International Expert Meeting within the Framework of theThird UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR)

Tokyo Symposium
March 13, 2015
Prince Hall, 5F, Annex Tower, Shinagawa Prince Hotel (Minato-ku, Tokyo)
Opening Remarks

Johei Sasaki, President, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
Masanori Aoyagi, Commissioner, ACA, Government of Japan

Keynote Presentation
Activity Reports

Review of Rescue Activities of Cultural Heritage
Affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake（Nobuo Kamei）＜Legal Classification of Cultural Properties＞
1. Damage to Museum Facilities and Rescue Activities for Tangible Cultural
Properties（Ken Okada）
2. Damage and Restoration Efforts for Architectural Structures and Cityscapes（Shigeki Sekiguchi）
3. Damage to Historic Sites and Places of Scenic Beauty, and Pre-Reconstruction
Rescue Investigations（Yoshio Negita）
4. Damage to Communities and Their Relevant Intangible Cultural Properties（Kensaku Kikuchi）

Case Report<Miyagi>・Restoration Efforts for Architectural Structures in Kesennuma City,
Miyagi Prefecture（Hiroharu Hatano）

Case Reports<Fukushima>
・The Current State of Conservation of Cultural Properties
in Fukushima Prefecture（Takaaki Tanno）

・Management of Cultural Properties Located in Radiation-Contaminated Areas（Chie Sano）
Future Prospects

Developing Networks for Cultural Heritage DRR

Discussion[Facilitators] Kumiko Shimotsuma, Toru Tateishi

Closing Remarks

Masami Zeniya, Executive Director, Tokyo National Museum（Yuji Kurihara）

Tokyo Symposium

Opening Remarks
Johei Sasaki
President
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH)

I would like to first thank all of you for gathering
here today to take part in this symposium. ACA,UNESCO, ICCROM and NICH have organized theInternational Expert Meeting on Cultural Heritage
and Disaster Resilient Communities within theframework of the Third UN World Conference ofDisaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR), with the generous support of ICOM and ICOMOS.
Today’s symposium is a part of this large conference. It aims to review a series of heritage rescue
and recovery activities accomplished after theGreat East Japan Earthquake, and to introduce current efforts for the development of the National
Task Force for the Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network. It is also a platform
for debate and discussion among international experts to elucidate points that need to be addressed
within the “Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030” adopted at the WCDRR.
The day before yesterday, March 11th, marked
the fourth year since the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake. I again express my deepest condolences to those who lost their lives, and extend my sympathies to the many people affected by the disasterthat remain living in temporary housings after they
were evacuated.
Following the devastating earthquake, NICH set
up an office in the National Research Institute forCultural Properties, Tokyo, to develop culturalproperty recovery projects. Emphasis has been put
on the recovery of cultural properties in Fukushima
Prefecture, as a significant number of disaster affected cultural properties remain isolated especiallyin the area around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
disaster, where entrance was not allowed.
Various large scale disasters, including landslides, water and wind damage caused by typhoons,as well as volcanic eruptions, have occurred
throughout Japan in recent years. There is also
concern for imminent massive earthquakes such as
the Nankai Trough Earthquake and the Tokyo Inland Earthquake, and establishment of an effective
recovery system is needed more than ever.

− 169 −Taking into account these circumstances, theHeadquarters for Promotion of Cultural Heritage
Disaster Risk Mitigation Network was establishedwithin NICH in July 2014, with myself appointed as
executive director. Collaborating with ACA, theNetwork aims to develop human resources, gather,analyze, and disseminate information, and conduct
research necessary to mitigate disaster risk to build
an effective rescue and recovery system in times of
emergency.
Beginning with the keynote speech delivered by
Nobuo Kamei from the National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties, Tokyo, the presentations to
be made during this symposium will introduce various rescue and recovery approaches specific toeach type of cultural heritage, from movable andimmovable heritage, historical landscape, archaeological materials, to intangible cultural heritage.
They will also address the current situation of theaffected cultural properties in Miyagi and Fukushima Prefectures, and provide case studies concerning the handling of objects with radioactive contamination. Various works undertaken by the National
Task Force will also be introduced. I hope the symposium promotes awareness for disaster prevention
and will facilitate greater development of collaborative projects by the state, the local and private sectors as well as individuals.
Finally, in my concluding remarks, I would liketo express my deepest gratitude to the people
whose efforts have made today’s symposium possible. With the proactive participation of everyone inattendance here today, I anticipate the success of
this symposium.

Tokyo Symposium

Opening Remarks
Masanori Aoyagi
Commissioner,
Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA), Government of Japan

In my opening remarks, I would first like to offer
my heartfelt condolences to the victims who losttheir lives as a result of the events of the Great East
Japan Earthquake. I would also like to extend mydeepest sympathies to the great many survivors ofthat disaster who nevertheless continue to lead
their lives while being confronted by very difficult
circumstances, and I would like to offer a prayerthat a state of recovery may be achieved at the earliest possible opportunity.
In speaking today, the expressions that I choose
to employ may seem somewhat sentimental; however, concerning both the individual human condition and the continued existence of communities, it
is extremely important that we forge positive recollections.
In the lives of individual human beings, thememories of parents are inherited by their children,and these are in turn passed on to their grandchildren. For communities as well, even if memories
represent a form of social settlement, I truly feelthat there may be a creation of strength through thethorough sharing of such recollections. I would

consider that the inheritance of such recollections
and memories represent critical elements, which inturn give form to what we know as “resilience,” aconstruct which in itself has become a keyword
within the context of this International Expert
Meeting on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities.
Concerning the efforts of communities as theyseek to accumulate a body of shared recollections,
it is also my belief that what we define as a “culturalproperty” plays a significant role in that process.
Thus, the ways in which what we define as a cultural property are protected and passed on to future
generations and are an important consideration formaintaining resilient communities and continuing
activities under optimal circumstances. Bearing
this in mind and taking into consideration the valuable opinions of everybody in attendance here today, I look forward to a better utilization of what we
define as cultural properties in the future and theimportant roles that they may play in helping tobuild resilient communities. Thank you very much.

Opening Remarks by Masanori Aoyagi, Commissioner, ACA (Photo by NICH)− 170 −

Tokyo Symposium

Keynote Presentation
Review of Rescue Activities of Cultural Heritage
Affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake
Nobuo Kamei
Director General,
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo (NRICP-Tokyo)

Good afternoon everybody. My name is Nobuo
Kamei and I work at the National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties, Tokyo. For two years I
worked on the front lines in the areas impacted by
the Great East Japan Earthquake as the chairperson of the Committee for Salvaging Cultural Properties and Other Materials charged with the task of
rescuing cultural properties damaged by the eventsof the disaster. In light of my own experiences, I
want to talk today about the rescue activities thatthe committee undertook and the lessons that welearned.
In my speech today, I would first like to summarize what sort of event the Great East Japan Earthquake was. What was its magnitude? How big wasits tsunami? What was the impact of the radiation
released from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant? After reviewing such issues, I shall offer some insight as to how the committee actually
worked on the ground in the impacted areas. Then,
I shall offer some ideas as to how the lessons
learned can be harnessed for the future. How may
such lessons be incorporated in an institutionalframework or our attitude toward disaster? These
are the sorts of issues that I wish to discuss today.
The first topic to consider is the nature of theearthquake. It was a massive seismic event that occurred four years ago at 2:46 pm Japan Standard
Time on March 11. The earthquake’s epicenter was
about 24 kilometers below the seabed, and its physical location was in open water, around 130 kilometers east of the Oshika Peninsula in Miyagi Prefecture. The earthquake’s magnitude was finallyestablished as being 9.0 on the Richter scale, making it the biggest seismic event that modern Japan
has ever experienced. With this seismic event, theworst-hit areas recorded a maximum grade of Seven (7) on the Japan Meteorological Agency's Seismic Intensity Scale, followed by Six Upper (6 Upper). The southern part of Iwate Prefecturerecorded Six Lower (6 Lower) and the intensity was
identical in Miyagi Prefecture, Fukushima Prefecture, Ibaraki Prefecture, parts of Chiba Prefecture− 171 −and Gunma Prefecture. Meanwhile, the land extending as far as Tochigi Prefecture was also severely shaken. Additionally, the whole of Hokkaido
recorded seismic activity along with everywhere
else in Japan as far down as Kyushu. I think you canunderstand that the entire archipelago was shaken
by the event.
Next, let us consider the tsunami that was causedby this massive earthquake. In terms of its geographic profile, the coastline extending from Iwate
in the north down to Miyagi is referred to as a “Rias
Coast,” and it was where a massive tsunami struck.
Accordingly, throughout the river courses and valleys along this coastline, the waters pushed upstream by the tsunami were of great height. In
some places the recorded high-water mark wasclose to 35 meters. Even the tsunami that engulfed
the flat areas were considerable, with the recordedheights in some areas being between 10 and 25 meters. However, with respect to the coastal region of
Fukushima Prefecture where the nuclear power
plants are located, we could not even measure theheight of the tsunami in some locations because
parts of the plant were destroyed.
It was this two-punch combination of a huge seismic shock and the resultant massive tsunami that
inflicted so much damage across a very wide area ofthe country, extending from Tohoku in the northdown as far as the Kanto Region. This diagram represents a plot of flooded areas and it focuses on a location called Sendai Plains (Fig.1). The data it contains highlights cultural properties located in thearea. It also indicates the numerous facilities, archives and museums where such properties werestored. The Ishinomaki Culture Center, which I will
discuss in greater detail later, was directly next tothe coast and was thus subjected to the full force ofthe tsunami. Within this Sendai-Hirano region, thearea of Wakabayashi in particular boasted a wide
expanse of newly developed housing. Unfortunately, this resulted there in numerous fatalities among
the homeowners.
By contrast, the area around Matsushima Bay

Tokyo Symposium

Fig.1: Tsunami affected areas and the cultural properties plotted out in the Sendai Plains (This figure is drawn by Yoko
Futagami and PASCO Corporation)

was not heavily impacted by the tsunami. I should
point out that the waters around the bay are dottedwith many medium and small-sized islands, andthese seem to have acted as a buffer against the tsunami. We received reports that the islands broke
the back of the oncoming surge and thus there was
not much damage in the confines of the bay. That
events turned out this way in Matsushima was really a blessing in disguise because on the shores ofthe bay there is a very old Buddhist temple called
Zuiganji. This temple boasts many assets including
buildings designated by the Japanese government
as National Treasures. Although there was someslight damage recorded due to the earth- quake’s
seismic shock, luckily the old temple sidestepped
the threat posed by the tsunami. I am inclined tobelieve that our ancestors purposely selected theland that Zuiganji currently occupies as a site thatwas particularly suitable for such a temple.
There is something we should learn from this.
Namely, we should not construct archives, museums and art galleries on low-lying lands. We should
think about construction locations, learning fromthe distribution of ancient sites: we should avoid location where there is no evidene of either ancientbuildings or traces of what might have been erected
earlier, even when developing temporary constructions.
As a side note, local municipalities nationwide
have had to come face-to-face with the scale of damage that a tsunami can inflict since the Great East
Japan Earthquake. New policies have been initiatedregarding the preparation of hazard maps, particularly concerning those municipalities situated along
coastlines which are under the threat of earthquakes. It is thought that such maps will help citizens appreciate the risks of the local region in advance, and that such consciousness may help
determine their evacuation behavior.
The next link in the chain of unfortunate eventswas the designation by the government of both
“Zones Subject to Evacuation” and “Difficult-to-Return Zones” for local residents. These areas were
set in accordance with the radioactive contamination that was predicted to result from the faltering
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. Such developments resulted in the birth of the restraint order.
Indeed, it was Japan’s first experience of an incidentof such a scale. As a nation we are now confronted
by the very real possibility that decades may pass
− 172 −

