activities and courses aimed at heritage conservation and capacity building
under each program. First, he pointed out First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis (FAR).
Another flagship program was World Heritage Leadership Program. This program is aimed at improving conservationand management for cultural and natural heritage through World Heritage Convention, as well as at creating interlinkages
between the cultural and natural heritage sites to better contribute to sustainable development processes. In regards tothis, Mr King shared some information on courses that ICCROM has launched, including the course on Nature-culture
Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia-Pacific, at Tsukuba University, Japan. World Heritage Leadership Program
also includes the creation of knowledge framework by providing manuals and guidebooks related to various issues. The
third flagship program is ATHAR—Conservation and Management of archaeological and architectural heritage in the
Arab Region. Before closing the first presentation, Mr King highlighted projects that ICCROM has launched recently, in
response to the global pandemic. These are ICCROM Lecture Series which include the online webinars carried out in 2020
and 2021, recordings of which can be found and accessed through the ICCROM website. For someone seeking printed
publications, ICCROM library has a vast collection of heritage-related literature. The library has also a delivery service,
which proved to be very beneficial during the pandemic and lockdowns.

Video Lecture: ‘Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage (Global perspective) Part II’
Mr King’s second lecture focused on two main topics: 1. People-Centred Approaches to Conservation, and 2. Heritage32

Impact Assessment (HIA).
1. People Centered Approaches to Heritage Conservation
Under this topic, the lecturer talked about the paradigm shifts from material-based approaches to human-based approaches
in heritage conservation, and addressed the changing attitudes from the care of heritage to care of society and heritage.
It has only been recently that heritage experts and international organisations started highlighting the importance of
involving people in each step of the decision-making process because this is how we achieve sustainable and long-term
conservation. But what role do people play in heritage conservation and how can it be beneficial for either heritage orthem? Mr King explained that local people can help heritage experts to better understand the meaning and values of theplace — why the sites are important and why they should be conserved. The values of the very same heritage may bedifferent for the different groups of the people (good examples are post-colonial heritages), therefore bringing a wide rangeof stakeholders around the table helps all these values to be defined, put forward and ultimately conserved. Moreover,communities can become site managers, and deal with governance, planning, as well as maintenance and monitoring. On
the other hand, people-centred heritage management brings benefits to the local community as well, by fostering senses
of belonging and ownership, by providing economic returns, leisure, employment and education opportunities. Mr King
also highlighted that people-centred approaches are also beneficial for us, heritage specialists, as we get access to theirtraditional knowledge, local traditions and can learn a lot from them. Lastly, the heritage itself benefits the most. Placing
the people in the centre of conservation helps the heritage to be better understood, preserved, cared, and appreciated.
2. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
Mr King first explained why the impact assessment for cultural heritage sites is needed. He noted that the unprecedented
growth in urban areas and the pressure that is coming from infrastructure programs and even tourism may pose therisk to cultural heritage. HIA, therefore, is a “process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and communicating theprobable effects of a current or proposed development policy or action on the cultural life, institutions and resourcesof communities.” What can be the subjects of impact assessment? Both individual projects and development policies,
including long-term plans, can be assessed. Mr King noted that the idea is not only to gather the information but to actually
make decisions on how to avoid the possible negative impacts on heritage. The key questions to ask are: what does the
project foresee, how big is it, how will the proposal affect the heritage around it, etc. By highlighting both negative andpositive impacts, we can decide whether or not these impacts can be acceptable.
Two last areas that Mr King briefly highlighted by the end of the lecture were the issues related to 1. Interlinkages between
cultural and natural heritage, which as the lecturer pointed out, have never been divided locally but the division between
the two has always existed at national and international levels until about 5-6 years ago when the experts from both fields
started to stress the need for collaboration. This practice has been very successful so far because it puts forward all thelayers of heritage sites and helps in better management and conservation.
The second topic was disaster risk management for cultural heritage. Mr King noted that while DRM has covered thedisasters caused by natural hazards, recently man-made hazards (war, terrorism) have had a huge impact on the wellbeingof heritage. Another issue that has emerged quite recently is related to global pandemics, something that has never been
anticipated or included in DRM. Lastly, it is climate change and its impacts on cultural heritage that needs to be put
forward and analysed to ensure that we can mitigate the problems before they happen and find ways to deal with thechallenges that climate change may bring.

33

22 September
Live Discussion 6 (14:00 – 17:00 JST)
Lecturers: NISHI Kazuhiko (TNRICP) and Joseph King (ICCROM)
This final real-time group discussion through Zoom was hosted from ACCU office building.
‘Heritage Impact Assessment’
NISHI Kazuhiko (TNRICP)
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has become a popular trend in the conservation and protection of archaeologicalsites or artefacts these days. However, in order to avoid HIA becoming a hindrance to economic and urban development,
we need to be careful in planning and implementing it. In Japan, there are guidelines and rules for HIA, but they are notnecessarily connected to the legal basis. After giving a quick overview of HIA, Mr Nishi asked the participants how theircountries deal with HIA. The participants from Australia and New Zealand noted that HIA is a legislative requirement intheir countries, to which Mr Nishi responded that in Japan, for instance, there are guidelines for HIA, but they have notbeen legally authorized. In contrast, environment assessment had been secured for around 20 years. He also mentioned
the issue of timing in conducting HIA because the development plans do not include HIA until the last minute, when
making any changes might be impossible. Participants from New Zealand and Bhutan shared the similar stories. Opinions
were also exchanged on the importance of public participation and the relationship between the management and HIA
processes. Mr Nishi wrapped up the session with the hope of having more consensus among the people concerned as well
as standardised guidelines in the next couple of years to come.

(From left to right) Mr Nishi, Matilda Finley Steelcliff (Australia), Sarah Phear (New Zealand) and Md. Shahin Alam (Bangladesh)‘Conservation and Utilisation of Cultural Heritage (Global perspective)’
Joseph King (ICCROM)
In the discussion session participants raised several questions and topics which can be summarised as follows:
1. Living Heritage Management— how to negotiate the local and international values?
Jiten Desai from India and Sara Phear from New Zealand brought into question the management of living heritage
sites which are characterised by the ongoing use by associated communities. They were interested in knowing how toresolve the conflicts that may arise in assessing the significance of these sites, when the multiple values and voices of the
stakeholders contradict each other.
Mr King’s response to this question was that although it has always been a relevant issue among the heritage specialists, asingle magic solution to it does not exist. All heritage sites are covered with layers of multiple values and no layer is more
valid or important than any other. Mr King stressed that in order to avoid biased approaches when doing value assessment,
it is most important to define and document all these values by involving all the interested stakeholders in the process. “Ittakes discussions, explaining and dialogues, listening and full negotiation with people and related communities to figureout how to go ahead and manage the site most effectively. Bringing all the voices together is not going to make your jobs
easier, but regardless of the time spent, endless discussions, and our hair turning grey, this needs to be done. We needto make people feel that they are being listened to and their opinions are considered” — commented Mr King. Then heshared his personal experience and a lesson learned from Kenya, where in the process of developing an urban conservation
plan for the Old Town of Mombasa, the communities had not been sufficiently consulted or communicated about the34

project. As a result, the locals started making some changes and even knocking the buildings down because they thoughtthat heritage experts would take the ownership away from them. Such experiences teach us that without dialogues andwithout bringing all the stakeholders around the discussion table the sustainable management of heritage sites cannot be
achieved.
Another participant, Mauli Mishra from India, shared her experience with building positive relationships with the local
communities in the heritage management process. She stressed that local people may have negative attitudes in the
beginning, but after gaining the trust of heritage practitioners, through dialogues which lead to finding pride in theirheritage and where they come from, their attitudes change positively.

(From left to right) Mr King, Sarah Phear (New Zealand) and Jiten Desai (India)

Other points raised during the discussion addressed the existing problems in heritage impact assessment especially forthe large-scale infrastructure projects, where the attention to heritage still remains rather limited. Matilda Finley Steelcliff
from Australia shared the case of her country: “Any assessment being done on places within Australia, its construction or
destruction-based. Meaning that its big infrastructure or mining companies that are paying for recording. My question is,
how do you fight money?”
Mr King responded that there has been a problem in the past when the companies or organisations who do HIA wereusually paid by those big companies responsible for infrastructure projects and this gave them a big control and stake indecision-making process. However, if we are talking about people-centred approaches to heritage conservation, thesecompanies are also stakeholders and their voices should also be considered. “When it comes to investment, (building
bridges, roads, etc.), the companies need to be sure of the return of their investment. Often times we (heritage experts)
do not let the investors know what the regulations are until after they have already decided to invest. The earlier we start
communicating, the less issues will emerge in the future. Strategic Impact Assessment is meant to be done much further
upfront of the project itself.” Mr King further stressed that for effective communication with large companies and also indisaster risk management, it is effective to put heritage in a position of the saver of other fields and resources rather than on
a position of something that needs to be saved.
Following several exchanges on how traditional knowledge can contribute to disaster mitigation, Mr King asked theparticipants if their countries have any experience in using heritage in response to climate change. For example, reducing
the carbon emissions by keeping the traditional, vernacular architecture alive, etc.?
In response, Jiten Desai from India shared that he has been working on the issues of how to bridge the vernacular andmodern architecture and how these correlations can be used in designing the climate sensitive buildings.
Lastly, Diveesha Rukmal from Sri Lanka asked about the preservation of cultural systems, arts, and crafts especially inrural areas, where the machinery produced objects are gradually replacing the traditional handmaking. The definite answer
to that question, as Mr King pointed out, does not exist, unfortunately. But what we can do as heritage professionals is
to bring these issues into the discussions and create the situations where these crafts can be seen and recognised by theoutside world. Also, we need to work on raising the people’s awareness on the benefits (both direct and indirect) of making
traditional, handmade crafts as compared to producing them using machinery. It is important to make the local people feelthat their heritage and their crafts are being appreciated by the outside world: “Oftentimes in order to recognise the valueof something, you need somebody coming from outside to say ‘this is valuable ” – noted Mr King.
‛

35

Concluding the session, Mr King thanked all participants for their contributions and for raising relevant topics for the
discussion, and expressed his sincere hope that next training course can be held face to face, outside the virtual world.
Closing Ceremony
Closing ceremony was held following Mr. King's lecture.
Morimoto Susumu, Director of ACCU Nara, made the closing statements of the training course and thanked the lecturers
and the related organisations, expressing the hope that the participants would continue active communication with one
another in the future.
Suzuki Fumitaka, a representative of the Agency for Cultural Affairs in Japan, also addressed the participants and gavesome comments regarding the training course.
In his closing speech Joseph King, Director of Partnership and Communication of ICCROM, talked about the active
collaboration and relationship between ICCROM and ACCU and thanked the related members and organisations. He also
congratulated the participants for their achievement in this course.
In the end, two participants, Mauli Mishra from India and Ghilman Assilmi from Indonesia made a speech.
First, Ms Mishra expressed her gratitude towards the organisers of the training course, telling how thrilled she was to be
selected as a participant and become a member of the ACCU family. She also noted that these kind of courses are very
important to expand knowledge, learn about other cultures, and to help build a better understanding on protection of ourheritage for the present and the future generations. Lastly, she cited a verse in Sanskrit, which meant, “Let all be happy,
let all be free from illness, let all see goodness, let there be no victims of sorrow. Peace Peace and Peace.” It touched thehearts of the audience, especially during this difficult time of dealing with COVID-19.
Lastly, Mr Assilmi from Indonesia made a speech. He also gave his words of gratitude to organisers of the training course,
sharing that he was sure that the knowledge and experience gained from this course would be valuable in finding better
solutions for investigation, preservation, and management of archaeological sites in all participants’ countries. He notedthat although it was unfortunate not meet each other face to face in Japan, he appreciated the fact that ACCU introduced
the culture of Nara through stories and pictures posted on Talkboard. Implementation of Talkboard was one of the
improvements from the last year, and this comment was very notable for us. Mr Assilmi closed his speech by thanking all
the participants, wishing continuous and long-lasting friendships with each other.

