TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY IN JAPANThe Committee for the Protection of Buried CulturalPropertiesTERAMAE Naoto1
In this report the situation surrounding ﬁscal 2016 buried cultural properties is reviewed.
As excavation research due to the Great East Japan Earthquake that took place in2011 has passed its peak, the current tasks are organization of excavated artifacts andpublication of excavation reports. Under such circumstances, the Kumamoto Earthquake
took place in April, and again many lives were lost. The image of Kumamoto castle
destroyed by the earthquake was repeatedly shown on media, and as a result, it wasregarded as a symbol of cultural property damaged by an earthquake. On the otherhand, destruction of other cultural properties including a decorated mounded tomb werereported, and it is required of the Japanese Archaeological Association to keep working
toward gathering and sending information and supporting damaged cultural properties.
The following are major trends of protection of buried cultural properties during ﬁscal
2016, mainly from the activities of the Committee for the Protection of Buried CulturalProperties (the Committee). It included contents of a meeting of the Subcommitteefor Measures against Protection of Buried Cultural Properties that was held at Tokyo
University of the Arts on May 27 (Fri), a day before the 82nd general meeting of theAssociation, as well as an information exchange session at Hirosaki University on Oct.
16 (Sun) during the Association’s Hirosaki convention. The Committee has submitted
requests for protection of archaeological sites for the west boundary features of Enkakuji
temple in Kamakura City, Kanagawa Prefecture; Jono site in Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka
Prefecture; Chudoshi-yamajiro site in Kakogawa City, Hyogo Prefecture; and Maehatasite in Chikushino City, Fukuoka Prefecture. Also, the Association issued a statementby the chairman regarding protection of buried cultural properties in relation withKumamoto Earthquake.
Other than above, the Committee discussed preservation problems for Denotame sitein Kitamoto City, Saitama Prefecture; Kanaihigashishimoshinden site in Shibukawa
City, Gunama Prefecture; Magaiwareishi-jizo Buddhist statue in Mihara City, Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum site in Hiroshima City, Hiroshima Prefecture; Iwaidaniochigata
1 c/o The Committee for the Protection of Buried Cultural Properties, The Japanese ArchaeologicalAssociation, 4th Floor, 5–15–5 Hirai, Edogawa Ward, Tokyo 132–0035, Japan(jjarch@archaeology.jp)
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 (2018): 61–62© Japanese Archaeological Association

61

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 (2018): 61–62

●●●● AUTHORJAPONICA●●●●
ARCHAEOLOGIA

site in Matsuyama City, Ehime Prefecture; and the remains of Kojima-yojosho clinic inNagasaki City, Nagasaki Prefecture. Unfortunately, preservation was not possible forsome sites mentioned here.
As amendment of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties is imminent,and “utilization” of cultural properties including buried cultural properties is a focus.
However, utilization is not possible without adequate preservation. With such awarenessof the crisis, long-term, continuous, and strategic utilization plans based on detailed
management are necessary for protected sites, rather than hasty and exhaustive useof cultural properties. While the generational change of specialized staff is carriedout without choice, the succession of know-how and experience is not necessarilysmooth. As an academic society, it may be required of the Association to put efforts toreduce the burden of specialized staff qualitatively and quantitatively by solving theseproblems. If archaeology is a science closely connected to society, we need to provethat buried cultural properties are necessary and effective “property” to enrich society,through smooth circulation of research, utilization, and protection based on support andunderstanding from the public.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

62