Tokyo Symposium

before some of our compatriots can safely return totheir former homes, depending on their locations.
Although unavoidable, the people who once lived in
the communities impacted by the nuclear disaster
have been forced to now live as evacuees in otherareas. Among them, there are some victims whose
emotional state is very fragile. These issues arise
from the fact that, due to a series of events beyond
their control, these people have effectively lost theirhometowns.
Due to the nuclear accident, extreme measures
were initially put in place that restricted access tocertain areas. Accordingly, in years one and two following the disaster, Fukushima Prefecture was notreally in a position to promote projects that would
preserve and salvage its own cultural properties. It
is only very recently that the access restrictions forcertain areas have been lifted, and this has allowed
us belatedly to commence our rescue of the culturalproperties and their related materials. However,there are still areas where the decontamination
process or other factors have stalled such activities.
This means that no timeline for the lifting of restrictions has been established. In such areas, obviously
there is concern about conducting any rescue activities.
Next, I would like to comment on the damage
that occurred to the assets designated as either National Treasures or Important Cultural Properties.
Some 754 cases of damage, both significant and minor, were reported across a very wide expanse of
the country from Aomori in the nation’s north rightdown to Kochi on the island of Shikoku. A list withthe details has been handed out, and although it is
not my intention to dwell further into these matters,
you can appreciate that, particularly in Ibaraki Prefecture, the number of damaged buildings was rather large. There may be differences in the size of theaffected assets, but as an overall trend it is possible
to appreciate that the extent of damage inflicted
upon buildings in Ibaraki was pronounced. In addition to these nationally designated assets, there wasalso damage to prefecture-designated, city-designated and non-designated cultural properties. If
these were also counted, then the total number ofdamage cases would increase by at least a factor often.
Given the variety extent and a number of damaged cultural properties, and responding to a request from ACA, NICH needed to get on the groundof the impacted areas so we could salvage and help
deal with damaged cultural properties. However,− 173 −

immediately after the disaster struck the transportation infrastructure also broke down. Meanwhile,on the ground of the impacted areas the preservation of human life was given the highest priority.
Thus, we were not really in a position to commence
our activities under such conditions. After roughly
two weeks, however, the full extent of the disasterwas better understood and a degree of calm was in
the process of returning. When we finally realizedthat the time had come when we could turn our attention to the plight of the damaged cultural properties, staff from the National Research Institute forCultural Properties traveled to the impacted areas
together with a number of specialists from ACA.
Once there, meetings were held with the different
prefectural authorities who dealt with cultural properties. During these meetings, deliberations occurred as to what we should be doing and what we
could actually do given the circumstances. In thecourse of these discussions, it became readily apparent that a tremendous amount of damage had
occurred across a wide geographic area. Thus, it
was well beyond the resources of a single organization to conduct salvage activities in response to everything that had happened. At this point, a decision
was made to also call upon the cooperation of stakeholder organizations. Thankfully, this nation is fortunate to have a wide range of different organizations such as the Japanese Association of Museums
and the Japanese Council of Art Museums, etc.
ACA approached these various stakeholder organizations, and the “Cultural Properties Rescue Project” was established to deal with tangible culturalproperties such as art objects. Meanwhile for buildings in the impacted areas, we set up the “Cultural
Properties Doctor Dispatch Project.”First let me describe the Cultural Properties
Rescue Project. Everyone here may well appreciatethat many museums and archives were left damaged by the disaster. A particular example was the
Ishinomaki Culture Center located in Miyagi Prefecture. The building is a relatively new, and thetrue extent of the damage to it is not evident at a
glance. In fact, however, the entrance doors of thebuilding were ripped away, and the tsunami forced
its way into the stairwells. Wreckage borne by thewater ended up inside the building, and everything
was in shambles. The rescue of cultural properties
commenced with the piece-by-piece removal of the
rubble (Fig. 2).

Tokyo Symposium

Fig.2: The rescue team removing the rubble scattered in the Ishinomaki Culture Center

As lifeline services of the building such as waterand electricity were also cut, the clearing work took
place in completely darkened rooms, with our staff
depending solely on their headlamps for light. The
entire process was further complicated as there
was no water available to rinse off the items thatwere retrieved. As you may well imagine, our rescue activities were not simply a case of turning up at
the site and then proceeding to remove the culturalproperties from the outset. Rather, routes for thesafe extraction of the assets had to be secured before anything was able to be recovered and carriedout. For our researchers, who on a day-to-day basis
carry little more than pens, and for the curators ofmuseums, etc., such voluntary labor proved to be avery tough and demanding form of physical exercise.
Of all the damage that occurred, the most tragic
event was played out at the public museum in Rikuzentakata City. At the time of the disaster, six
staff members were on duty. Regrettably, however,none managed to survive because of the sheer
height of the oncoming tsunami, wtich exceeded
the height of the two-story building’s roof. Because
the building was located on flat ground near thecoast, it was subject to a combination of being battered by the huge tsunami followed by a violent receding of the water. Accordingly, much of what was
originally housed in the museum floated outside. In
its place, other wreckage was deposited inside thebuilding. The scene that confronted us was truly
shocking. In our salvage activities, we experienced
considerable trouble when trying to identify actual
cultural properties. Indeed, because it was so difficult at the time to separate assets from the surrounding rubble, anything that looked even slightly
probable was retrieved for later analysis.

Next, I would like to comment on the plight ofsome historic buildings. Before the disaster, thiswas a three-story building that combined a wooden
structure and stone pitching. It used to be a liquor
store. Due to the tsunami’s impact, however, boththe first and second stories collapsed, leaving only
the third intact (Fig. 2 in the presentation by Hiroharu Hatano). As the third story still housed possessions that were of great importance to the building’s occupants, great care was taken so as torescue everything.
To return to the topic of earthquakes for a moment, I should point out that an earthquake is not a
one-time event. Rather, after the main quake has
struck, it is invariably followed by numerous strong
aftershocks. Accordingly, it is necessary that rescue and relief work only be undertaken after first
confirming the safety of the staff members and others who are to engage in such tasks. Traditionally,that would probably mean requiring that people
wear helmets, or possibly equipping them with safety boots, gloves, masks, etc. However, during theinitial stages of the rescue occasion, we were not ina position to demand these goods.
As we realized during the course of our activities, because these events took place in areas thatwere under the jurisdictional control of the staff oflocal cultural facilities and local municipal boards ofeducation, it was necessary as an initial step that wegather information from these sources. Concerning
matters related to cultural properties, our normal
administrative procedures are to utilize a communication system in which information is conveyedfrom the top down. In other words, information isconveyed by ACA to the various prefectural boardsof education, and from there it is then disseminatedto the municipal or local boards of education. Alternately, such information may flow from bottom to
top along the same routes. We believed that the usage of this network would be good for the collectionof information pertaining to the disaster situation,
so it was necessary to establish a reciprocal communication network. It has been pointed out that incases such as this, in which a disaster extends
across a wide geographic area, there must be cooperation cutting across prefectural boundaries. Furthermore, information should be shared among
stakeholders as to what cultural properties are located where. If staff members and others are able tosurvive a disaster, then they can pass information
on as to what items are retained by the particularcollection of the iustitution. However, since regret− 174 −Tokyo Symposium

tably all of the staff of the Rikuzentakata Museum
perished, we had no information whatsoever as towhat had been retained in their collection. Accordingly, it was important that the curators engaged in
the salvage activities on the ground could come into
contact with the actual cultural properties while
they were working. This allowed them to separate
assets from the surrounding rubble. As to lessons
that may be learned and harnessed for the future,
one issue is that certain facilities should be chosen
to play key roles as aggregators, and in this regard
it would be desirable if prefectural institutions were
nominated to the post. If these entities acted as
hubs, then the museums, art museums and archives, and others under their jurisdiction could be
encouraged to mutually share information about
the contents of their collections.
Regarding the composition of the units that are
actually charged with the task of carrying out thesalvage of damaged cultural properties and otherobjects, we soon learned that it was necessary thata wide variety of professions participate in theseteams. For example, people with the technical skills
to implement emergency measures, people who
can arrange cultural properties to withstand the rigors of transportation are highly valuable additions
to any team. Also important, are people with theability to safely transport properties.
I should also point out that what we targeted in
our art museum salvage activities was not merely
limited to artistic works such as the paintings andsculptures, but also books and documents. We evenhad one case where an institution had a collectionof botanical and marine life native to a specific region rescued. In the Sanriku Area in particular,some institutions retained extensive fossil, biological and botanical sample collections. Thus, we could
not have responded without the cooperation of curators drawn from natural history museums.
Through these experiences, we also learned thelesson that it was good to consider the types of job
that were to be incorporated within the rescue
squads.
Additionally, under circumstances such as these,
where an enormous volume of cultural properties
and other objects were damaged, it was necessary
to secure a temporary storage space where the rescued items could be held, as well as workspaces
where soiled cultural properties could be washedand emergency measures conducted to ensure
their viability. Paper-based collections of materials
had been damaged by a combination of seawater− 175 −and muddy weter. While they were originally exposed the coolness of March, our efforts to rescue
them were confronted by the coming of the rainyseason and by the summer heat. Thus, it was necessary that these items be processed as quickly as
possible to ward off the threat posed by decay anddeterioration. However, there was not enough timeto process the sheer volume of material that was recovered. As it was understood that the only solution
to ward off the threat of decay and other problems
was to freeze the materials, we managed to secure
enough freezer space with cooperation that was received from two private-sector companies in Sendai
and Nara.
When thinking about the best response to issues
as these, we also realized that it would be necessary
for us to have access to large volumes of water for
the initial cleaning the recovered cultural properties. Great amounts of water was also required toleach out salt contaminants. This meant, however,that we also had to seek out and secure a range offacilities including places that combined a sufficientwater supply with enough space to dry out recovered items after they had been rinsed.
Additionally, because a great variety of materials
had to be transported, we had to secure the cooperation of private companies. Working hand-in-handwith ACA, we also conducted campaigns to secure
the funding necessary for continuing our operations. We received both funding and great physicaland moral support from overseas, a situation about
which both my colleagues and I feel extremely
grateful. Indeed, such support still continues. Although somewhat delayed, I would like to use thisopportunity today to again express my heartfelt
gratitude for all the help and assistance that has
been forthcoming.
For damaged architectural heritage, we established the Cultural Properties Doctor Dispatch program. Our purpose in establishing the project was
to rescue the buildings that society deemed important, regardless of whether they were officially designated cultucal perperties or not. With ACA taking
the lead, contact was made with various prefecturalboards of education, the Architectural Institute ofJapan and the Japan Institute of Architects, amongst
others. With the cooperation of these organizations,specialists who became known as “Cultural Properties Doctors” were dispatched to the impacted areas. These people were able to both preserve andrepair cultural heritage buildings, and they could
also pass judgment on structures in terms of theirTokyo Symposium