36

SUZUKI Fumitaka (Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan)

Joseph King (ICCROM)

Mauli Mishra (India)

Ghilman Assilmi (Indonesia)

Group photo at the closing ceremony37

3. Course Evaluation
This year, twelve participants completed the training course and submitted the course evaluation forms. The Group
Training Course 2021 was held online following the one last year, and the participants generally positively assessed
the improved points such as the amount of the video lectures, the number of interactive sessions, the newly revisedcourse announcement method, the report contents, etc. The new lectures such as ‘Zooarchaeology’, ‘BiomolecularArchaeology’, ‘3D Documentation’, etc., also got the high evaluation.
However, the participants also observed that they need practical trainings for some lectures to better understand thecontents and substantial learning materials: a set of a video and a handout (a pdf text) for each lecture. ACCU will
try to improve the points requested by the participants from now on.
1. Overall
Was the course useful?

Learning with online training
Not enough,1,
8%

Good,1,
8%

Excellent,11,
92%

Fair,4,33%

Enough,7,59%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Scope of training contents■Enough■Fair■Not enough

Depth of the course contents

Too broad,2,
17%

Too shallow,2,
17%

Just right,10,83%■Just right■Too broad■Too narrow

Just right,9,75%■Just right■Too deep■Too shallow

Too deep,1,8%

Several comments from the participants∙ It helped to fill in the gaps, sharing experiences and additional knowledges in my work.
∙ I learned a lot of important items I did not know, and shared the experiences with many countries.
∙ Off line training is better to learn since students can discuss issues easily.
∙ I learnt many new things especially on the field that I have never worked in, such as excavation, site management,
and HIA.
∙ Biomolecular archeology and Zooarcheology are new areas to study.
∙ In several sections which specifically concern technical skills, the depth of the course content is too shallow.
∙ It would have been better to go to see objects practically and experience Japanese Heritage, if the pandemic were
not there.
∙ The lecture materials are understandable since the course was held online. The knowledge is deepened at Zoom
sessions. If there were some questions, we could also ask on the ACCU e-Learning site.

38

Relevancy to work

Application to work

Fair,1,
8%
Good,3,25%

Good,2,17%

Excellent,9,75%

Excellent,9,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

∙ Most course contents are very relevant to my work and I convey some of them to my colleagues who are in chargeof their respective parts.
∙ This training course presents the challenges and solutions encountered in current research work as well as the
future in heritage conservation.
∙ It has shown me some new knowledge which I can use in the future.
Purpose of each unit

Most useful unit

Good,2,
17%

Unit 5,2,
17%

Excellent,10,
83%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Unit 4,3,
25%

Unit 1,2,
16%
Unit 2,3,
25%

Unit 3,2,
17%

Unit 1: Current Issues and Global
Perspective on Cultural Heritage
Protection
Unit 2: Cultural Heritage Protection
System in Japan
Unit 3: Research and Documentationof Archaeological Sites
Unit 4: Research and Documentationof Archaeological Artefacts
Unit 5: Conservation and Utilisationof Cultural Heritage∙ The aims of each unit have been clearly stated.
∙ I understand the contents because I could watch the videos over and over again.
∙ Personally, Units 1,2,4 & 5 are most useful. These cover the topics which I have been related to and utilise in
future though I am an architect.
∙ As an archaeologist and also artefact conservator, the course is relevant to my field
Were the Check-point reports appropriate?
Fair,1,8%

Would you recommend this course to your colleagues?

Excellent,5,42%
Good,6,50%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Yes,12,
100%

■Yes
■No
■Maybe∙ The questions in the check point reports are prepared in line with course contents.
∙ I told some of my colleagues about the training and distributed lectures related to their current work.
∙ I will recommend the course to my colleagues because it's very useful.
∙ (I would tell my colleagues that) new leanings are there with updated information.

39

Mostly, where did you log into the course from?

Average study hours per day
More than 4 hours,2,
17%

Workplace,4,33%

1h to 2h,5,42%Home,8,67%

3h to 4h,5,41%■Workplace■Home■Other■More than 4 hours■3h to 4h■1h to 2h∙ The course was very useful and informative. It has the right content to broaden our knowledge.
∙ A great course, though some of the lectures were too short. They gave enough information to create interest in the
topic and the subsequent zoom sessions helped better understanding. Overall, it was a very well-structured course,
though I wish I would be able to experience the practical training and visit the sites.
∙ It was very fun because the participants are active, the lecturer can explain the material well, and the committee isvery helpful.
∙ A very well organised course, lecture videos and high standard of teachers/lecturers.
∙ Overall, it is very good and I have learned many and new things.
2. Lecture materials (video/text/reference materials)
How was the length of a lecture video?

How well did you understand the lecture?
50-60%,1,8%70-80%,2,17%
Just right,12,100%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Video narration speed

90-100%,9,75%■90-100%■70-80%■50-60%■Too difficult

Narration intonation
Difficult to understand,1,8%
Easy to understand,2,
17%

Just right,12,100%■Just right■Too fast■Too slow

The most easy-to-understand video format

Narration,4,34%
Both,7,58%

40

Fair,9,75%

Evaluation of text materials

Good,6,50%■Narration■Subtitles■Both
Subtitles,1,8%■Easy to understand■Fair■Difficult to understandExcellent,6,50%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

■Just right■Too fast■Too slow

Just right,12,100%

The most easy-to-understand video format

Narration,4,34%

Fair,9,75%

Evaluation of text materials

Good,6,50%

Both,7,58%■Easy to understand■Fair■Difficult to understandExcellent,6,50%■Narration■Subtitles■Both■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Subtitles,1,8%∙ The length of the video is fine because the materials delivered are clear and well received.
∙ I think it’s easier to understand the video contents with English caption.
∙ It would be better if the voice was in English∙ If we don’t understand the video, we can read the caption.
∙ The material is very easy to learn and can be understood well.
∙ As I am a native English speaker it was easy for me to read the subtitles and/or listen to the interpreter. This wasan advantage for me.
∙ It would be better if we had learning materials for each unit.
3. Zoom sessions/Q&A
Number of times

Length of each Zoom session
Too long,1,8%

Just right,12,100%■Just right
■Many
■Few

Were the Zoom sessions useful?

Just right,11,92%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Lecturer’s response to Q&A

Good,1,
8%
Good,3,25%

Excellent,11,
92%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Excellent,9,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

∙ The number of zoom sessions was satisfactory and lecturers answered the participant’s questions fully.
∙ Sometimes we felt some lectures are too short because we spent too much time for discussions. But overall, there
were not session time issues.
∙ The length of a Zoom session is appropriate unless there are technical problems.
∙ Zoom sessions are very useful to study the materials and discuss with lecturers and other participants.
∙ (Session 2 Dr Yamaguchi) We have many kinds of 3D tools in my office which may not have been applied

41

optimally. From the lecturer’s explanation, I noticed that these tools can be more useful than the ways we use themfor currently.
∙ (Session 3, Ms Jinno & Mr Wakasugi) It was very interesting and attractive because they showed the artifacts andexplained about them in the zoom session. We had great discussion on artifact's restoration project and how tostore them.
∙ (Session 3, Dr Yamazaki) He stressed the importance of documenting the fragile bones before any further action
was taken. This is a very valuable suggestion for us as well as a reminder of the importance of the documentation
process.
∙ (Session 3, Dr Wakiya) The lecturer gives some very useful and analytical opinions, and advises on heritage
conservation, especially on tuff stone conservation. he reminded me of the importance of not only focusing onmaterial conservation but also controlling the environment.
∙ HIA is a new knowledge for me and I got more understanding through zoom session.
∙ While there were a couple of technical issues in one of the Zoom sessions, they were minor and a connection wasquickly made again.
4. E-Learning page
Usability

Use of ‘Talkboard’ or ‘Inquiry’
Never,1,
8%

Fair,1,8%

Often,2,17%

Easy,11,
92%

■Easy
■Fair
■Difficult

Log in issues

Sometimes,9,75%■Often■Sometimes■NeverIssues with video viewing
Sometimes,2,17%

Sometimes,4,33%
Never,8,67%

Never,10,83%■Never■Sometimes■OftenACCU support in case of problems■Never■Sometimes■OftenTechnical issues of Zoom sessions

no response:1
Never hadproblems,3,27%

Sometimes,6,50%
Yes,8,
73%

42

■Yes
■No
■Never had problems

Never,6,50%■Never■Sometimes■Often■Couldn’t use Zoom∙ The e-Learning page was easy to use.
∙ Regarding the e-Learning page, it was difficult to understand on the first day of the course, but I got used to usingit.
∙ I hadn’t had difficulties logging on to the e-Learning page.
∙ Some technical issues happened due to a power failure.
∙ I could watch the lecture videos, and open and download the text materials smoothly.
∙ I got prompt help from ACCU.
∙ The “Messages” and “Announcement” from ACCU was useful because it reminds us the schedule without our
opening the schedule or other documents.
∙ I use the talkboard as a forum for discussion with the lecturer and other participants, while I use the inquiry to ask
the lecturer some questions about things that I don’t understand.
∙ All the answers are useful. The lecturers answered all my questions.
∙ The lecturers answered my questions and solved the problems.
∙ The talkboard was a good communication tool to share the ideas. It was very helpful.
∙ The report submission after each video was very useful.
∙ I think the e-Learning page was very easy to navigate and use.
∙ It would have been more useful, if there was the function to exchange opinions freely among the participants andthe lecturers during the course.
∙ All the materials should be distributed to the participants in pdf form because some materials are not available in
the library. We can use e-Learning page only for a certain period of time.
∙ The e-Learning page was well organised and set up, I don’t know how it could be improved.
∙ If we have more practical demonstrations of the e-Learning site, it would be more helpful.
∙ It would be better if there was a display of Japan Time/Server Time on the webpage of e-Learning page.
∙ The technical issues that we have encountered so far during the zoom session were handled well by the ACCU.
5. Future training
Content requested in the training course
Unit 1,1,
Unit 2,0,0%8%
Unit 5,2,
17%
Unit 3,3,25%
Unit 4,6,
50%

Which is the most ideal course style?