value as cultural properties. The project also endeavored to provide technical assistance to othersin the execution of their building preservation andrepair activities.
The person responsible for the Cultural Properties Doctor Dispatch Program will deliver their own
report later in these proceedings and give more details and data. Here, I shall comment only briefly
and simply. One particularly fine building featured athatched roof and was located on a property that
included both a garden and a pond. One factor that
contributed to its demise was an excessive spacingof the pillars around the doors. Seismically speaking, the weight-bearing ability of the building’s
walls proved insufficient to deal with the stresses
exerted. Meanwhile, possibly because the directionof the seismic shock’s swing differed, its adjacentbuilding was able to receive considerable damage
but nevertheless remain standing. A contrasting example is provided by a brick storehouse datingfrom the Meiji period (1868-1912). Although there
seems to be a small bump caused by a gradient difference in the building’s skeleton, because its shape
was structured in a certain way, the building did not
move as a uniform mass when shaken. Thus, inspections revealed examples of detached or fallen
roof trusses and of cracks in the external walls.
There was also an opportunity for us to witness
Buddhist temples that had been damaged by the
combined forces of earthquake and tsunami. We
saw examples of stone lanterns in front of temple
gates toppling due to seismic shock, and subsequently being engulfed in heaps of rubble deposited by tsunami. As to the temple buildings themselves, as the structural integrity of some was rather
rudimentary to begin with, the events of the disaster left them in a rather perilous condition. It was
sometimes necessary for our staff to rescue Buddhist statues or other objects from within temple
structures. In the undertaking of such activities, we
needed to have teams that could rescue the cultural
assets, while securing the safety of each site. In
many cases our teams required close cooperation
with building experts.
The Cultural Properties Doctor Dispatch Program, which focused on buildings, dealt with structures that in many cases had already undergone
various inspections by prefectural or municipal authorities prior to the disaster, which made the building damage-confirmation processes go somewhat
more smoothly than those pertaining to art objects
done by our teams. Although I shall discuss it ingreater detail in a moment, I should point out that a
new registration system for cultural properties
came into effect here in Japan back in 1996. Thisdevelopment resulted in numerous buildings being
registered as part of the nation’s cultural heritage.
On this occasion our teams confronted a number offrustrating issues. One was that some time had
elapsed since the lists of past inspections was created. Thus, The data we had was not always accurate. Another issue was that individual building data
had not always been updated. There was also the
problem that some buildings that should have already been registered as cultural heritage were discovered by our inspection efforts. By confronting
these complications, we came to realize the importance of data being managed and updated on a regular basis. These practices would allow an accurate
appreciation of what types of cultural heritage weresituated where.
In carrying out our damage inspections, an important thing for our teams were the relationships
developed between our network of specialists andthe local administrative authorities. Generally
speaking, when an unknown individual seeks access to inspect a damaged building, even if introduced as a building repair specialist, it can be difficult for the owner to trust visitors based solely on
their word. Under such circumstances, what is required for the inspection process to proceedsmoothly is teamwork, with our specialists cooperating with municipal authorities whose faces arewell known locally. Furthermore, it was clear to us
that we needed the leadership and opinions of individuals well-versed in restoration techniques in order to decide how to implement emergency measures in damaged buildings. Accordingly, I feel that
we need to establish a system for specialist capacity
building. As a pioneering example, I want to highlight the Heritage Manager Training System thathas been developed by Hyogo Prefecture, a topic
that shall be addressed later. We are keenly awarethat we need to establish training programs for specialists in preservation and restoration of culturalproperties.
However, an issue that needs to be addressed
within the world of construction is how to organize
an evaluation system regarding the degrees of
emergency safety in affected buildings. Whenearthquakes occur, it is obvious that a large numberof buildings can be damaged. As for the possibilityof secondary danger of these affected buildings, asystem does exist where qualified architects judge− 176 −

Tokyo Symposium

the degree of danger they pose. A judgement involves the application of one of three stickers to theinspected buildings, “UNSAFE,” “LIMITED ENTRY” or “INSPECTED.” Nowadays, this system isimplemented in all parts of the country to avoid secondary disaster risks that affected buildings could
cause.
One related issue that arose was how we should
correctly inform what the evaluation is for, in orderfor the system to be appropriately applied to damaged heritage buildings. With a written consent of
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructures, Transport
and Tourism, which is the government organization
with administrative control over construction issues, ACA issued a notice to widely inform that,even if cultural heritage buildings were to be judged
as UNSAFE or LIMITED ENTRY, the judgement
should not be understood as “unrecoverable condition” but just as “with possibility of secondary damage”, and that those buildings should not be demolished without due consideration. Indeed, there arecases where heritage buildings judged to be UNSAFE were demolished at the public expense uponrequest from the building owners. We saw building
owners feeling that they would have to demolish abuilding because it was “too dangerous” and “toodifficult to repair,” despite their understanding of
the cultural significance of the buildings. Throughsuch cases, we realized the need to develop communications for strongly encouraging heritage
owners not to demolish their heritage buildings but
to keep and recover them.
In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995,
a great deal of damage centered around the city of
Kobe. Administratively speaking, I would like to discuss what sort of cultural-property-related policies
came about as a result of what was learned throughthe events at that time. First, and perhaps most obviously, reports on the salvage activities were created. Disaster Prevention mannuals were also prepared. In conjunction with these developments, atool called the “Cultural Properties Emergency Response and Salvage Wheel,” on how to better deal
with tangible cultural properties, was created anddistributed to stakeholder organizations. The ideaof this wheel came from USA.
Regarding architectural structures, we created a
new registration system to recognize buildings ofsocial importance that were excluded from the rigorous national system of cultural property designation. Concurrently, because some designated buildings were in fact damaged in the earthquake, we− 177 −

performed minimal structural stabilization at thetime and left the development of future policy forlater, after the seismic evaluation inspections could
be done.
Because there were people with the technicalskills to restore cultural heritage buildings in the
Kansai region prefectural or local municipality governments, it was possible after the Great HanshinAwaji Earthquake to build a voluntary network by
utilizing this capacity for the purpose of both undertaking disaster assessment inspections, and to provide leadership and support with regard to restoration activities. Roughly six years after the events of
the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, with the announcement of its aforementioned Heritage Manager Training System, in 2001, Hyogo Prefecture
became the first municipality to initiate a program
whose purpose was to develop human resources
capable of leadership in both the preservation andrestoration of national heritage buildings. Nationwide, the Heritage Manager System has now been
adopted by five or six prefectures, each undertaking its own specialist training. In the future, it is oneof my hopes that this system shall spread throughout the country. Thus, as I have just discussed insome detail, systems such as these were born out of
the lessons learned from the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake, and they can be linked to future policies.
On this occasion, as we consider how the lessons learned from the disaster might be utilized in
the future, one thing that has become clear is that
intangible cultural properties serve a key psychological role as pillars or nexuses in the revival of local communities. Within the various areas of the
Tohoku Region, there is a great variety of traditional events and arts. In fact, many reports record instances of people desiring to undertake such eventsand arts as a means of spiritual nourishment thatcan be utilized to once again to revive their hometowns. A prime example of such sentiment are thepeople who wish to perform toramai (“tiger dances”) once again. Through the support of a great
many individuals, the spirits of people within theimpacted areas have been restored by their being
able to perform the tiger dance festivals, whichwere strongly rooted traditions in many areas. Dueto the importance of these intangible cultural properties, people realize that their villages both “possess a proud cultural tradition” and that “they needto revitalize and invigorate themselves” in order tocontinue such traditions in their hometowns.

Tokyo Symposium

There are other instances of the lessons frompast disasters having being utilized during the recent tragedy. If I were to offer some examples tohighlight this point, an issue that might be considered first is how the disasters themselves are remembered, and how what is learned is passed onto
the generations that are to follow. When ponderingsuch matters, I recall the expression, “tsunami tendenko,” which has been stated with frequency. The
word tendenko comes from a Japanese dialect andliterally means “each for themselves.” Tsunami tendenko initially gained a degree of popularity roughly
25 years ago. The expression essentially means
that, if threatened by a tsunami, individuals should
not consider those around them but rather seek toescape themselves. Perhaps its point can be expressed by the saying “where there’s life, there’s
hope.” Accordingly, if each and every individual retained such a sentiment, everybody would escapeto high ground. However, the reality is different, assome of the people were sadly lost in the recent
tragedy when they returned home to rescue thestranded elderly and others.
There is also an example offered by the Sanriku
Earthquake of 1896. Then, too, much of the area
impacted by the Great East Japan Earthquake fell
victim to a massive tsunami. From that experience,the survivors imparted their knowledge on a slope
below a high point in a certain area, erecting a stonemonolith that was inscribed with the following
warning: “Do not build houses below this point under any circumstances.” People actually respected
this warning from their ancestors, and the modern
community where this monolith is located sufferedlittle damage. Thus, in developing new disasterprevention strategies, I feel it is necessary to do sowhile utilizing the knowledge and lessons that havebeen left behind by previous generations.
From the perspective of protecting cultural properties, we first need to know what assets exist andwhere they are. Once that is established, we need toshare this information with the stakeholders andput in place systems that allow for cooperation incase anything should happen. Additionally, to ensure that disasters do not fade from the collective
memory, we need to establish commemorativedays, and other reminders, and develop projects
like disaster-preparedness drills. It is importantthat people continue remembering and passing on
both their actions under certain circumstances andhow they were apt to help one another. For our part,in addition to numerous opportunities to participate
in salvage activities in local municipalities, we haveheld exhibitions and conducted events publicizing
the restoration efforts. Regardless of whether damage occurred or not, however, I believe that it isnecessary on an annual basis to repeatedly recall to
the wider consciousness just how important the cultural properties of the impacted areas are.
Finally, as was also commented on in the President’s opening remarks just a moment ago, in conjunction with ACA and with the cooperation of relevant organizations, my colleagues and I at NICH
have commenced research for creating a network
capable of responding to and salvaging culturalproperties. As to what has been gained throughthese salvage activities, I believe that we havelearned important lessons with respect to the issues of overall rescue methods, the securing of temporary storage locations for salvaged assets, thesecuring of transportation methods, importantknow-how regarding emergency measures with respect to water damage and, as shall be reported on
separately, the handling of cultural properties contaminated by radiation. Looking at the future, wewant to utilize what has been learned so we can develop a network capable of responding to the disasters that may be forthcoming. In doing so, we wish
to create organizational structures capable of teamwork in the undertaking of salvage activities, and
we also want to establish certain standards to secure the necessary funding. For the foreseeable future, a major issue for us is to consider how to utilize what has been learned best.
It may take over 10 years before the process ofrestoring the salvaged cultural properties is completed. As we continue with these full-scale recovery efforts, we also hope to undertake simulations
to better understand how to respond to disasters in
the future. That concludes my keynote speech.
Thank you very much for your attention.