Unit 1: Current Issues and Global
Perspective on Cultural Heritage
Protection
Unit 2: Cultural Heritage Protection
System in Japan
Unit 3: Research and Documentationof Archaeological Sites
Unit 4: Research and Documentationof Archaeological Artefacts
Unit 5: Conservation and Utilisationof Cultural Heritage

On-site course,5,42%
Online lectures &on-site training,7,58%■On-site course■Online course■Online lecture &on-site training

Do you think that on-site training will deepen your knowledge
acquired from the online course?
I can understand without on-site training,1,
8%
To a certain
extent,3,
25%

Yes,
8,67%

■Yes
■To a certain extent■I can understandwithout on-site training■It is easier to participate
without on-site training
in Japan.

43∙ On-Site training is very important. Online cannot replace the onsite learning.
∙ When we take the online course, we can get the theory, but the practice part may be in very small portion.
∙ Practical on-site training helps to cement ideas/methods/theories through participation.
∙ A combination of online and on-site training is ideal. As online lectures had an advantage that we could go backand study the lectures again, to better understand certain concepts. On-Site is crucial for understanding practicalconcepts and practices.
∙ Participants cannot carry out effective and practical activities during the online course. Besides that, the theory
obtained during the online course is still limited because of limited time and communication during the discussion
session. If we did face-to-face discussions, I believe it would have resulted in more effective training. Therefore,
the most ideal course style for me is on-site course.

44

II. Thematic Training Course
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Thematic Training Course for Mid-career Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2021 (Indonesia)‘Photographic Documentation of Heritage Buildings’

1. OrganisersThis course was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan (Bunkacho); the Asia-Pacific Cultural
Centre for UNESCO (ACCU); and the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties (NNRICP).
2. BackgroundIndonesia is a country comprised of many islands, where nearly 500 ethnic groups live. As each island has nurtured
its own unique culture, it has a diverse cultural heritage. Indonesia ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1989,
and saw its first registrations on the World Heritage List in 1991. First to be inscribed were the two cultural sites of
the Borobodur and Prambanan Temples, along with two natural heritage sites. These were followed by single sites in
1996, 1999, 2004, and 2012, and more recently, the coal mine in Sawarund, which is modern heritage, was listed ascultural heritage in 2019, so five cultural and four natural heritage sites have now been registered. An additional 19
heritage sites are provisionally listed.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of Indonesia aims to add the Spice Road as its 20th
item of provisional World Heritage, and is currently preparing a list of sites that will be included. To carry out thatwork, the training of technicians in inventory recording methods has become a priority.
On this occasion, in consultation with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, and in keepingwith the current situation in Indonesia, we conducted a programme targeted at mid-career personnel who are actually
involved in the protection of Indonesia’s cultural properties in the field, and provided them with training to meet theneeds of protecting the country’s cultural heritage.
This year’s training was conducted through online participation.
3. Dates and Format
Dates: October 8 (Friday) – October 21 (Thursday), 2021
Format: online participation
4. Participants
8 heritage professionals who belong to Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology and relatedorganisation (see Appendix).
5. Theme‘Photographic Documentation of Heritage Buildings’
6. Curriculum
The curriculum will be comprised of specialised contents at intermediate level for the experienced professionals anddesigned based on the needs and requests received from the staff members of the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Research and Technology through the online meetings.

47

Lectures‘The Photographs of Cultural Heritage for Inventry’, ‘Mechanism and Types of Camera’, ‘Photography Techniquesfor Architectural Heritage’, ‘How to Save Photo Data’, etc.
Practical Training (demonstrations, to be held on the Web conferencing system):‘Camera Setups and Photography Settings for Architectural Cultural Properties’
Discussions (to be held on the Web conferencing system):
Including questions and answers with the instructor as appropriate
Introduction of Cultural Heritage in Nara
- Horyu-ji Temple- Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara
Video No.

Programme【Orientation】Opening Speech–

Unit 1

Lecturer

Deadline of questions

Oct. 8–MORIMOTO Susumu(Director, ACCU Nara)【Orientation Materials】
Guide for Participants, Training Schedule, Participantʼs Lists–【Introduction video 1】
World heritage site in Nara (Historic Monument in Ancient Nara)–【Introduction video 2】
World heritage site in Nara (Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area)–【Lecture video】
The Photographs of Cultural Heritage for Inventry-The Roles of the Photographs of Architectural Heritage-

Date of upload

KANAI Ken
(TNRICP)

Oct. 10【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
1. Basic Knowledge of Cultural Properties Photography【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
2. Mechanism and Types of Camera【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
3. The Mechanism how images are captured by a camera【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
4. Types of Image Format: RAW, TIFF, JPEG
Unit 2【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
5. Three Vital Elements of Photography: Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO Sensitivity

Oct. 8NAKAMURA Ichiro(NNRICP)

Oct. 15【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
6. Camera Settings for Cultural Properties Photography【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
7. Understanding a Histogram【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
8. Photography Techniques for Archaeological Sites【Lecture video】
Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
9.How to Save Photo Data–

Unit 348【Live discussion 1】
Q&A: The Photographs of Cultural Heritage for Inventry-The Roles of the Photographs of Architectural Cultural Heritage-

KANAI Ken
(TNRICP)
Coordinator:
TASHIRO Akiko(Hokkaido University)

9:00-11:00am(Indonesia Time)on Oct.14【Lecture video】
Photographic Techniques for Architectural Heritage

SUGIMOTO Kazuki(Photographer)

Oct. 14

Oct. 27

–【Live discussion 2】
Demonstration and Q&A:
- Camera Setups and Photography Settings for Architectural Cultural Properties-–【Live discussion 3】
Demonstration and Q&A:
- Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties Photography -–【Submission】
Final Report / Evaluation Form

NAKAMURA Ichiro(NNRICP)
SUGIMOTO Kazuki(Photographer)
Coordinator: TASHIRO
Akiko(Hokkaido University)

9:00-11:00am(Indonesia Time)on Oct.18–

9:00-11:00am(Indonesia Time)on Oct.21––

Oct. 31

TNRICP: Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
NNRICP: Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

7. Coordinator and Lecturers
Coordinator
TASHIRO Akiko: Associate Professor, Hokkaido University
Lecturers
KANAI Ken: Head, Conservation Design Section, Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (hereinafter TNRICP)
SUGIMOTO Kazuki: Cultural Properties Photographer
NAKAMURA Ichiro: Official Research Photographer, Photography Section, Department of Planning and
Coordination, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (hereinafter NNRICP)
8. Others
The Thematic Training Course (former Individual Training Course) was held in 2000 for the first time and has
accepted 116 participants from 25 countries.
9. Certificate
A certificate of completion was awarded to participants who satisfactorily completed the course programme andsubmitted a final report.
10. Working Language
Bahasa Indonesia
Interpreters
NUMAZAWA Urara
Freelance Interpreter

Rasmi Nur Aeni
Freelance Interpreter

11. Expenses
Free*Participants are required to prepare PC, internet, and any other necessary device for online learning by themselves.
The requirements of the digital environment are listed in Appendix.
12. Secretariat
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office
Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara)
WAKIYA Kayoko, HIRAYAMA Naoto and YOSHIDA Machi

49

Appendix
Requirements of Digital Environment for Online Learning
Operation systems

50

Browser

Windows 8.1, 10Internet Explorer 11.0
Microsoft Edge
FireFox (the latest version)
Chrome (the latest version)

Mac OS X

Safari (the latest version)iPad, iPhone iOS 10~

Safari (the latest version)

Android 5.0~

Chrome (the latest version)

CPU (Central Processing Unit)

Celeron: over 1 GHz
Core Duo over 1.66 GHz
Other CPU equivalent to the above

Internet connection speed

For upload: over 512 kbps
For download: over 256 kbps

2. Course Summany
The training course was held from 8 to 21 October through e-Learning platform “iPAGE” at ACCU. Under thetheme ‘Photographic Documentation of Heritage Buildings,’ 11 videos (5 hours and 19 minutes in total) were
distributed in Indonesian language (See Training Schedule for details.).
The theme and the contents were decided at the online preparatory meeting with Mr Anton Wibsono from Indonesian
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, and Associate Professor Tashiro Akiko, Hokkaido
University. The Indonesian Ministry is preparing the heritage inventory for the submission of ‘Spice Road’ tothe World Heritage Tentative List. Upon the request for training the professionals engaged in the photographic
documentation of properties to be used in the inventory, the following three topics were covered in the training
course.
Unit 1: The Role of Photographs in Architectural Heritage Inventory (video lecture)
Unit 2: Basics of Photography for Cultural Properties (video lectures)
Unit 3: Photographic Techniques for Architectural Heritage (practical training)
After watching the lecture videos, interactive sessions with lecturers of each unit were arranged for questions andanswers, demonstrations, and supplementary lectures.
8 October■Orientation
As part of the orientation, we started distributing the training materials on 8 October. These included opening address
by Mr Morimoto, Director of ACCU Nara, and handouts such as the training schedule, participants list, lecturers list
and the introduction video of the World Heritage Site in Nara. The participants were given access to all 10 videos ofUnit 1 and 2 on the same day.

Opening address from ACCU Director

ACCU iPAGE■Unit1: The Roles of Photographs in Architectural Heritage Inventory
Video Lecture: The Photographs of Cultural Heritage for Inventory - The Roles of the Photographs of Architectural
Heritage
Lecturer: KANAI Ken (TNRICP)The lecture covered three topics, namely, the requirements for the documentation of architectural heritage, the typesof survey to understand the value of architectural heritage and the suitable documentation method for each type, and51

the appropriate photographs for inventory of architectural heritage. Following is the general outline of the lecture
contents:
At first, the documentation should aim at representing the value of architectural heritage. As a typical format ofinventory in Japan, the combination of explanatory notes, drawings and photographs is used.
Regarding the types of survey, there are ‘preliminary survey (distribution survey)’ to identify the heritage, ‘individual
survey’ to evaluate each heritage building, and ‘designation survey’ to determine whether it is qualified for thedesignation as a cultural heritage. It was explained how to choose a suitable camera among the different camera
types such as a smartphone, a compact camera, and a single-lens reflex camera, depending on the contents ofsurvey. For the above-mentioned surveys, concrete survey method and system including the difference of required
photographic documentation were also referred to.
The role of photographs for inventory is to help understand the building. Several examples from Japan wereintroduced to explain the concrete elements required.

14 OctoberLive discussion 1 (11:00-13:00JST)
Lecturer: KANAI Ken (TNRICP)
Coordinator: TASHIRO Akiko (Hokkaido University)
As an introduction, Mr Morimoto of ACCU explained that Thematic Training Courses of ACCU are designed
for learning one theme deeply and intensively. He encouraged the participants to fully engage in discussions andexchange their ideas with lecturers to deepen their knowledge. After the participants’ self-introduction, Dr Tashiro of
Hokkaido University moderated the session.
Major questions:- What is the difference between ‘individual survey’ and ‘designation survey’?
- What kind of information is required at minimum in the investigation of townscape?
-	Is it acceptable to edit the data of photographic documentation? (such as erasing the disturbing electric wire,joining the photographs to cover a large building, etc.)
Comments from the lecturer, considering the World Heritage designation:-	For the registration or the designation as cultural heritage, it is required to attach the photographs to illustrate
the value of specific heritage. For the heritage evaluation, ‘individual survey’ of each element of heritage isimportant.

52

-	In the investigation of townscape, the survey starts with focusing on the significant buildings to determine thearea of preservation. In case of urgency, the survey should start from the building with the highest value.
-	The photographs compiled in the inventory should not be edited. Although photographs for explanation in‘designation survey’ can be combined or processed with color tone in some cases to better demonstrate the valueof heritage. However, the reasons of image processing must be provided.
-	A fter the questions and answers session, the lecturer gave advice on the composition of photographs,
photographing method and required information, while referring to the compiled inventory used in theIndonesian government. The photographs for inventory should include close-up shots of significant elements ofheritage to highlight their value as well as the shots to illustrate their condition.
In the end, the lecturer emphasised the importance of photographs for inventory. High quality photographs for
documentation taken at the stage of inventory preparation would greatly help the works coming afterwards. The
lecturer also advised the participants to take many photographs and compare them, and then the experience would
tell them what the good photographs are.

Mr Kanai (up right) and Dr Tashiro (Up left) advised the contents of an inventory card

■Unit2: Basics of Photography for Cultural Properties
Video Lecture: Photography Techniques for Cultural Properties
Lecturer: NAKAMURA Ichiro (NNRICP)
The video lecture presented ‘correct’ photographs required for documentation of cultural properties, andphotographic equipment and setting required to take such picture. It started with introducing camera types such as
smartphones, compact cameras, single-lens reflex cameras and explained the differences in their functions. Featuresof different recording format, namely, JPEG, TIFF, RAW were also described in detail. Since single-lens reflex
cameras and some compact cameras have functions to control the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO sensitivity, theirappropriate settings for taking “correct” photographs were introduced including the relevant basic principles.
Participants watched these videos and attended the questions and answers session on 21 October.

53Video lectures by Mr Nakamura■Unit3: Photographic Techniques for Architectural Heritage (practical training)Video Title: Camera Setups and Photography Settings for Architectural Heritage
Lecturer: SUGIMOTO Kazuki (Photographer)
The video lecture demonstrated the methods of outdoor photographing of architectural heritage in Japan. The
location was ‘Hashiya Family Residence’ in Hakodate City, Hokkaido. Hakodate in the north of Japan opened
its port for trading with foreign countries in 1859, and many of the existing architectural heritage buildings there
were built in 1910s. As for Indonesia, upon the arrival of Portugal, England and the Netherlands, the Western-stylebuildings (a fort in the early stage) were constructed in various areas from the 17th century. Most of the historicalbuildings remaining in the townscape in Kota of Jakarta, Semarang, Palembang, Padang, etc., are public buildingsin Dutch style and Chinese shophouses, combining residential quarter and commercial shop, originally constructedin the beginning of the 20th century. They seem to have some similarities with Hashiya Family Residence, which
was also a combination of residential quarter and shop designed by blending Japanese and Western styles. With thecooperation of the owner of Hashiya Family Residence, the lecture with demonstration was prepared at this building
and it reflected some of the issues similar to the situation in Indonesia.
The lecturer explained about the photographs required in ‘individual’ and ‘designation’ surveys, referring to theworking process from the preparation to the photographing of the outside, then inside of the building. Demonstration
videos for each process were distributed. As for the preparation stage, tree twigs covering the front of the building
were cut down and the way to make out a photographing schedule was introduced. The lecturer explained themethods of photographing the façade of the building from four different perspectives and also showed the techniquesof shooting indoors using supplementary sub-light equipment.

54

Hashiya Family ResidenceVideo lecture by Mr Sugimoto on how to take photographs of an architectural heritage

18 OctoberLive discussion 2 (11:00-13:00JST)
Lecturers: NAKAMURA Ichiro and SUGIMOTO Kazuki
Coordinator: TASHIRO Akiko
Mr Sugimoto pointed out three basic requirements for cultural property photographs: i) sufficient level of resolution
to allow enlarging the image for observing the details, ii) storable for a long time, and iii) correct reproduction ofcolour and shape.

55

Then, the participants shared the issues they have faced in photography, in particular:- Reproduction of the correct colours- Taking photographs when the space for setting a camera is limited- Appropriate camera setting to capture the details of building- Method to control the light (reflection of light, photographing against the sun, etc.)- Distortion of pillars when using wide-angle lenses
Mr Sugimoto responded that it would be better to use telephoto lenses, and distortion correction by PC is necessary
for the photographs taken with wide-angle lenses. For the reproduction of correct colours, he advised to takephotographs in RAW format with the insertion of Grey Card and use Photoshop for colour correction. Since
blurred photographs cannot be adjusted with PC, the use of a tripod was recommended. Lastly, the use of sub-light
introduced in the lecture video was reviewed. Effective use of sub-light enables dark places or shaded parts with thereflection of sunlight to appear clear in the photographs.
Mr Nakamura made additional comments on colour correction. Instead of using a Grey Card, the Auto White
Balance (AWB) setting of camera also allows to reproduce the correct colour in photographing with TIFF and JPEG
format.

21 OctoberLive discussion 3 (11:00-13:00JST)
Lecturers: NAKAMURA Ichiro and SUGIMOTO Kazuki
Coordinator: TASHIRO Akiko

Mr Nakamura and Mr Sugimoto gave advices about the photographs of the inventory cards in Indonesia

56Based on the compiled inventory used in Indonesian government, the lecturers commented on some photographs andgave a couple of advises, such as:- Select the camera position and angle to place the building in the center of photograph.
- Pay attention to the photographing position and timing to avoid the traffic and electric wire.
-	Decide the angle at the time of taking a photograph. Trimming which changes the finished size of the image, isgenerally not recommended.
- Photograph the large buildings from the higher position not to look up the subject (Use a stepladder, etc.)
The session closed after responding to individual questions on photographing in general.
Closing Ceremony
After the Q&A session, we continued with the Closing Ceremony and looked back on the two weeks of the training
programme. At the ceremony, Mr Susumu Morimoto, the director of ACCU, Ms Elisa Kusuma Dewanti, therepresentative of the course participants, and finally the coordinator, Associate Professor Tashiro Akiko, gave closing
remarks and concluded the session.

Left: Address by the representative of participants (Elisa Kusuma Dewanti)
Right: Closing comment by the coordinator (TASHIRO Akiko)Group Photo at the Closing Ceremony

57

3. Course Evaluation
ACCU Thematic Training Course was carried out for the mid-career professionals who have more than tenyear practical experience. Since the training was operated online as the one last year, ACCU wanted to offer thisopportunity to professionals widely and we accepted all applicants without the limit of years of experience. As aresult, there were some participants who felt difficult to understand the contents, and other members who thought it
was too easy to learn. We felt that it is important to make the participant level uniform in order to fully deepen theprofessional knowledge of all participants. Meanwhile, it seems that it is difficult for participants to save time andwatch lecture videos while they do their regular jobs. Though the training course period was two weeks this time,
we should study the appropriate duration for it from now on. Additionally, there were many requests for a practicaltraining in Japan/Indonesia to fully understand the content of the lecture and utilise it for their own work.
Another issue raised in the comments was that the time of online live sessions was further shortened as the instructor
and interpreter had to speak in turns. The organisers also became aware of this matter and will consider othermethods of interpretation when planning the next course.
In the end, despite the obvious disappointment of not being able to attend the course in Japan, the participants gave avery positive overall evaluation and expressed satisfaction with their experience.
ACCU is very grateful to all the participants for their constructive feedback. Course evaluation is the most valuable
tool for us to enhance our training programmes further.
1. Participants
GenderYears of Experience
11 years or more,1,
13%
Male,2,25%
Female,6,75%

5-10 years,1,
12%
less than
4 years,6,
75%

■Male
■Female■less than 4 years■5-10 years■11 years or more

2. GeneralWas the course useful?
Fair,1,12%

Learning with online training

Fair,2,
25%
Good,2,
25%

58

Excellent,5,
63%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Enough,6,75%■Enough■Fair■Not enoughScope of training contents

Depth of the course contents
Too deep,1,
12%

Just right,8,100%■Just right■Too broad■Too narrow

Relevancy to work

Just right,7,88%■Just right■Too deep■Too shallow

Application to your work

70%,2,
25%

70%,3,
38%
90%,5,
62%

90%,6,
75%

■90%
■70%
■50%
■30%

Which lecture was most useful?

■90%
■70%
■50%
■30%

Will you recommend this course to your colleagues?

Camera &Photography
Settings,2,25%

Maybe,2,25%
Photographic
Document,5,62%■Photographic Document■Basic Knowledges of
Photographs■Camera & Photography
Settings

Yes,6,
75%

■Yes
■No
■MaybeBasic Knowledges of Photographs,1,13%

Several comments from participants- General∙ I thought that the understanding would be deeper if there had been face-to-face training on-site, and direct
practical training on-site.
∙ The curriculum and teaching materials we received were (in content) very comprehensive and well suited topersons like myself who work in the field of cultural protection. I recognized that photography has an extremely
essential role in transmitting the meaning and value of cultural heritage.
∙ (Dr Kanai’s lecture) The content is directly related to my work, and the lecture video had illustrations andvisualised charts, so it was easy to understand.
∙ The workshop was very well organised. For example, there was an interpreter, and the organising committee
responded promptly to emails, and the teaching materials were good.
∙ I thought it would be better to have different levels of training. For example, beginner, intermediate, advanced.
- Contents∙ I think it would have been even better if I had more time to study the teaching materials and lectures before theLive sessions.