− 178 −

Tokyo Symposium

Activity Report (Cultural Properties) 1
Damage to Museum Facilities and Rescue Activities for Tangible Cultural Properties
Ken Okada
Director
Center for Conservation Science and Restoration Techniques
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NRICP), Tokyo

My name is Ken Okada. I previously served as the
Secretariat Manager of the Secretariat establishedwithin the Committee for Salvaging Cultural Properties and Other Materials, an organization thatwas chaired by Nobuo Kamei, the Director Generalof the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo. On this occasion, I would like to focus on the specifics of the activities we undertook
to successfully rescue various cultural properties.
The earthquake that occurred on March 11th,
2011, was followed by a series of rather strong aftershocks. Such phenomena resulted in the damage
and destruction of cultural properties. Furthermore, museums, art galleries and other buildings,
where cultural properties were housed, also began
to collapse. More than anything, however, whatcaused a massive amount of damage to a huge volume of cultural properties both in terms of geographic coverage and the categories that were hit,

was the series of tsunami that occurred immediately after the initial earthquake. Moreover, it could besaid that the nature of the damage incurred wascomplex. To make matters even worse, we werealso confronted by the unique situation of the explosive incidents that had occurred at the crippled nuclear power plant.
If the cultural properties that sustained damage
were to be considered in terms of who actually
owned or retained them, they were comprised of
public and private art museums, as well as otherkinds of museums and archives, Buddhist temples
and Shinto shrines. Furthermore, there was the destruction of private homes and damage to schools,
community centers, libraries and the administrative
agency buildings.
As a result of all this, many cultural property professionals died, including museum curators. In
some areas, essentially everything was either lost

公益財団法人

文化財保護 ・ 芸術研究助成財団
Foundation for Cultural Heritage and Art Research

被災文化財等救援委員会（事務局 ・ 東京文化財研究所）
Committee for Salvaging Cultural Properties andother Materials (Secrerariat: National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo)

現地本部
Local headquarters

Fig.1: Organizational Diagram of the Cultural Properties Rescue Operations− 179 −

Tokyo Symposium

or damaged, and the immediate families of staff
members, as well as their relatives and acquaintances, passed away. As a result of the disaster, many
people were forced to lead the lives of evacuees.
Even today, approximately 200,000 people continue
to lead this lifestyle, meaning they reside somewhere other than their former homes. However, as
one of the first actions taken to rescue cultural properties stored at these destructed facilities, it was thepeople in the impacted areas that conducted therescue activities themselves, in order to ensure thesafety of their cultural properties, and then to findshelter for those that had been damaged. Additionally, the local municipal government, museums,
and university researchers followed and began toundertake their own support activities. Finally, under the leadership of the Agency for Cultural Affairs(ACA), we were to get involved through the initiation of what was called the “Cultural Properties Rescue Operations.”
The series of huge tsunami struck across a very
wide and extensive area, so it was not just housing
and commercial areas that were damaged. In someplaces, local government office buildings, as well as
town and village halls were also impacted. It is because of this that the damage inflicted on the region
was so extensive. As for the activities that were undertaken to rescue cultural properties, there werecertain individual organizations that chose to act ina private capacity. Obviously, however, for our discussions here today, the major point of consideration is how the local government and the administrative institutions of the affected areas decided toact. However, to begin with, we should note that
there were numerous areas in which the administrative agencies were not it a state to be able to takeactions at the outset. Regarding this inaction, it
might be said that the recovery of systems acrossthe impacted areas tended to differ by region, and,at this point, I would like to comment on the distinctive characteristics and the individuality of the cultural properties damaged on this occasion.
First, I will address the relationship between thephysical environment of the tsunami-impacted areas and the distinctive nature of the damage subsequently inflicted. I do not want to be overly subjective here, but my opinion is that if this disaster had
only been an earthquake, its damage might havebeen limited to the possible collapse of buildings
and some other degree of destruction. However,
because the cultural properties in some locations
were flooded by the tsunami immediately following

the seismic shock and in some cases were evenwashed away, the affected properties were subject
to both water damage and contamination.
The truth is that there were not many culturalproperties designated under Japanʼs national cultural property protection system in areas of thecountry historically hit by tsunami to begin with.
The nature of the actual damage sustained by cultural properties differs between inland and coastal
regions. In inland regions of the country, it was only
damage from earthquakes that was experienced.
However, cultural properties in coastal regions
were affected by the tsunami as well; here, there
were not that many nationally designated culturalproperties. On the other hand, some examples ofcultural properties damaged in the tsunami impacted areas are local art museums that proudly displayed the works of locally born artists, small museums with early modern or later architectural or
ethnological materials, artworks, and private homes
with historical and ethnological materials. There
were also facilities that had gathered a variety ofhistorical materials concerning their local fishingindustry. Particularly, in the Sanriku area, where
whaling had played a major part in the local way oflife since ancient times, there were many displays ofskeletons and other materials that dealt with the
topic.
When we were to rescue items such as the aforementioned whaling displays, a problem was confronted in that these items and documents were notdesignated cultural properties. Moreover, rescuing
natural history items handled under a system different from the cultural properties protection system we were familiar with became an issue. Suchaspects revealed the limits in capability of local mu-

Fig.2: Whale skeleton (Whale & Marine Science Museum, Yamada-machi, Iwate Prefecture)− 180 −

Tokyo Symposium

nicipalities. Nevertheless, these failings were soon
confronted by the emergence of actions in the impacted areas led by numerous specialists whose
unique skills allowed them to both address andovercome these issues.
I would now like to discuss some of the technicalissues that were involved in the transportation ofdamaged cultural properties. For some of them, in
addition to the contamination that resulted fromtheir coming into contact with tsunami water, there
were also outbreaks of mold. This raised the possibility of any contamination spreading in wherever
they might be stored next. Thus, to overcome theseissues, we made use of facilities such as an empty,
abandoned school.
In the case of Fukushima Prefecture, in addition
to the obvious earthquake and tsunami issues,
problems were also created by the nuclear power
plant accident that forced residents to evacuate
their homes. From this turn of events arose thequestion of what should be done about the culturalproperties that had been left behind. Soon administrative agencies, stakeholder organizations and specialists were pressured for a decision as to how tobest respond to these developments.
We commenced the project to rescue culturalproperties while seeking to overcome these issues.
Those who actually undertook the rescue activities
included historians and archaeologists from the impacted areas, museum curators, archival researchers, librarians, researchers specializing in culturalproperty preservation, technicians specializing inconserving cultural properties as well as membersof the public. While all participants shared the sameaim of salvaging the cultural properties of a specificarea, in reality it was not smooth sailing at first. The
main problem for this was the issue of expense.
Also, whether or not they were in a position which
would allow them to participate in these rescue activities was another. The people with all the different job descriptions above were burdened by theirown issues̶issues that had to be overcome if they
were to engage in the rescue activities. It is fair tosay that the Cultural Properties Rescue Operations
established by ACA represented the single organizational structure capable of organizing all of thesepeople so that they could act.
Obviously, it needs to be appreciated that noneof us had previously experienced such a divergent
range of different cultural property genres being
damaged throughout such a wide geographic area.
Thus, when the actual work began, what resulted− 181 −

might be best described as a succession of trial anderror.
As to the specific activities that we carried out,
obviously everything started with the procurementof funding. Next, the basic workflow was to proceed
as follows: understanding the disaster situation →planning emergency rescue tasks → assigning staff→ emergency rescue treatment → evacuation andtransportation tasks → temporary storage. However, because there was participation of numerous different organizations and specialists in our rescue
activities, one outcome was that, at each site, various methods were used for treatment of culturalproperties that had been flooded and contaminatedby water. Then again, at the Secretariat of the Committee for Salvaging Cultural Properties and other
Materials, we did not dictate certain universal
processing procedures. Rather, we decided to leave
the issue of processing to the best judgment of thespecialists who were on the ground responding to
the conditions that were found at each individual
processing site.
At this point, I would like to highlight the rescue
activities that were undertaken at three particular
museums. The first I wish to discuss is the Ishinomaki Culture Center located in Ishinomaki City,
Miyagi Prefecture. The beautiful white building itself was a solidly built structure; however, the forceof the tsunami led to water getting in on the firstfloor, and this factor resulted in the destruction andcontamination of the museumʼs collection. There
were three full-scale wooden sculptures displayedin the second floor galleries, but these showed little
disarray after the earthquake because they were
installed on individual seismic mounts, which
proved to work extremely well.
A formal request for assistance concerning theIshinomaki Culture Center was made to ACA by
Miyagi Prefecture on March 29, 2011. Although
ACA, in response to this request, immediately
launched the Cultural Properties Rescue Operations on April 1st, it was not until late April that wemanaged to start our rescue activities in Ishinomaki. In the period between the issuing of the assistance request and when we actually started our rescue work in Ishinomaki, the staff of the Ishinomaki
City Board of Education, who were normally responsible for the Culture Center, expressed astrong interest in trying to salvage the culturalproperties themselves. However, these staff members were also needed to help respond to the plightof evacuees because the evacuation centers for dis-

Tokyo Symposium

placed citizens within the city were located in school
gymnasiums. Thus, they were then not in a position
to return to the Culture Center to try and initiate
any rescue activities themselves.
When initiating our salvage activities, our staff
had first to remove the site rubble themselves. We
gathered a team of curators from art museums nationwide, and they then undertook emergency
measures to stabilize the recovered works of art. At
this initial stage, however, as basic cleaning processes such as fumigation could not be fully undertaken to counteract damage such as staining causedby the tsunami water, there are pieces of art that
require further steps still in storage throughout
Ishinomaki.
At the Rikuzentakata City Museum in Iwate Prefecture, unfortunately, all six staff members werereported dead or missing. A formal request for assistance concerning this facility was made to ACA
by Iwate Prefecture in mid May 2011. Althoughcompared to the aforementioned request for assistance issued by Miyagi Prefecture, this one arrived
about a month-and-a-half later, Iwate had already inearly April managed to gather specialists from its
prefectural museum and local universities, andeven representatives from the Self Defense Forces,
who were then engaged in rescuing survivors andsearching for bodies throughout the prefecture, allof whom were encouraged to participate in the discussion. This combined group had early on successfully rescued the natural history and ethnographic collections of Rikuzentakata and relocatedthem to a hilltop elementary school within the city.