59∙ Instructor Nakamura’s teaching materials on basic knowledge of taking photographs were very detailed andclear, and were particularly useful for beginners.
∙ I felt that some of the teaching materials were too deep. For example, the histogram and colour checker. I
thought that some teaching materials were not so deep. For example, how to save a file.
∙ The materials received were very detailed and in-depth, so that even a beginner like myself could use them as a
guide to the basics of photography.
∙ I think the training should introduce various modern cameras and explain their usage, strengths, and weaknesses
in the work of documentation.
- Lectures∙ I was able to obtain a good amount of useful knowledge from each training session. Regarding the photographyof cultural property buildings, I was able to understand well the teaching materials of Mr Sugimoto’s lecture on
the practice of taking photographs of buildings under various circumstances.
∙ Mr Nakamura’s teaching materials were very detailed. This material provided me with a basic knowledge ofphotography.
∙ I think it would have been better if there was practical training immediately after this lecture.
- Coordinator∙ The coordinator bridged the differences in understanding of the teaching materials and reminded me of thesituation in Indonesia, which is very different from Japan, which was very helpful.
3. Lecture Materials (Video/text/reference materials)
Video narration speed

How well did you understand the lecture?
50-60%,1,12%90-100%,1,
13%

Too slow,2,
25%

Just right,6,75%■Just right■Too fast■Too slow

Length of a lecture video
Too long,1,12%70-80%,
6,75%

Narration intonation

Fair,3,37%
Just right,7,88%■90-100%■70-80%■50-60%■Too difficult■Just right■Too long■Too short

Easy to understand,
5,63%■Easy to understand■Fair■Difficult to understand∙ I thought I would need time to understand the teaching materials, especially the technical terms.
∙ The speed of the Indonesian language in the video subtitles was appropriate, and the words were accurate.
∙ The Photoshop version was different from my own (CS 6). I thought it would be good for Photoshop to set a
standard such as which version to use.
∙ Although the materials were e-Learning videos, I found it easy to understand the contents.

60∙ The video was good enough, although I thought some of the material was too long. The language used was alsoeasy to understand, and it was very good that the materials were systematic, which was helpful in understanding
the materials.
∙ Having an interpreter helped me understand the lecture and answer questions.
∙ Some instructors inserted interesting illustrations and had a lot of text.
∙ It may be necessary to add videos giving photographic training for brief surveys and for detailed surveys.
∙ How about adding to the teaching materials on shutter speed, aperture, and ISO about how to combine themaccording to the situation?
4. Live Sessions/Q&A
Length of each session

Quality of interpretation

Too short,2,
25%

Good,3,37%
Just right,6,75%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Lecturer’s response to Q&A■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Exchange opinions with the lecturers

Fair,1,
12%

Poor,2,25%

Excellent,3,
38%
Good,4,50%

Excellent,5,
63%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Fair,1,
12%

Excellent,2,
25%

Good,3,38%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

∙ The two-hour live session with interpreters was sufficient.
∙ I think it would be good to have some practical training in how to use equipment and cameras for the students.
∙ I think that practical training is still necessary.
∙ The answers were sufficient and the entire question was answered.
∙ I couldn’t freely speak and exchange opinions because the time was limited.
∙ I think the live session was good and effective, especially for my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge andexperience in the field of photography.
∙ The discussion was sufficiently good. I didn’t ask many questions because my knowledge of photography was
still basic and the video explanations were sufficient to answer my questions.
∙ I was impressed by the instructor’s direct answer to the question I sent last week in the last session. Perhaps not
all students understood how to proceed by asking questions before the live session (I realized later).
∙ I felt that the time was short, because the instructor and the interpreter had to speak in turns.
∙ I think that the instructor couldn’t talk much to the students due to time constraints in the live session. One
reason is that some participants didn’t have any practical skills or practical training.

61

5. Future Training
Which is the most effective training courses?

Agree,2,25%

on-site training,2,25%
on-site training and online
training,6,75%

Necessity of the on-site training■on-site training■online training■on-site training andonline training

Strongly agree,6,75%■Strongly agree■Agree■Neither agree nor disagree■Disagree- Which topic do you want to learn most in off-line (on-site) course?
∙ Since the situation in each region and each country is different, I think that by conducting direct practicaltraining, we could have discussions to find the appropriate methods and solutions to use to create an inventoryof cultural properties under the different circumstances.
∙ Mr Sugimoto's teaching materials related to photography training were for actually taking photographs ofcultural property buildings, so I think it would have been more effective if there was on-site training. Since
I am often in charge of the textual aspects of documentation work, I was interested in learning about the
documentation in the lecture by Mr Kanai.
- What kind of on-site trainings sponsored by Japan would you like to be conducted in your country?
∙ The role of documentation of cultural heritage following disasters∙ Inventory (creating a ledger), and practical training in photography of nationally designated and World Heritage
cultural properties∙ Restoration of cultural or traditional buildings, how to protect materials∙ How to adjust and shoot the camera for cultural property photography∙ Important information that must be recorded during the first, second, and designated surveys∙ Documentation of a Cultural Heritage Area (kawasan)
6. E-Learning
Usability

Technical issues of Zoom sessions?

Fair,1,
14%

Never,1,
14%

Easy,6,
86%

■Easy
■Fair
■Difficult

Sometimes,6,86%■Never■Sometimes■OftenIssuestowith
video viewing
ACCU support in the event of a problem- Easyuse/issues∙ The e-Learning pages were easy to understand, and the navigation on each page was simple and good.
∙ There was no problem accessing the lecture videos and in downloading or opening the PDF materials.
Yes,2,∙ Sometimes,2,
ACCU solved the issues through chat during the live session.
29%
29%

Never,5,71%

62■Never■Sometimes■OftenNever had problems,5,
71%

■Yes
■No
■Never had problems

Easy,6,
86%

■Easy
■Fair
■Difficult

Issues with video viewing

Sometimes,6,86%■Never■Sometimes■OftenACCU support in the event of a problem

Yes,2,
29%

Sometimes,2,29%
Never,5,71%■Never■Sometimes■OftenNever had problems,5,
71%

■Yes
■No
■Never had problems- What is the useful function(s) of the e-Learning page?
∙ One function of the e-Learning that I found interesting was the ability to trace the progress of learning.
Personally, having this function inspired me to advance my progress in the training. I thought the e-Learning
homepage was generally user-friendly and very accessible.
∙ The videos I had already watched had a red check mark so I could easily see my learning progress.
∙ I thought that using not only ‘lectures’ but also ‘Talkboard’ would improve the discussion and sharing ofmaterials between students and ACCU Nara.
∙ The e-Learning site was very useful for learning because each student could access it before discussions in thelive session, and then watch it repeatedly afterwards.

63

64

III. Regional Workshop
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Workshop for Cultural Heritage Protection in
The Republic of The Union of Myanmar
1. OrganisersThis course is jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage Protection
Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara); and the Department of Archaeology
and National Museum, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.
2. Background
ACCU Nara began holding this international training course on cultural heritage protection in 2000, with participants
coming from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. To date, and there have been a total of eleven participantsin this programme from the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.
In Myanmar, a great number and variety of examples survive of heritage attesting to cultural exchanges between
East and West. In recent years, the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (since 2013) and the
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (since 2016) have carried out a ‘Core Project of Exchange
in International Cooperation for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage’ in order to transfer technology in the fieldsof historical architecture and archaeology. Based on these accumulated achievements, and as a result of repeateddiscussions about the kind of support currently needed with officials of the Department of Archaeology and National
Museum, the department has requested a more advanced version of the training in the ‘Documentation of Artefacts’that was carried out under the core exchange project named above. In response, as part of the programme of
support provided to Myanmar, we have decided to co-organise this online cultural heritage workshop on the themeof ‘Photographic Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts’, together with the Department of Archaeology andNational Museum, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. This year,
as one of the requested themes of ‘Documentation of Artefacts’, we carried out ‘Photographic Documentation ofArchaeological Artefacts’.
3. Dates
10 November (Wed) – 21 November (Sun) 2021
4. Participants
15 professionals working at museums or relevant national institutes in Myanmar, and involved in the research,
conservation, or utilisation of archaeological objects in their collections.
5. Theme
Photographic Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts
6. Curriculum
Online materials ware provided through ACCU e-Learning page from 10-30 November.
(1) Online materials (10-30 November)
Lectures- Basic knowledge on photographing cultural properties- Camera settings and operations, etc.
Demonstrations- Setting up a photography platform- Indoor photography techniques (three-dimensional objects, flat objects)

67

(2) Interactive online session (12 November)- Live Q&A session on Zoom
- Training summary(3) Submission of training report (deadline: 21 November)Workshop for Cultural Heritage Protection in The Republic of The Union of Myanmar 2021
Date

Contents

Materials/Means

1. Basic Knowledge of Cultural Properties Photography
2. Mechanism and Types of Camera/Mechanism of How Images Are
Captured by Camera
3. Types of Image Format: RAW, TIFF, JPEG
4. Three Vital Elements of Photography: Aperture, Shutter Speed,
ISO Sensitivity
Nov.10-11
OnlineExisting word file/video translated with Burmese Subtitle

5. Camera Settings for Cultural Properties Photography
6. Understanding a Histogram
7. Basic Lighting Setups
8. How to Build a Photography Set for 3D Objects
9. Photography Techniques for 3D Objects

Video translated with Burmese Subtitle

10. Photography Techniques for Flat Objects
Nov.12
12:00-14:10
Nov.21

Demonstration/Q&A/Summary

Zoom session (Live)

Report Submission and Evaluation for the Lectures

7. Working Language
Text materials: Burmese
Lecture and demonstration videos: Burmese subtitles
Interactive session: Burmese with consecutive interpretation
8. Instructor
NAKAMURA Ichiro
Official Research Photographer
Photography Section, Department of Planning and Coordination, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties (NNRICP)
9. Interpreters
Burmese-Japanesre interpretes were arranged for the interactive session.
San San Soe, Freelance interpreter
KIKUCHI Taihei, Freelance interpreter68

2. Course Summary
The theme of the training was ‘Photographic Documentation of Archaeological Artefacts’, and it focused mainly on
providing practical skills. The training was conducted entirely in Burmese, and after the two days of video lectures,a simultaneous two-way question-and-answer session was held for about two hours. 10 videos delivered were
subtitled in Burmese, and the two-way question-and-answer session following the viewing was conducted throughserial translation in Burmese and Japanese. Department of Archaeology and National Museum were central in the
preparations on the Myanmar side, recruiting the participants and arranging conditions for carrying out the program.
The participants watched the lectures by connecting to the Internet from the separate locations of Nay Pyi Daw,
Yangon, Bagan, Pyay, and Mrauk-U.
■ Recruitment of participants
The participants were recruited from the staff of the Department of Archaeology and National Museum of the
Ministry of Religion and Culture of Myanmar, and the 15 applicants were selected as participants.
November 10–11■ Video lecture viewing
Lecturer: NAKAMURA Ichiro (NNRICP)Videos were delivered concerning the knowledge and skills needed when photographing the archaeological artefacts
of Myanmar. All together there were 10 videos provided, totalling about 4 hours. The lectures topics were as follows.
Lectures:
1. Basic Knowledge of Cultural Properties Photography
2. Mechanism and Types of Camera/Mechanism of How Images Are Captured by Camera
3. Types of Image Format: RAW, TIFF, JPEG
4. Three Vital Elements of Photography: Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO Sensitivity
5. Camera Settings for Cultural Properties Photography
6. Understanding a Histogram
Practical demonstrations:
1. Basic Lighting Setups
2. How to Build a Photography Set for 3D Objects
3. Photography Techniques for 3D Objects
4. Photography Techniques for Flat Objects
In addition, 6 texts of handout materials were delivered (as pdf files).

69Lecture videos subtitled in Burmese

November 12■ Simultaneous two-way Q&A session
Lecturer: NAKAMURA Ichiro (NNRICP)The Q&A session started at 9:30 am Myanmar time and ended at 11:40. Ms San San Soe and Mr Taihei Kikuchi
served as the Japanese and Burmese interpreters.
The participants had been studying the video teaching materials and handouts, and videos were sent before the eventin answer to the following questions.
1. How should the shutter speed be set when taking photos of moving subjects when photographing festivals?
2.	Can it be said that a medium aperture setting should be used, rather than the maximum or minimum openings,
both indoors and outdoors? Please tell us if there are any differences between these situations.
3.	What kind of setting is suitable in places such as exhibition rooms where sufficient light cannot be let in, fortaking museum-related photographs?
4.	When photographing artefacts, how far away should the top light and backlight be from the object to bring out athree-dimensional effect? Does the distance differ depending on the object’s size?
The instructor gave explanations for these questions as follows, while demonstrating the actual work of taking
photos.
∙ Cultural properties photographs are for conveying information to people and must be taken accurately for that
purpose. Cultural properties are usually immobile objects, while photographing festivals and so forth is different.
You need to select a camera matching the purpose, and if you are at a festival, you have to capture the rightmoment, so a small camera that allows quick response is suitable, and the shutter speed should be prioritized over
the aperture.

70∙ When photographing artefacts indoors, you want to record information about the artefact to the greatest extent
possible. First, choose an appropriate aperture size that is neither too big nor too small. It is important for thecamera to be firmly fixed. The lower the ISO sensitivity, the better the image quality, so choose a low ISO value
and adjust the focus accurately. The camera’s fully automatic mode, in which the photographer has no control, is
not suitable for cultural property photographs.
∙ In order to obtain adequate depth of field, it may be necessary to close down aperture when the camera is at a
close distance to the object being photographed. Regarding the lighting for the artefact, keep in mind that thebackground gets darker as the distance between the artefact and background increases. As for the distance between
the light and the object, worry about the three-dimensional effect after first deciding on the brightness of the
background. Pay attention to three-dimensional effects in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

Simultaneous two-way Q&A session at NNRICP

Next, when questions were received in real time, there were the following queries. The instructor also answered
while mixing in some demonstrations.
Q: How do we eliminate shadows with fill light, and when not to use backlight?
A: Use a diffuser, and add a reflector if necessary.
Q: What should we do about lighting when shooting outdoors?
A: It is important to select the time of day for shooting because you will be using sunlight.
Q: How should we take photos of murals indoors when they are on the ceiling or at a distant position?
A: The use of lighting is basic, but where external light can be obtained it is possible to shoot with a slower shutter
speed.
After the Q&A session, there was a statement of impressions about the training from Ms Aye Aye Thinn, Director,
National Museum (Nay Pyi Daw), as representative for the participants. There were also greetings from Ms Mie
Mie Khaing, Director (International Relation Branch), who was in charge of arrangements for the training on the
Myanmar side. Then ACCU Nara Director Morimoto gave some comments to close the training.
In this simultaneous two-way session, there was an interpreter assigned separately on the Myanmar and Japanesesides, and it was possible for them to work while complementing each other. The 15 participants accessed thesession while located separately, with 7 from Nay Pyi Daw, 2 from Yangon, 2 from Bagan, 3 from Pyay, and 1 from
Mrauk-U. We would like to thank Myanmar for its efforts in arranging smooth access.

71

Group Photo of all participants72

3. Course Evaluation
Fifteen participants filled in the course evaluation. 60% of participants mentioned the training was extremely usefuland 40 % said it was useful. However, there were some opinions that they could not learn deeply because they did
not have offline practical session. The Live Zoom session was set up for two hours, but many participants feel thatthey did not have enough time. We consider such issues / requests and improve the programme next year.
1. Participants
GenderFemale,9,60%

Affiliation

Field School of
Archaeology,2,13%

Male,6,40%
National Museum,13,
87%

Position
Museum Curator,1,7%

Director,1,6%

Assistant Engineer,
1,7%

Assistant
Director,2,13%
AssistantLecture,2,13%

Assistant
Researcher,4,27%

Staff Officer,
3,20%
Deputy Staff Officer,1,7%

2. Overall
Was the training useful?

Useful,6,40%

Learning with online training

Not enough,33%

Very useful,9,60%

Fair,10,67%■Very useful■Useful■Fair■Poor
Scope of training content■Enough■Fair■Not enoughThe depth of contents
no response:1

Too broad,5,35%
Just right,10,67%

Too deep,8,57%■Just right■Too broad■Too narrow

Just right,6,43%■Just right■Too deep■Too shallow

73

Relevancy to work

Application to work

30%,1,7%

50%,3,
20%

50%,2,
13%
70%,2,
13%

90%,10,
67%

■90%
■70%
■50%
■30%

Would you recommend this training to an acquaintance?

70%,4,
27%

90%,8,
53%
■90%
■70%
■50%
■30%

Are there any issues about interpreter?

Difficult tounderstand,4,
27%
Yes,15,
100%

■Yes
■No
■MaybeGood,11,73%■Good■Difficult tounderstandComments from the participants∙ The lessons were too short to learn about photography. However, the lecturer explained the contents in very-easyto-understand ways and we could study how to take the good photographs for the artefact at the museums.
∙ I don’t think the training was short because we could learn the techniques by watching the videos over and over.
∙ It will be more efficient training if on-site training is possible.
∙ Few contents of the training are related to my job. However, 90% of them are useful for the department. And forthe group I was with, they will be able to put 90% of them to use.
∙ The training is very useful and we could learn the new knowledge.
∙ The materials and the lecturer’s explanation for the techniques are very easy to understand and memorable.
∙ It was valuable training because we could learn lighting system, photographic recording, recording system, etc. It
is better if we can learn them through pracitical training.
∙ We will be able to use the photographic techniques when conservating artefacts because we learned them in detail.
∙ Both Japanese interpreter and Myammar one are excellent.
∙ The teacher’s explanation was very thoughtful.
∙ If you could provide desk study and the on-site training outside instead of online one, I think it will be more
effective.
∙ It was more effective, if we learned while actually using a camera.
∙ Online training is not enough because we could not practice on the techniques actually (many pariticiants
answered).
∙ I have had a certain degree of knowledge of photographic techniques, but it is difficult to set up the camera at thesites.

74

3. Lecture Video
Length of each lecture

Lecture comprehension

Too long,2,13%50-60%,6,40%
Just right,13,87%

70-80%,6,40%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Video narration speed

90-100%,3,20%■90-100%■70-80%■50-60%■Too Difficult

Lucidity of explanation

Too fast,1,7%

Fair,8,53%
Just right,14,
93%■Just right■Too fast■Too slow

Easy tounderstand,7,47%■Easy tounderstand■Fair■Difficult tounderstand∙ All of the videos are related to each other.
∙ The length of video time was appropiriate. It was easy to understand.
∙ I have not understood some of the lecutres yet because it was my first time to participating in the training and I
have not used a camera for my work except a smart phone.
∙ We attended this kind of training for the first time and we would like ACCU to provide the same types of ones in
the future.
∙ Translated sentences were easy to understand.
∙ The lecturer has given a heartfelt lecture. He masters the camera and photographic techniques and has the ability
to teach us to be interested.
∙ I felt three hour lecture was too short. It might be better if we have two 1.5 hr sessions.
∙ I would like to learn 3D photographic techniques for stone monuments in the future.
∙ The practical training was not enough because it was online. I think on-site training will be more effective for us.
∙ It is suitable for us to learn beforehand through the video prepared in advancce and participate in the Zoom
session. I could ask some detailed questions to the lecturer at the Q&A session because I could learn the contents
beforehand.
∙ Participants could learn the contents only from the videos. It is better for the participants to study on-site for being
able to use the techniques at the job sites.
∙ Regarding the videos for the camera settings, I had to look over them slowly and carefully to understand themeaning because I am not used to doing the settings.

75

4. Zoom Sessions
Zoom session’s lengthInterpreter’s explanations
Excellent,1,7%Poor,2,
13%

Too short,5,33%
Just right,9,60%
Too long,1,7%

Lecturer’s response to Q&A

Fair,5,33%■Just right■Too long■Too shortno response:1■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Could you exchange opinions with lecturers?

Poor,4,27%

Excellent,4,29%
Good,10,71%

Good,7,47%

Fair,4,
27%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Good,7,46%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

∙ If it is possible to take more time for on-site training, we will be able to learn more effectively.
∙ The interpreters were excellent. There was no issue.
∙ It seemed that it is easier for us to confirm the meaning of the translated sentences to Burmese person.
∙ It will be better if the lecturer answers the questions from the participants, one by one, for the each video on Zoom
sessions.
5. Future Workshop
Ideal training style

Both on-site andonline training,
7,50%

no response:1

Necessity of on-site training

Agree,4,27%

On sitetraining only,
7,50%■On site training only
■Online training only
■Both on-site and online
training

Strangly agree,11,73%■Strangly agree■Agree■Neither agree nor disagree■Disagree∙ On-site training should be done after the pandemic.
∙ Putting the training into actual practice is very important.
∙ We need practice (on-site training) for the actual usage for the learned techniques.
∙ We had the online training with visual image and documents. I think it is not enough for the trainng contents. To
practice of the techniques learned in the training is necessary and effective for the actual usage.
∙ If we combine online and offline training, the training will be more efficient and we will be able to reduce thetraining time and expenses.
∙ We will be able to understand in detail if we have the on-site training.