July. These were taken to a conservation facility in
Morioka City, more than 100 kilometers north of
Rikuzentakata, where emergency measures weretaken to stabilize their condition.
Because we were able to secure an elementary
school in Rikuzentakata to use as a shelter for thedamaged cultural properties, we were able to gather most of the recovered materials and archives atthe school. Since then, one curator personnel together with the former director of the Rikuzentakata City Museum have been organizing what had
been recovered at the elementary school. In thisrespect, the situation in Rikuzentakata was different
than in Ishinomaki, where recovered materials remain scattered.
Finally, I would like to convey what happened in
the town of Tomioka in Fukushima Prefecture. Thiswas one of the communities that I alluded to earlier,
where all of its residents were forced to evacuate
due to the accident that occurred at the crippled nuclear power plant. In this case, what had been left
behind in the town was a small museum housing a
number of the communityʼs cultural properties. We
started to give some thought as to what could bedone regarding these items. For a community
whose citizens might not be able to return home forsome time, what could be best done regardingthese materials? One issue was that the electric supply to the museum had been completely cut off.
This meant that temperature and humidity within
the building were no longer controlled. We also hadconcerns about rats or mice getting into the materials and damaging them. In light of these factors, adecision was made to rescue the materials and relocate them elsewhere outside the town. This work
was undertaken with strong consciousness as toFig.3: Emergency measures being undertaken in the garage of anart gallery in Miyagi Prefecture

Art works were also salvaged from the second
floor of the Rikuzentakata City Museum finally in

Fig.4: Removing a painting from the Rikuzentakata Museum− 182 −

Tokyo Symposium

the issue of radiation levels. In fact, my colleague
from the Conservation Section of the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties will be giving a speech on the radiation issue later.
The work of rescuing the materials from Tomioka is almost completed. However, there is yet another issue that still needs to be considered: if we
do not know when Tomioka's residents will be able
to return to their town and resume their former
lives, how should these recovered cultural properties be used in the future? This issue, too, is different from the challenges faced in Ishinomaki andRikuzentakata.
Concluding this presentation, I shall offer a vision for the future that the damaged cultural properties that were rescued may await. The situations
confronting each of the museums we just discussed
are completely different one from another, as werethe conditions in their impacted areas. Furthermore, the circumstances confronting people responsible for deciding the future of the rescued
materials also varied. What is more, the condition of
the damaged and contaminated cultural properties
that were salvaged differ in each of the aforementioned instances. While it might be argued that thecultural properties that underwent cleaning prior tobeing vacuum freeze-dried are sufficiently stable,
what is the fate of less-fortunate materials? Because
so much was recovered through our rescue efforts,much of it could not be cleaned sufficiently before
undergoing the drying process. Thus, there remains a great volume of materials that are still impregnated with soiled seawater. As a result of temperature and humidity changes, these material
might be threatened by mold again in the future.
Accordingly, one issue that needs to be addressed

Fig.5: Removing a painting from the Tomioka Culture Community
Center− 183 −

is how these damaged cultural properties may be
best stored or displayed in new collections and environments.
We managed to rescue great volumes of culturalproperties and archives through our activities.
What was actually rescued represent a wealth ofmaterials that convey both the history of the region
and the lives of its people. The rescued materials
also stand testament to the history of the Great East
Japan Earthquake as a disaster. Thus, I think weneed to keep this perspective in mind as we go
through the process of making careful decisions on
how to appropriately preserve these important
items of the nationʼs cultural heritage.
Thank you very much for your close attention.

Fig.6: Using vacuum freeze-drying equipment (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)

Tokyo Symposium

Activity Report (Cultural Properties) 2
Damage and Restoration Efforts for Architectural Structures and Cityscapes
Shigeki Sekiguchi
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties (Architecture)
Architectural Division, ACA

The Great East Japan Earthquake that struck on
March 11, 2011, damaged 744 cultural properties
protected by Japan’s Cultural Properties Protection
Act. Of these, 587, or a little less than 80%, were designated (shitei bunkazai) or registered (tōroku
bunkazai) architectural cultural properties. In eachcase, the walls, roof and even structural components suffered extensive damage, seen across avery wide area.
Only one of the damaged National Treasure or
Important Cultural Property designated buildings
had its designation lifted as a result of the earthquake. All other damaged architectural culturalproperties were quickly repaired and restored aspart of subsidized programs run by the Agency for
Cultural Affairs (ACA). As of March 2015, these
restoration programs were almost completed, withthe exception of some Important Cultural Property
buildings that suffered extensive damage.
As with Important Cultural Properties, immediate attempts were made to understand the damage

caused to Registered Tangible Cultural Properties.
However, due to the sheer volume of these properties and the confusion that reigned in the disasterstricken areas, information could not immediately
be obtained, with only around 20% known as of midApril 2011. It was even worse for regionally designated cultural properties that were not on the national register and for undesignated culturalproperties, as no information was available.
Initially after the Great East Japan Earthquake anumber of organizations and groups planned tosupport efforts to survey historical buildings thatwere not designated cultural properties. However,given the burden placed on the disaster-stricken areas hosting these surveys, it was believed that the
ACA would have to develop transportation means
for these assistance programs. As a result, the ACA
launched a program to dispatch so-called “culturalproperty doctors” about six weeks after the earthquake struck. Today, I would like to talk about the
Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program withinFig.1: A scheme of the Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program− 184 −

Tokyo Symposium

the broader context of ACA support provided fordamaged cultural properties.
The Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program
covered both designated and undesignated buildings considered cultural properties and provided
technical assistance based on the extent of damage
and received requests. This program began at theend of April 2011. During 2011 the program focusedon surveying damage as soon as possible and on
providing assistance for restoration work, including
emergency repairs. As an ACA-funded program,the Architectural Institute of Japan was asked tocarry out the surveys. Through these initial surveys, cultural property owners were able to makemore specific requests for assistance with restoration work. In 2012, the Committee for the Restoration Assistance of Cultural Property Buildings
Damaged in the Great East Japan Earthquake wasestablished with the Japan Institute of Architects as
Secretariat. Under this framework, the program
was continued with a grant from the Foundation for
Cultural Heritage and Art Research.
This is a program scheme of the activities carried out in 2012 and 2013 (Fig. 1). Under this pro-gram, the ACA responded to requests for assistancefrom municipalities and cultural property owners
by dispatching experts from its committee for damage survey and technical assistance. Requests forcooperation with prefectural bodies or boards ofeducation outside of the disaster zone were also
made for help via the ACA’s Committee for Restoration Assistance.
Examining the detailed aspects of the program,let us first take a look at the damage surveys. These
damage assessments utilized a database of Japan’s
historical buildings created by the Architectural Institute of Japan prior to the earthquake. It contains
data of more than 30,000 sites. This data made it
possible to carry out onsite surveys swiftly. The
same standardized survey format was used to help
ascertain the extent of damages and summarize
them for study. This made it possible to understandthe extent of damage in a single glance. In years two
and after, in addition to damage assessments, follow-up surveys were also carried out on historicalbuildings for which the initial survey had been completed, in order to check on their current status.
This made it possible to understand what kinds of

Fig.2: Enginers at work for restoring cultural properties− 185 −

Tokyo Symposium

restoration work were performed.
Damage assessments conducted in 11 prefectures shed light on the extent of damage to historical buildings by structure type, the extent of damage in relation to seismic intensity and location, andtsunami damage tendencies. In Miyagi Prefecture,
which was close to the epicenter, in most cases
structural damage was quite extensive. The results
also showed that the extent of tsunami damage differed based on the surrounding environment.
Another pillar of this program was technical assistance, which I would like to talk about now. Damage assessments were carried out primarily byscholarly organizations such as the Architectural
Institute of Japan and the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, while technical assistance was provided byengineering organizations such as the Japan Federation of Architects and the Japan Institute of Architects. This assistance was provided based on requests made by cultural property owners ormunicipalities and involved a proposal that included
the specific location of damage, restoration methods, and estimates of restoration work costs. Prefectural government employees from the Kinki region included accredited senior engineers who had
carried out restoration works on Important Cultural
Properties. They were asked to provide technicalassistance mainly for regional cultural properties(Fig. 2).
I would like now to share the results of the Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program. Over
three years more than 600 inspectors carried out
damage assessments and provided restoration assistance for more than 4,000 historical buildings.
This marked the first time ever that the ACA implemented an assistance program for the restoration ofundesignated cultural properties. The fact that thisprogram was conducted jointly with research organizations and engineering organizations was alsoquite ground breaking.
This program made it possible to help restore alarge number of historical buildings without losing
their value; at the same time, cultural property owners raised their level of commitment for preserving
these properties. One example is the Kurihara Denen Railway line located in Kurihara City, Miyagi Prefecture. The owners, together with the Architectural Institute of Japan and the Japan Institute ofArchitects, held workshops and discussions on restoration processes. Ultimately the railway became
preserved as a municipal designated cultural property.

The Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program
heralded many achievements such as this, butthere remain important issues to deal with.
First, there were several cases where restoration
work was not performed because of the somewhat
timid approach taken by both the cultural property
owner and the local government. This may be because the value of each individual historical building is not fully shared or perceived within the community.
Ever since the Great Hanshin Earthquake, manyorganizations and groups had plans laid out for an
initial response, but the extent of damage acrossthe wide area seen during the Great East Japan
Earthquake hampered this response in some cases.
Of course, it also took time for a system to be put inplace in disaster-stricken areas so as to host surveys and restoration work.
One other issue that could be cited with this program was the shortage of manpower. Also, there
were funding shortages and a lack of trained andcapable human resources. Another issue that exists
even today is coordination with other assistanceprograms.
The one thing I felt keenly aware of throughout
the Great East Japan Earthquake is the fact that you
can not do more than what you can do in uneventfultimes. The ACA will need to work on eliminating
one at a time the issues discovered through the Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program. As a solution, we hope to create a platform for sharing information between the ACA and relevant organizations.
Based on the Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch
Program, organizations and groups are examining
the possibility of establishing permanent organizations for collaboration during nomal times to prepare for future disasters. These permanent organizations could coordinate on a daily basis to ensurethat assistance programs could be implemented
swiftly and seamlessly and to ensure that the Cultural Property Doctor Dispatch Program can be put
into place promptly following a disaster. Throughthis coordination platform, we hope to discuss thefunding and human resource development issues
during normal times as well as update and manage
databases to prepare for future disasters.
Another issue that came to light after the Great
East Japan Earthquake was that we have to try tobetter understand the root causes of problems. We
hope to pursue further studies, identify problems
and try to understand how to best conserve andpreserve historical buildings.
− 186 −

Tokyo Symposium

Also, we need to consider field coordination innomal times that goes beyond buildings. No matter
how important a cultural property may be, thosethat are relatively unknown will have a low priority
when it comes to restoration after a disaster, which
inevitably could lead its loss. This is why it is important to raise broader awareness about the value of
cultural properties as a piece of cultural heritage
shared by a community. Cultural properties mustalso be utilized within the realm of community development. Cultural properties that were actively
preserved and well known before the earthquake
received countless helping hands and were restored as a symbol of the reconstruction work after
the earthquake and tsunami.

− 187 −

It goes without saying that the awareness among
the community shows that the value not only ofbuildings but of various cultural properties washeightened by organic collaboration within thecommunity.
Reports were made for many areas this time, but
again, improved coordination within various assistance programs is an urgent issue needing to be addressed. In particular, disaster-stricken areas require complex and multifaceted support to preserveand restore their cultural properties. I believe that
we need to consider a one-stop approach for future
programs by organically linking them with the assistance program I spoke about today.