76

6. Online Technical Issues
Usability of e-Learning site

Login issues
Sometimes,2,
14%

Fair,2,
13%

Easy,13,
87%

Never,12,
86%

■Easy
■Fair
■Difficult

Issues with video viewing

Issues with Zoom session
Sometimes,2,
13%

Sometimes,3,20%

Never,12,80%

Never,13,87%■Never■Sometimes■OftenACCU support in the event of a problem

Never hadproblems,9,60%■Never had problems
■No
■Yes

■Never■Sometimes■OftenInternet environment in Myanmar

Poor,
20%
Yes,6,
40%■Never■Sometimes■OftenGood,4,27%

Fair,8,53%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

- Zoom Session∙ The internet speed decreased because the electricity will often stop.
∙ The internet was sometimes cut off.
∙ It is very valuable to learn camera and photographic techniques. Please take more time for Q&A in Zoom session
to be able to discuss the subjects.
- ACCU e-Learning platform (iPAGE): Useful functions & Requested functions∙ The function that shows the degree of completion of learning is useful.
∙ We can watch learning materials anytime and anyplace if we can connect to the internet.
∙ It was better if we could download the videos.
∙ We can learn whenever we want over and over. The sign of the percentage at the e-Learning site is nice since weknow how much we have accomplished the task. Preparing the questions to the lecturer before the session was
also good system.
∙ The participants could learn easily because the videos and reference were uploaded at the website.

77

78

IV. International Workshop
1. General Information
2. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
International Workshop for Senior Professionals 2021
‘Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region—Current State and Issues (1): Emergency Response Case Studies’

General Information
1. Background and Objective
Each year in the Asia-Pacific region there are disasters caused by floods, landslides, typhoons/cyclones, earthquakes,
tsunami, storm surges, volcanic eruptions, and so forth. How to protect cultural heritage from such natural disasters
is a common issue for all countries in the Asia-Pacific region. While we cannot control natural phenomena such as
typhoons and earthquakes, disaster mitigation—namely reducing the damage from those natural disasters—is indeed
possible.
It goes without saying that most important thing is to undertake proactive measures for disaster mitigation on an
everyday basis. But when cultural heritage is nevertheless damaged due to natural disasters, it is also vital to think
about disaster risk management through the cycle of activities involving the rescue and restoration of damaged
heritage, and linking those experiences with renewed efforts at mitigation.
In this year’s International Workshop, issues were extracted and further considered through an exchange of opinions
and the sharing of case studies from the Asia-Pacific region of emergency responses for cultural heritage at times ofnatural disasters, to serve as a foothold for further initiatives in disaster prevention. At the same time, the workshop
was aimed at contributing to the development of leaders in this area and the construction of a network among the
responsible personnel.
2. OrganisersThis workshop was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan (Bunkacho); the Asia-Pacific
Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU); and National Institute for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk
Management Center, Japan. Support was provided by the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (Tokyo
and Nara) and the Nara Prefectural Government, with cooperation from the International Centre for the Studyof the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and the Japan Consortium for International
Cooperation in Cultural Heritage (JCIC-Heritage).
3. Dates and venue
Dates: 10-15 December 2021
Venue: The workshop was hosted online.
Two-day online symposium was held at the Nara Prefectural Convention Center (14-15 December).
The symposium was broadcasted live to observers through the Internet.
4. Schedule
All papers of the keynote speeches and the case study reports were delivered via ‘iPAGE’ on ACCU’s e-Learning
platform from December 10 to 15. The online symposium was held on December 14-15 as an interactive session.
The symposium was delivered simultaneously to the pre-registered observers. For the recruitment of observers, wecreated a leaflet before the event and distributed it to the cultural heritage organs in Japan and overseas. A total of
114 observers from 10 countries participated. There were 43 observers from 9 countries including Yemen, Bhutan,
India, Cambodia, Pakistan, Morocco, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand.

81

【Leaflet of 2 days symposium】【Online Platform】
10-15 December

The digital platform ‘ACCU iPAGE’【Online Symposium (two-way online participation)】
14-15 December (15:00-18:00 [JST])14 December 15:00-18:00
Keynote Speech 1: KOHDZUMA Yohsei (Director, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage
Disaster Risk Management Center)‘Activities and Issues in Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management in Japan’Case Studies:
1) Japan
NAGAI Yasuo (Professor, Department of Architecture and Design, Yamagata University, Japan)‘Damage Inspection of Historical Architecture and Rescue Operations in Japan-Activity to Dispatch the Investigators for Cultural heritage after the Great East Japan Earthquake-’
2) Indonesia

82	Hari Setyawan (Heritage Preservation Practitioner, Borobudur Conservation Office, Ministry of Education
Culture Research and Technology, Republic of Indonesia)‘Borobudur Temple Compounds Disaster Mitigation’3) China	Kou Huaiyun (Associate Professor, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, China)‘Post-Disaster Reconstruction of Xijie Historic Block in Dujiangyan, Sichuan Province, China’4) Fiji	Melaia Tui Tikoitoga (Acting Senior Research Officer, Development Services Division, Ministry of iTaukei
Affairs, Republic of Fiji Islands)‘Traditional Knowledge on Disaster Mitigation: A Fijian Case Study’5) Nepal	Suresh Suras Shrestha (Joint Secretary and the head of Culture Division, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil
Aviation, Government of Nepal)‘Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Earthquake Response’6) Philippines	Maileen Rondal (Senior Museum Researcher, Geology and Paleontology Division, National Museum of thePhilippines, Republic of the Philippines)‘The Impacts of the Tropical Cyclone Jolina to the Building, Exhibitions, and Collections of the National Museumof Natural History, National Museum of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines’
15 December 15:00-18:00
Keynote Speech 2: Aparna Tandon (Senior Programme Leader, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM))‘Managing Disaster Risk for Tangible and Intangible Heritage’
General Discussion‘Challenges of Emergency Response for Cultural Heritage at the Time of Disasters in the Asia-Pacific Resion’
Attendees : All panellists and Prof. OKUMURA Hiroshi (Kobe University)
Moderator: MORIMOTO Susumu, ACCU Nara

The online symposium at the Nara Prefectural Convention Center

Keynote Speech 1: KOHDZUMA Yohsei

Keynote Speech 2: Aparna Tandon

83

Case Study from Japan: NAGAI Yasuo

Case Study from Indonesia: Hari Setyawan

Case Study from China: Kou Huaiyun

Case Study from Fiji Islands: Melaia Tui Tikoitoga

Case Study from Nepal: Suresh Suras Shrestha

Case Study from Philippines: Maileen Rondal

Group photo of all panellists

84

5. Working Language
English (Simultaneous interpretation between English and Japanese)
6. Secretariat, co-operators and cooperating organisations
ACCU Nara was responsible for the overall management of the workshop. We obtained cooperation from Ms
Hata Chiyako, Mr Walter Edwards, for making materials, from Mr Kurihara Yuji, Deputy Director of the Kyoto
National Museum, Ms Li Hong from WHITRAP Shanghai, ICCROM, Nara National Rescarch Institute forCultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara), and Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage forpublicising the online symposium.

85

2. Course Evaluation
2 keynote and 6 case study reports were distributed via ‘iPAGE’ on ACCU’s e-Learning platform from December 10
to 15. The online symposium was held for the last two days, on December 14 and 15, where the participants madepresentations and joined the general discussion. Three Japanese panellists participated from a venue in Nara, withthe others joined online, through the digital platform.
All panellists filled in the questionnaire. According to the last year's evaluations, the online session time allocatedfor 2 hours was short, therefore, this year, we increased the online session to 3 hours each for two days. As a result,the evaluations have changed for the better.
This year, we received many opinions regarding the management of the workshop. Since this theme will continue
for three years, we would like to fully consider the opinions of this year’s panellists when planning the next year’s
symposium.
1. Parnellists
GenderRegionEurope,1,13%

Male,4,50%

Female,4,50%

Oceania,1,13%Years of experience

Less than 10 years,1,13%

10-14 years,1,
12%

East Asia,3,37%

15-20 years,2,25%

South East
Asia,2,25%

Over 20years,4,50%

South Asia,1,12%

2. Overall
Theme and contents

Good,8,100%

Case study distribution through ACCU e-Learning site

■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Good,8,
100%

■Good
■Fair
■Poor
■Provided time was
not enough to lookover the materials

Comments from the panellists∙ Comments/Questions by observers should also be taken into consideration.
∙ The symposium can be followed up with direct case studies on problem solving in the countries that still needtechnical assistance.
∙ It would be better to consider inviting not only to experts in the cultural sector but also people who directly handle
the actual emergency situations in their own countries, like the police and military forces, and leaders of thecommunities.
∙ Providing keynote speakers and participating experts’ both slides and texts as provided earlier this time (10December).
∙ The distribution of documents is just right for everyone to browse or review.
∙ The contents and themes were well organised.

86

3. Symposium: Keynote Speeches and Case Studies on 14-15 December, 2021
Time assigned for Keynote Speech: 30min.

Time assigned for Case Study:20min.

Good,2,
25%

Good,2,25%
Excellent,6,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Time and arrangement assigned for Q&A:
5min. and after each presentation

Excellent,6,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Time assigned for general discussion:1h45min.

Fair,1,
13%
Good,2,
25%
Good,3,37%

Excellent,4,50%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Venue Management■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

The Number of the Panellists

Fair,1,
13%
Good,2,25%

Excellent,6,75%

Good,2,25%
Excellent,5,62%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Excellent,6,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

4. Advanced Notice, Materials and Tools
Online meeting on Zoom

Fair,1,
13%
Good,1,
12%
Excellent,6,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

87

88

V. Appendix
1. Group Training Course
2. Thematic Training Course
3. Regional Workshop
4. International Workshop
5. Acknowledgements
6. Staff Members of ACCU Nara

1. Group Training Course
A. List of Participants
Australia
Matilda Finley Steelcliff
Cultural Heritage Officer, South Coast Region, Department of Transport and Main Roads,
Queensland Goverument

Bangladesh
Md. Shahin Alam
Field Officer, Antiquities & Protection/Regional Directorate, chattogram and sylhet,
Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs

BhutanUgyen Dorji
Engineer, Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites, Department of Culture,
Ministry of Home and Culture Affairs

Cambodia
Chum Phirum
Technical Staff, Office of Archaeology and data, Department of Monument and Archaeology,
National Authority for Preah Vihear

India
Davangi Pathak
Executive Conservator, Department of Collection, Research and Management,
Delhi Art Gallery

India
Mauli Mishra
Architect/Co-Founder/Researcher
Artefacts and Habitats Sustainable Solutions LLP

India
Jiten Desai
Associate Architect, Heritage Conservation Division, Department of Architecture,aDRG(Architecture Design Research Guild)Indonesia
Ghilman Assilmi
Assitant Professor, Historical Archaeology, Department of Archaeology,
Universitas Indonesia