Tokyo Symposium

Activity Report (Cultural Properties) 3
Damage to Historic Sites and Places of Scenic Beauty,
and Pre-Reconstruction Rescue Investigations
Yoshio Negita
Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Monument and Site Division, ACA

I am Yoshio Negita of the Cultural Properties Monument and Site Division of the Agency for Cultural
Affairs.
The Cultural Properties Monument and Site Division deals with several different categories. In therealm of designated cultural properties, we are responsible for historic sites, places of scenic beauty,
natural monuments, and cultural landscape properties. We also deal with buried cultural properties
sites or archeological sites which are not subjected
to preservation in their present states.
In the first half of my talk today, as suggested in
the title, I will give a simple overview of disasterdamage to historic sites and places of scenic beauty,
and work that has been done in response to deal
with the situation. Then, in the second half, I would
like to talk about the condition of buried culturalproperties that were excavated before disaster recovery reconstruction. Today, I would like to use
the term “archaeological sites”; so I will talk about
the status of the excavations of archaeological sites.
First, let us take a look at the damage to the archaeological sites that the recent disasters caused.
In the Great East Japan Earthquake, as has been
discussed earlier, most of the damage came fromthe earthquake shaking. Fortunately, there were no
cultural properties that were completely washedaway by the tsunami. The greatest damage was observed at Komine Castle, which is located in the inland of Fukushima Prefecture. Tomorrow, participants from abroad will hop on the Shinkansen tovisit Sendai City in Miyagi Prefecture. On the way,
you will pass Shirakawa Station, which is in the vicinity of Komine Castle.
This castle was built in the 14th century. The reconstructed building was originally built as a watchtower, a lookout point. It was the stone wall which
acted as the base of the castle that collapsed in large
areas (Fig. 1).
The total length of stone walls surrounding thecastle extends 2 kilometers, and 10% of these stone
walls had collapsed. One year after the disaster, in2012, we started removing these stones, a total of7000 which alone took 18 months. Immediately af-

Fig.1: Komine Castle (Fukushima)

ter that we embarked upon the reinstallation of thestone wall. At this moment, 30% of work is complete.
I hear that this work will be completed by 2020. In
any case it will take several more years.
Next, this is a picture of Takata Matsubara pinery in Iwate Prefecture with very beautiful pinetrees. It is a nationally designated place of scenic
beauty. There used to be 70,000 trees in this area
before being totally washed away by the tsunami.
Incredibly, there was one pine tree that remained
standing. It was quite miraculous. We becameaware of this fact a few days after the disaster. I myself was very much struck by the scene when it wasaired on TV. This tree became known as the “Miracle Pine Tree” (Fig. 2).

Fig.2: Miracle Pine Tree (Iwate)− 188 −

Tokyo SymposiumThis tree is located in Rikuzentakata City, and it
was not only the people of Rikuzentakata but also
people across Japan that were encouraged andmoved by this sight. Although many efforts weremade to keep this one single pine tree alive, it unfortunately was flooded by seawater, and it was notpossible to preserve the original tree. Therefore, areplica of the pine tree stands there today. There
are now plans to recover this pine tree-lined shore.
The people responsible for this project are looking 50 years into the future, so probably they will
not be able to see its completion. This will be a twogeneration or three generation effort; a very longstanding restoration effort has just been begun.
Next, let us take a look at the protection of archeological sites. In Japan, as in the rest of theworld, excavations are done prior to development
projects in places that would be destroyed by theconstruction. In Western countries, I believe this iscalled rescue archaeology. In various countries
around the world, the challenge is how to secure
funding for this rescue archaeology.
One example of a rescue archaeological site inJapan is a 3,000-year-old Jōmon period residence
called Kashiuchi Ruins in Iwate Prefecture, where
excavation work is taking place alongside recovery
procedures. This was originally a very big building
but now only holes remain. In Western archaeological sites of houses built with stones and bricks, thebuilding materials remain and can be dug up. But inJapan wood was used to construct most buildings,
so the excavations reveal only holes in the ground.
In this photo (Fig.3), the pit dwelling is half excavated; the other half is outside the investigation
area so it is not excavated. This is because there will
be no construction in the latter half, outside the investigation area. In Japan we do not dig areas thatwill not be destroyed by development.
Is rescue archaeology actually realistic after anunprecedented disaster as the Great East Japan
Earthquake? Immediately after the great earthquake, this was a very big issue. Rescue archaeology was seen as something that would slow down
and get in the way of reconstruction work. In newspapers, it was reported as a “reconstruction barrier”.
In Japan, the system for preserving archaeological sites was introduced in the 1960s. After that,
there was the Hanshin Earthquake, but the extent
of the affected region of the Great East Japan Earthquake is completely different. The scale of the required reconstruction work is unprecedented.
− 189 −

Fig.3: Kashiuchi Ruins (Iwate)

Therefore, the accompanying archaeological protection work is something also completely unprecedented.
At the Agency for Cultural Affairs, we adopted
the following response. The first point is that weshould achieve both the protection of archaeological sites and reconstruction after the earthquake.
We have been pursuing various efforts with thisprinciple in mind. Reconstruction is not just rebuilding new houses and roads. True reconstruction is
not just reconstruction of hardware, but also recovery of history and cultural backgrounds of these
localities. We should conserve them properly,achieving cultural recovery, and we believe that
only after this process, we can achieve true, genuine recovery. To do this, and this is my second
point, it is very important for the cultural property
conservation authorities and reconstruction authorities to collaborate with each other. A system
for the two authorities to exchange information andconsult one another was established. We believethat these two section sharing a mutual understanding will result in a better recovery and would contribute to accelerate this process.
With this principle in mind, we are providing
concrete assistance̶this is my third point. For example, one is financial assistance for houses. In order to relocate residences to higher areas from lowlands that were swept away by the tsunami,
excavations are required if the new sites are on
known archaeological remains. The fees required
for excavation were made to be entirely provided by
the national government. The other point is personnel-related assistance. For large-scale surveys executed prior to recovery projects, there are notenough archaeologists within the affected local
governments, so we called on local governments

Tokyo Symposium

across Japan to dispatch archaeologists to excavatethese areas. With an increased number of specialists, we should be able to accelerate the excavation
work.
Since this was our first experience, we exploreda number of possible solutions and were able to establish a system in which excavation surveys could
be carried out.
In the Tōhoku region, excavation work is notnormally done in December because there is usually a lot of snow and the temperature is very low.
This time, however, since we were in an emergency
situation, excavations were carried out in winterwhenever possible. Reconstruction work and excavations have also been coordinated in such ways as
well.
In places where excavation work has been completed, recovery work is begun. This means thatwork for recovery and excavations can be executedside by side simultaneously. At the beginning, immediately after the earthquake, people said that it
would take a year for the excavations, delaying thereconstruction by one year. That was a common
misunderstanding, but the reality proved different(Fig. 4).
A very distinctive aspect of the Japanese systemis that there are many specialists in archeology belonging to each of the municipal governments, rather than the national government. Around 6,000 of-

ficers of local governments are responsible forconservation of archaeological sites. About 200 specialists, like the many of you who are gathered here
today, were dispatched to Tōhoku from across Japan, from north to south. Their periods of service
varied between 1 month to as long as 3 years, andmost of these people left their families to become
involved in excavation work.
Although it was under emergency circumstances of disaster recovery, we created opportunities
for elementary school children and middle school
students to have hands-on experience in excavation
surveys. Although such opportunities are provided
during ordinary excavation work as well, I thinkthat the fact that we were also able to do this during
excavation research in Tōhoku, has been very important in gaining peopleʼs understanding about theprotection of archaeological sites at times of emergency.
We also provided chances for on-site visits to explain the results of the excavations to the generalpublic. Many people participated in these open sitesessions and the media was widely present.
When the excavations had actually begun, themedia actually now had a completely different understanding about what we do and there werechanges in the way these projects were reported.
These surveys have generated new discoveries. Excavations of agricultural lands revealed traces of
how people lived in the past, which came as a big

Fig.4: Excavation work (Iwate)− 190 −

Tokyo Symposium

surprise for local residents. These findings brought
people in the disaster areas cheerful news, and we
think it brought chances to the local people to think
more deeply about their hometowns. In each location, reconstruction work was soon begun after archaeological surveys were finished, and the archaeological surveys were completed before any
reconstruction work was scheduled to begin. Eventually, as this process was repeated, there was increased understanding of reconstruction surveys.
In other words, excavation surveys came to be recognized as the “first step in recovery.”We have encountered some surprising reactions
through this process. Very important archaeological remains were discovered during excavations ofpremises where new residences were to be built for
those who had lost their homes in the disaster. People started saying that they wanted to have a park
created on the site to preserve the archaeologicaldiscovery̶even if it resulted in a decrease in thearea to be developed. This was reported widely inthe media, and the superintendent of the Board of
Education, when interviewed on TV, said that thesite was “a treasure of the town.” It was truly wonderful to have seen such changes in view as the result of preventative excavations after the unprecedented damage brought about by the Great East
Japan Earthquake.
So, to conclude, the fact that we were able tocarry out what in the West is called rescue archaeology under the extreme emergency situations after the Great East Japan Earthquake was a veryrare circumstance. To mention my personal experience, I visited England several times in the last few
years and had chances to give lectures on rescuearchaeology after the Great East Japan Earthquake,and people were amazed, saying it would be unthinkable in England.
Why were we able to do this? I have been considering this question, and I think that the reason is
because of the efforts of the local governments andalso, most of all, because we were able to gain theunderstanding and cooperation of local residents.
Also, there is another point: The Japanese conceptof the protection of archaeological sites played amajor role. In Japan, development work, regardlessof whether its scale be only a couple of square meters or thousands of square meters, if this work is todisturb archaeological remains, then there are always excavations done, and the results of these ex-− 191 −

cavations are published as reports. This rescue archaeology is carried out as an administrative
procedure, and the principle is that it should not differ from excavation to excavation. I think this wasanother major reason why we were able to carryout pre-reconstruction archaeological surveys evenfollowing the times of crisis after the Great East Japan Earthquake.
It has been four years since the earthquake disaster. Although the speed of reconstruction is sureto accelerate, in Fukushima, recovery from the effects of the crippled nuclear power plant remains asa major issue.
Thanks to efforts made by concerned organizations and to the understanding and cooperation of
local residents, we have been able to carry out prereconstruction archaeological surveys up until now,
but we are still only halfway through. As has been
mentioned by other speakers today, I think there
are good prospects for recovery regarding otherkinds of cultural properties. But those of us working for the protection of buried cultural properties
and archaeological sites are still faced with numerous tasks.
Today, I talked primarily about archaeologicalcultural properties. Before I finish, I want to go
back once more to the miraculous pine tree. Why
did this single tree attract this much attention?
There was a youth hostel in front of the tree (building on left in Fig. 2). Because of it, the tree was notaffected by the tsunami. There is now a campaign toconserve this particular building as a monument to
the disaster. As was mentioned by Mr. Kamei, welive in an earthquake-prone country and a major
earthquake can occur at anytime. We always haveto be prepared, not just the Agency for Cultural Affairs in our capacity, but also the local governments.
We believe that preserving these post-earthquake
ruins for future generations will be important toraise awareness on disaster prevention for people in
the future.
I would like to stress again that we are still only
halfway in the path towards recovery, and so we ask
for your good understanding and cooperation for us
to proceed. We need to consider in the long term
the recovery of cultural properties in the Tōhoku
region and I would like to ask you all for continued
interest. Thank you.

Tokyo Symposium

Activity Report (Cultural Properties) 4
Damage to Communities and Their Relevant Intangible Cultural Properties
Kensaku Kikuchi
Former Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties,
Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA), Government of Japan

I would like to speak to you today about the situation regarding Japanʼs intangible cultural heritage.
By way of introduction, I would like to offer abrief explanation as to what is actually meant herein Japan by the term, “intangible cultural heritage.”
What the Cultural Properties Protection Law stateswith respect to the definition of “intangible culturalproperties” in Japan is that first it encompasses thetwo categories of “intangible cultural properties”
and “intangible folk cultural properties.” The former includes certain performing arts, such as thetheatric forms of Kabuki and Noh as well as the traditional puppetry performances of Ningyō Jōruri
and Bunraku. It also comprises artistic craft traditions such as ceramics and pottery. Textile traditions, including weaving and yuzenzome (surfacedyed designs on silk fabric), lacquer and lacquerarts are also included. Also a part of this group is
traditional craft techniques as represented by theart of handmade Japanese paper or Washi, added to
the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage last year.
On the other hand, the category of intangible
folk cultural properties is divided further into thethree sub-categories of customs, folk performing
arts and folk techniques. Concerning customs, it isa sub-category that includes annual events such as
festivals, while folk performing arts include kagura
and dengaku traditional dances, along with secularperforming arts. Meanwhile, folk techniques are
considered to be practices that were originally used
in a private capacity, that at some point later developed into a way of doing things that in themselvescame to represent foundational techniques. An example of this idea are certain techniques used tobore wells, etc.
In addition to these categories, there is a rangeof important skills that, while not cultural properties in their own right, prove to be indispensable forthe protection of certain cultural properties. Under
the Cultural Properties Protection Law, these skills
are defined as Selected Preservation Techniques.
To give but a few examples, traditional roofing techniques are required for thatched roofs and hiwada(Japanese cypress bark) roofs. There is also a special production technique that is applied when collecting fiber from the ramie plant.
All these divergent categories together compriseJapanʼs intangible cultural heritage. As the concept
itself might be somewhat difficult to grasp, I have
prepared a collage of images to help reinforce myargument. Among them is the Karatsu Kunchi Festival, an event that takes place every November in
Karatsu City, Saga Prefecture. This festival is an example of a custom. Within the city, numerous local
communities bring out their own traditional floats,or hikiyama, and then parade them through thestreets. Next is an event called Koshikijima no
Toshidon, which has been inscribed on the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. It takes place on December 31 each year in
Kagoshima Prefecture. Examples of folk techniques
include Akita no itaya-ami seisaku gijutsu (or thetechnology to manufacture Itaya baskets in Akita
Prefecture). It is a weaving process that makes useof the bark of the Itaya maple (Acer japonicum).
Regarding the extent of damage to the nationʼsintangible cultural properties from the Great East
Japan Earthquake on March 11th 2011, not manycases of damage have been confirmed for nationallydesignated important intangible folk cultural properties in the impacted areas. Mostly reported were
varying degrees of damage to equipment or props
used in certain events and festivals or related facilities. However, if the question of damage was to beconsidered in terms that extend beyond the purely
physical, then unfortunately the disaster may beseen as a very sad set of events. This is because
numerous people involved in passing down the nationʼs traditions, who were members of organizations that sought to preserve aspects of both ourcultural heritage and cultural properties, were extremely unfortunate in that they lost their lives.
As mentioned above, in some respects it might
be argued that the number of cases of damaged nationally designated intangible cultural properties
was limited. Perhaps it is inherent to folk culturalproperties as a category, that in addition to nation− 192 −Tokyo Symposium

ally designated properties, there are in fact many
more traditions that have been recognized at theprefectural or local municipal level and even morethat are not designated at all. If these non-designated folk cultural properties were to be included in
the overall damage estimates, the extent of harm
inflicted by the earthquake and tsunami disaster in
the impacted areas would be considerably greater.
The most readily apparent extent of damage inflicted in many of these cases was to the props,
equipment and facilities used in these folk culturalproperty traditions. This is because of their visually
recognizable nature. Because of the enormous
amount of damage, support was forthcoming froma wide variety of sources. Projects for repair andrectification as well as new acquisitions commenced
from quite early on for props and costumes andother equipment that had been damaged but had
survived as well, as for those lost in the tsunami.
Thus, some of the affected folk cultural property
traditions could return to their pre-disaster stateearlier than expected. With the restoration of props
used in folk traditions, there were many reports offolk performances and events being resumed inplaces where local people were apt to congregate.
These folk performances and events often became
opportunities for people to gather and thus served

to enhance local recovery efforts.
As was also touched upon earlier in the images
shown by Nobuo Kamei, performances of the toramai (the “tiger dance”) could be revived in the impacted areas through the efforts of people who
quickly repaired the required props and costumes.
In most cases, recovery was quickest when thedamage was visible and easily recognized. However, on the other hand, the actual damage inflicted
upon intangible cultural properties and folk culturalproperties was not limited to the visible damage
sustained to props and facilities. Rather, local communities themselves were affected, and there wasmore damage of different nature that went unnoticed. To expand this idea further, I want to discuss
the traditional custom of hamaori (which literallymeans “to descend to the beach”), which has been
conducted in many localities across large areas ofeastern Japan, extending east from the Izu Peninsula up to the northern part of Miyagi Prefecture.
One such hamaori event takes place in theformer township of Kashima and is now a ward of
Minamisoma City, Fukushima Prefecture. On theseoccasions, members of the local community transfer the spirit of a deity onto a mikoshi (a float-likeportable shrine); the worshipers then proceed tocarry the float from inland areas to the coast. Once

Fig.1: Hamaori in Minamisoma City

− 193 −

Tokyo Symposium

they reach the beach, they draw seawater for
cleansing and reviving the deity. Fig. 1 is a view ofworshippers during the ritual of drawing seawater.
Hamaori requires both a beach and also access into
the sea with rather gentle slope. Slopes that drop
precipitously into deep water are not suitable, because worshipers do not want to draw seawaterfrom areas between where the waves break and thebeach, where the water would be contaminatedwith sand. Rather, they try to draw clean seawaterfrom the larger waves beyond the break, requiring
the beach to have a gentle slope into the sea. Although damage to these beaches by the tsunami
causing transformations in their incline was perceived as a natural disaster, it need to be noted that
there were also effects on local culture. Hamaori
customs that previously took place on such beaches
must now be relocated. It can be very difficult torecognize this kind damage. Another example isthe hamaori ritual involving a bamboo fence on thebeach created by worshipers seeking to draw seawater and offer a folk performance tradition uniqueto the area. Obviously, such a structure could not bebuilt unless the beach in question was rather extensive.
Fig. 2 is the hamaori ritual at Okunitama Shrine
in Suganami, Iwaki City in Fukushima Prefecture.

There, the mikoshi was traditionally carried along ameandering route over several kilometers before
reaching the beach; however, the communities
along the sea where these shrine worshippers parade to were washed away by the tsunami. The worshippers draw seawater in buckets and then transfer it to a ceremony site set up on the beach. Laterin the hamaori ritual, the mikoshi is taken into thesea, to a place swept with quite high waves. Becauseof the danger of being swept away, the mikoshi has
been secured with a yellow rope before being taken
into the ocean. The coast of Fukushima along the
Pacific Ocean is a small area with many similar
hamaori events. There is a tendency to consider thedamage inflicted along this coastline in purely natural terms. However, we must also realize that there
are cultural practices, such as the hamaori rituals,that utilize this same stretch of coastline.
Indeed, there are even cases of damage at one
location impacting the events and rituals undertaken by communities in other areas. There is a small
community called Minamiebi in Minamisoma City,
Fukushima Prefecture. Here, the tradition inhamaori outings was to accompany their local deitywith traditional kagura dancing performed by members of the community. However, because the area
was struck heavily by the tsunami, the communityʼs

Fig.2: Hamaori in Suganuma, Iwaki City− 194 −

Tokyo Symposium

kagura band was lost. Furthermore, this same partof the coast is used not only for hamaori rituals of
Minamiebi. A number of other communities in theimmediate vicinity, such as Kitaebi, use the same
beach. However, the established tradition was thatwhen the worshippers from Kitaebi and the othercommunities came to the same beach to performhamaori, their parties had to be led by the kagura
dancers of Minamiebi. Thus, because in the latter
community, there are no longer people left to perform this tradition, the other communities are now
unable to get onto the beach.
This was not the only example of damage to asingle beach affecting many other communities
that used it. Another example from Iwaki City in
Fukushima Prefecture is a shrine called Gohoden
Kumano, where a festival takes place annually on
July 31st and August 1st. As part of this festival
there is a traditional dance called chigo dengaku
which in itself has been designated as an important
intangible folk cultural property. As another important component of the festival, children are selected
to play roles of chokushi who are the Godʼs yorimashi. At the beginning of the festival, these children are placed upon horses to ride to the coast,
about two kilometers away, where they undergo apurification rite.
The very small community of about 30 households along the beach where the childrenʼs purification rite has traditionally taken place was severely
damaged by the tsunami. While some residential
structures managed to remain standing, they wereeffectively left as empty shells with all household
effects having been washed away. Because thehamaori ritual could not be conducted under suchcircumstances, the site for the childrenʼs purification rite in 2011 was relocated to a river that runs
behind the shrine, with the festival being shortened
to a single day. This is an example of how a natural
disaster can eventually bring about change in or
make changes inevitable for cultures that havebeen handed down locally.
Next, I would like to address a type of lion dance
performance called Shittogi shishi, which in itself ispart of the larger canon of the traditional Kuromori
kagura songs and dances. These originated in Miyako City, Iwate Prefecture. Traditionally, these
performances took place starting in early Januaryeach year, with troupes of dancers traveling to perform in surrounding villages. It was common practice for the dancers to be given overnight accommodation where they performed. The Shittogi shishi− 195 −

was a lion dance that the troupes of kagura dancers
performed when arriving at their lodgings in the village they were to stay at each evening. Because anumber of communities along the coast of Iwate
Prefecture were struck by the tsunami, some of theaccommodations traditionally used by the Kuromori kagura troupes were washed away. After theearthquake and tsunami, when people involved inthis tradition in Miyako City were asked how theywould continue the tradition without these lodgings, they suggested that, in the following year,
houses still standing in the surrounding communities would be used for accommodations. I am inclined to believe that they would have to deal withsimilar situations in the coming years.
As a nation, Japan is a country that boasts a great
many festivals, with numerous customs being tiedin to both Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. Indeed, the aforementioned Kuromori kagura songand dance troupes commence their tours each year
by starting out from Kuromori Shrine. There is astrongly held tradition that if kagura is not performed during the Kuromori Shrine Festival, heldin July each year, the song and dance troupes may
not tour the surrounding communities the following year. So, in the immediate wake of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011, the thought on manyminds was that every attempt had to be made to
hold the Kuromori Shrine Festival kagura performance. If the shrineʼs festival itself had not been held,
then the troupes would not be able to tour in 2012.
Being very aware of these circumstances myself, in
July of 2011, I frequently tried to gather information
through the internet on what was being reported in
the local newspapers of Iwate. I am very happy to
say that the people of Miyako did manage to holdthe Kuromori Shrine Festival as scheduled. I mustsay that I was very relieved when I found a newspaper article that reported on the performance ofKuromori kagura. We experienced a natural disaster whose scale was so large that houses were
washed away by tsunami. However, it was not justthe issue of the houses being washed away, but also
the cultural impact of their disappearance that was
the problem.
As I suggested earlier, considering the damage
caused to folk cultural properties and the possibilities that this damage presents, this damage may beunderstood in terms of that which is visible and thatwhich is not. Looking towards the future, I am inclined to believe that we shall need to pay more attention to the latter of these two categories. While