Indonesia
Dwi Astuti
Conservator, Institute for Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Central Java,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology

90

New Zealand
Sarah Phear
Archaeologist, Mid Northern Regional Office, Archaeological Authorities,
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

Sri Lanka
Buddakoralelage Janani Namal Seneviratne
Archaeological Research Officer, Conservator, Conservation Division, Department of Archaeology,
State Ministry of National Heritage, Performing Arts and Rural Arts, Promotion

Sri Lanka
Mallika Athukoralalage Diveesha Rukmal Athukorala
Archaeological Research Officer, Chemical Conservation Division, Department of Archaeology,
State Ministry of National Heritage, Performing Arts and Rural Arts, Promotion

B. List of Lecturers
Unit 1YAMAZAKI Takeshi

Gamini WijesuriyaHead, Environmental Archaeology Section, Archaeological Operations,

Special Advisor, International Centre for the study of the

NNRICP

Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

WAKIYA Soichiro
Unit 2

Head, Conservation Science Section, Archaeological Operations,

INABA Nobuko

NNRICP

Emeritus Professor, University of Tsukuba

NAKAMURA Ichiro
Unit 3

Official Research Photographer, Photography Section, Department of

HAYASHI Masanori

Planning and Coordination, NNRICP

Head, Archaeology Section 3, Asuka/Fujiwara,
Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations, NNRICPKURIYAMA Masao
Chief, Photography Section, Department of Planning and Coordination,

SHODA Shinya

NNRICP

Head, International Cooperation Section, Department ofPlanning and Coordination, NNRICP

Unit 5NAKAI Masatsugu

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi

Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties,

Researcher, Archaeological Research Methodology Section,

Cultural Resources Utilisation Division

Archaeological Operations, NNRICP

Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan (Bunkacho)

Unit 4NISHI Kazuhiko

JINNO Megumi

Head, Resource and Systems Research Section, Japan Center for

Head, Archaeology Section 2, Heijo, Department of Imperial Palace

International Cooperation in Conservation, TNRICP

Sites Investigations, NNRICP

Joseph KingWAKASUGI Tomohiro

Director of Partnership and Communication

Senior Researcher, Archaeology Section 2, Asuka/Fujiwara,

ICCROM

Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations, NNRICP

91

2. Thematic Training Course
A. List of participantsElisa Kusuma Dewanti
Data Processing Team, Directorate of Culture Protection,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Republic of Indonesia

Irene Swastiwi Viandari Kharti
Specialist, Directorate of Culture Protection,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Republic of Indonesia

Martinus (setio)
Field Coordinator, Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur(PDA)
Centre of Indonesian Architectural Documentation, Republic of Indonesia

Dien Nurhayati Lukman
Architecture Documentation Supervisor, Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur(PDA)
Centre of Indonesian Architectural Documentation, Republic of Indonesia

Dita Ramadhani
Data Processing Team, Directorate of Culture Protection,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Republic of Indonesia

Eko Mauladi
Librarian, Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur(PDA)
Centre of Indonesian Architectural Documentation, Republic of Indonesia

Trisha Karina Lahu
Reseach Assistant & Surveyor, Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur(PDA)
Centre of Indonesian Architectural Documentation, Republic of Indonesia

Celine Agnesia Hutagaol
Data Processing Team, Directorate of Culture Protection,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Republic of Indonesia

92

B. List of Lecturers and Resource Persons

C. Interpreters

Coordinator

NUMAZAWA UraraTASHIRO Akiko

Freelance Interpreter

Associate Professor, Research Faculty of Media and Communication,
Hokkaido University

Rasmi Nur Aeni
Freelance Interpreter

Anton Wibisono
Head, Division of World Heritage Nomination,

D. Acknowledgements for Cooperation

Directorate of Culture Safeguarding,■ Hashiya Corporation

Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology,

HASHIYA Shuichi

Republic of Indonesia

President

Lecturers

FUKUDA Mutsumi

KANAI KenHead, Conservation Design Section,

TAMURA Sou

Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation,
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

NAKAMURA Ichiro
Official Research Photographer, Photography Section,
Department of Planning and Coordination,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

SUGIMOTO Kazuki
Photographer, Saidaiji Photo Studio

3. Regional Workshop
A. Participants■Department of Archaeology and National Museum, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture
Aye Aye Thinn
Director, National Museum (Nay Pyi Daw)

Man Thit Nyein
Assistant Lecturer, Field School of Archaeology (Pyay)

Myat Myat Moe
Assistant Lecturer, Field School of Archaeology (Pyay)

Aung Thu Myint
Assistant Researcher Grade 2, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Pyay Branch)

93

Maung Sann Winn
Assistant Director, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Mrauk-U Branch)

Htun Htun Aye
Assistant Director, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Excavation Branch)
Nay Pyi Daw

Zaw Min Htwe
Staff Officer, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Excavation Branch)
Nay Pyi Daw

Hnin Hnin
Staff Officer, National Museum (Yangon)

Yu Mon Phyo
Deputy Staff Officer, National Museum (Yangon)

Ei Shwe Zin Myint
Staff Officer, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Bagan Branch)

May Myat Noe Ko
Assistant Engineer, Department of Archaeology and National Museum (Bagan Branch)Ami Nyan Win
Assistant Researcher Grade 2, Department of Archaeology and National Museum(International Relation Branch), Nay Pyi Daw

Pa Pa Thin
Assistant Researcher Grade 2, Department of Archaeology and National Museum(International Relation Branch), Nay Pyi Daw

Kay Thwe Soe
Assistant Researcher Grade 2, Department of Archaeology and National Museum(International Relation Branch), Nay Pyi Daw

94

Nyi Nyi Zaw
Museum Curator Grade 3, Department of Archaeology and National Museum(International Relation Branch), Nay Pyi Daw

B. Instructor
NAKAMURA Ichiro
Official Research Photographer, Photography Section, Department of Planning and Coordination,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

C. Interpreters
KIKUCHI Taihei
Freelance Interpreter
San San Soe
Freelance Interpreter

D. Co-organiser■Department of Archaeology and National Museum, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture
Mie Mie Khaing
Director (International Relation Branch)

4. International Workshop
A. Participants
China
Kou Huaiyun
Associate Professor, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University

Fiji
Melaia Tui Tikoitoga
Acting Senior Research Officer (Culture & Environment)
Development Services Division, Ministry of iTaukei Affairs

Indonesia
Hari Setiawan
Heritage Preservation Practitioner
Borobudur Conservation Office, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology

95

NepalSuresh Suras Shrestha
Joint Secretary and the Head of Culture Division, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation,
Government of Nepal

Philippines
Maileen Rondal
Senior Museum Researcher, Geology and Paleontology Division, National Museum of the Philippines

Italy
Aparna Tandon
Senior Programme Leader, First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis,
Digital Heritage, ICCROMJapan
KOHDZUMA Yohsei
Director, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center

OKUMURA Hiroshi
Director/Vice President, Professor, Kobe University

NAGAI Yasuo
Professor, Department of Architecture and Design, Yamagata University

MORIMOTO Susumu
Director, Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara)

B. Acknowledgements for Cooperation
Ana Maria Theresa P. Labrador
Social Anthropologist, National Museum of the Philippines

Damodar Gautam
Director General
Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Civil Aviation, Department of Archaeology, Nepal

96

Hilmar Farid■National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage

Director General for Culture,

Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan

Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology

KOHDZUMA Yohsei

of Republic of Indonesia

Director

Zhou JianTATEISHI Toru

Director, WHITRAP Shanghai, China

Deputy Director

LI Hong

KODANI Ryusuke

Programme Specialist, WHITRAP Shanghai, China

Supervising Manager

Sipiriano Nemani

MAEKAWA Ayumi

Director, Fiji Museum

Senior Researcher

Prita Wikantyasning

NAKASHIMA Shiho

Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology

Researcher

of Republic of Indonesia

5. Acknowledgements
A. Support / Advices■International Centre for the Study of the Preservation

KANEDA Akihiro

and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Director, Center for Archaeological Operations

Pilar House
Executive Assistant, Office of the Director-General

SEINO Takayuki
Director, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations

Joseph King
Director of Partnership and Communication

SHODA ShinyaHead, International Cooperation Section,

Valerie Mager

Department of Planning and Coordination

Unit Manager, Programmes, Programmes Unit

SATO Yuni
IKAWA Hirofumi

Specialist, International Cooperation Section,

Project Manager, Programmes Unit

Department of Planning and Coordination

Gamini Wijesuriya

KAMAKURA Aya

Special Adviser to the Director-General of ICCROM

Technical Staff, Photography Section,
Department of Planning and Coordination

INABA Nobuko
Special Adviser to the Director-General of ICCROM■Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(TNRICP), Japan Center for International Cooperation in■Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Conservation(NNRICP)TOMODA Masahiko

HAKOZAKI Kazuhisa

Director

Director, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations

NISHI Kazuhiko
KATO ShinjiHead, Resource and Systems Research Section

Director, Department of Planning and Coordination

97

KANAI Ken

Shaun Ian Mackey

Head, Conservation Design Section

Guest Researcher, International Cooperation Section, NNRICP■Kyoto National Museum

Walter Edwards

KURIHARA Yuji

Professor of Asian Studies, Tenri University (retired)

Deputy Director

C. Narration of materials
B. Translation and proofreading of materials

Shaun Ian Mackey

OTANI Yasuko

Guest Researcher, International Cooperation Section, NNRICP

Freelance Interpreter

D. Overall cooperation
HATA Chiyako

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan

Freelance Interpreter

National Commission for UNESCO in the Asia-Pacific countries
Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage

Michael Joseph Owen

(JCIC-Heritage)English Instructor / Proofreader

Nara Prefectural Government
Nara City Government

SOHMIYA Ayako
Freelance Interpreter

6. Staff Members of ACCU Nara
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,■Programme Operation Department

Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)WAKIYA Kayoko

437-3 Somanouchi-cho, Tenri city, Nara, 632-0032, JAPANVice Director of Programme Operation Department

Tel: +81(0) 743-69-5010
FAX: +81(0) 743-69-5021

MELADZE Tamare-mail: nara@accu.or.jp

Division Director

URL: https://www.nara.accu.or.jp

International Cooperation Division

MORIMOTO Susumu

SUZUKI Sonoko

Director

Chief
International Cooperation Division

OTO Masashi
Vice Director

HIRAYAMA Naoto
Staff■Planning Management Department

International Cooperation Division

HORIKAWA Kazuko
Division Director of General Affairs

YOSHIDA Machi

Planning and Coordination Division

Staff
International Cooperation Division

IEDA Akiko
Staff

AOKI Aya

Planning and Coordination Division

Project Staff
International Cooperation Division98