Tokyo Symposium

people quickly notice visual damage to props,
equipment and facilities, they are much less likely
to detect damage which is not apparent to the eye,
unless they have a lot of experience or are specialists.
For example, when we witness a coastline transformed by damage, instead of considering thetransformation purely in terms of the natural disaster, it is important to realize the impact that as these
events will have on the aspects of culture withwhich it is involved. I believe that people who candetermine aspects of cultural involvement of the locality after natural events will become more important in the future. In order to analyze the extent of
this damage, basic data will be needed: because
many citizens from the prefectures of Iwate, Miyagi
and Fukushima were evacuated and subsequently
had to live away from their local communities, it
was deemed important to record the various cultural traditions that were passed down among the
inhabitants in each area. In the few years following
the 2011 earthquake, surveys were conducted on
the passing down of traditional festivals, the performing arts and other events focusing on the
coastal areas of the three prefectures. The data collected through these surveys has been publicizedon the website of the National Research Institute forCultural Properties, Tokyo. An effort must be madeto become conscious of this invisible damage. Furthermore, steps must be taken to make these aspects of “hidden” cultural properties visible so thatthey may continue to be passed down from generation to generation in the future. The abovementioned survey to record local traditions was an attempt to make invisible damage visible.
As my final point in relation to intangible cultural
heritage including festivals, events and folk per-forming arts is that they have regularly been carried out in accordance with a set of basic rules.
These rules determine that they are conducted
every year at a predetermined location by a predetermined group. Of course, small adjustments havebeen made as concessions to modern social change,such as events shifting from specific calendar dates
to the closest available dates on weekend. However,folk performing arts have generally been dictatedby basic rules regarding predetermined locations
and predetermined groups. It is in their essence
that they be conducted in a predetermined manner,and this in turn has shaped culture. The impact ofearthquakes and the associated tsunami has clearly
enforced change, hopefully only for the time being,on the basic rules of these festivals and events forthem to take place at predetermined times, in predetermined locations and involving predeterminedgroups. This made us realize that maintaining thesebasic rules was an essential part of the of tradition.
There is the famous Gion Festival in Kyoto,
which has the honor of being included on UNESCO
Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Each year as the festival is about to begin, membersof communities with Yamaboko floats gather andquestion how they would proceed with the festivalthat year. Those gathered would reply, “The same
as every year.” This marks the start of the annual
festival. It was the experience of this past earthquake that we were made to realize the value of being able to undertake these folk performing arts,
which have been passed down in different areas of
the country in ways “the same as every year.” I praythat the folk performing arts hit by the disaster return to being the “same as usual” very soon. That
concludes my presentation. Thank you.

− 196 −

Tokyo Symposium

Case Report <Miyagi>
Restoration Efforts for Architectural Structures in Kesennuma City, Miyagi Prefecture
Hiroharu Hatano
Lifelong Learning Division, Kesennuma City Board of Education,
Miyagi Prefecture

My name is Hatano and I work for the Board of
Education in Kesennuma, which is a city in Miyagi
Prefecture. In today’s presentation, I shall report on
the recovery efforts for the cultural property buildings in Kesennuma that suffered damage as a resultof the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Let me give you some basic information about
Kesennuma. The city itself is situated in Miyagi
Prefecture, located along the Pacific Coast of the
Tohoku Region. Offshore are the Sanrikuoki fishing grounds, some of the most abundant in Japan.
Historically, Kesennuma was a port town, with agreat part of the modern city still focused on thefishing industry. In the port’s innermost sanctum,
there is an inner basin where smaller crafts can betied up and anchored (Fig. 1). Furthermore, Kesennuma’s historic nickname in Japanese is kaze machikō (“the port with the favorable winds”). This alludes to the brisk breezes that head offshore fromthe port. These winds traditionally assisted sailed
vessels when they went out to sea. It has a magnificent scenery; even today it is possible to witness
colorful small crafts literally filling the port’s innerbasin to capacity. Moving on with the presentation,
I would now like to give a simple overview of thehistory of this port area of the city.
If we compare a historical depiction of the innerbasin drawn during the Edo period (1603-1867)
with a modern map, we can see that not much haschanged with respect to the layout of the port. The
way in which the old town was set out has remained
mostly intact. Kesennuma’s brisk breezes have also
played a considerable role in the city’s history. Indeed, they have contributed to many major conflagrations that periodically swept the town. In modern times, there have been two significant blazes.
The huge fires of 1915 and 1929 both left what wasthen a modest township in almost total ruin.
Concerning the area that surrounds the port's
inner basin, lessons were learned from the blaze of
1929, and at the time the area was the quickest within Kesennuma to participate in recovery efforts,such as the undertaking of an urbanization process.
One outcome of the recovery efforts undertaken in
response to the 1929 fire was that Kesennuma attracted skilled carpenters and tradesmen from

Fig.1: Inner basin of Kesennuma (Miyagi)− 197 −

Tokyo Symposium

throughout Japan. This development in turn saw
construction commence on a great variety of different buildings within the city. In particular, in addition to the construction of houses for tradesmen,
which were built in a traditional style, there werealso examples of what was known as Japanese classicism, contemporary Western-style buildings andadvertising signboards, and other construction
styles. All of these different inputs led to the creation of an eclectic townscape in Kesennuma whosearchitectural structures were overflowed with asense of individuality.
Even before the Great East Japan Earthquake,the city had a group called the Kaze Machi Kenkyū
Kai (a research group on local heritage; hereinafter
called “Research Group”), whose members werearchitects, representatives of the local administration and other specialists. This group of volunteers
conducted research on Kesennuma’s townscape inthe early Showa period (from 1926 to around thecommencement of World War II), as well as researching other historic buildings within the city.
The membership of this group also considered how
to best incorporate these historic resources into thecity’s modern planning. Unfortunately, however,
due to subsequent events, many of Kesennuma’s
historic buildings were washed away by tsunami.
Some, however, did manage to survive, even if indamaged states. While many of the buildings thatsurvived were nationally registered Tangible Cultural Properties, it is often the case that the shops
and homes in which their owmers operated andlived are now in a horrific state. Even for people
who wish to preserve their properties despite their
damaged state, they often cannot find suitablemeans to do so. These realities have greatly shaken
the feelings of owners. Highlighting such dilemmas, recently there was a building whose preserva-

tion the owner gave up on, despite the fact that thecultural property was in fact repairable. With thisdecision made, the demolition of the property went
forward at public expense.
Moving ahead to the following year (2012), there
were calls from some Research Group volunteers,
members of the Board of Education, and others topreserve even just a few historic buildings for future generations. They felt that these endeavors
would contribute to the city’s recovery and additionally make a significant contribution to the future. With this in mind, efforts were commenced topreserve historic buildings. The Kesennuma Kaze
Machi Fukō Kentō Kai (the “Kesennuma Favorable
Winds Recovery Deliberations Committee”) wasestablished as an organization set to play a central
role in supporting the restoration of cultural properties within the city. Throughout the city, thisgroup has brought together specialists includingarchitects, university academics, builders, town
planners and tourism representatives. More thananything, however, it has secured the positive participation of some of the owners of the remaining
damaged cultural properties. By traveling aroundthe city and seeking to convince the owners of damaged buildings whose hearts were wavering between preservation and demolition, we have managed to secure decisions to seek to preserve six
damaged buildings that are nationally registered as
Tangible Cultural Properties. This was madethrough extensive negotiations conducted with recovery projects. I would now like to introduce oneof these.
This is the main store of a sake brewer called
Otokoyama, and it is a three-story building with awooden structure. When originally registered as acultural property, the structure was described asconcrete-made reinforced with wooden spars. The

Fig.2: Otokoyama-store:before(left) and after(right) the disaster− 198 −

Tokyo Symposium

store's external appearance was set off by a washedmortar effect; with its parapet that somewhat resembled a crown, the Otokoyama building was anestablished local landmark in the immediate vicinity of the port’s inner basin. However, due to the tsunami’s sheer force, the first and second floors were
almost surgically detached one after the other andwashed away (Fig. 2). All that remained was what
had originally been the third floor. Afterwards, it
was decided that something should be done about
the very tragic remaining sight. Nevertheless,while discussions were still taking place as how tobest restore it, the building’s condition was further
deteriorating due to wind and rain. As an urgent response, a decision was made to launch some formof preservation initiative. Using a traditional method for relocating structures, the building’s remnants were dragged back to occupy their original
position. Next, to halt any further deterioration, thestructure was wrapped in plastic sheets and a number of emergency repairs were carried out.
I would now like to discuss another example.
This store is run by Kakuboshi. As with Otokoyama,
discussed above, the property is the storefront of asake brewer. The storefront’s design is that of a traditional earthen fireproof storehouse. However, appearances can be deceiving. Rather than being of areal earthen construction, the building’s cosmetic
aspects were created using mortar. The force of thetsunami washed away the first floor, while the second floor was pushed backwards. What remained
was left sandwiched up against a neighboring build-ing. By again using a traditional method of relocation, the structure was dragged forward from therear of the property and returned to where it hadoriginally stood. The remnants are now undergoinga process of repair (Fig. 3).
Here we have a genuine traditional earthen fireproof storehouse that belongs to a company called
Onoken. In this instance, the business in question isa fish wholesaler. This storehouse was also severely
damaged, with the tsunami bringing water thatreached the second floor. For your information, I
should point out that a series of tsunami of approximately 6 meters in height were recorded in the vicinity of the port's inner basin. Anyway, work is now
being done on the Onoken property to repair thestorehouse walls using traditional plastering techniques. Furthermore, we have held open days at
the restoration sites to highlight both the importance of these cultural properties and our ongoing
efforts to restore them. Such events allow our citizens to appreciate what is happening. We have also
held workshops where children can get their handson the same earthen daub that is being used by themaster plasterers involved in the restoration activities.
Next, there is the historic Chida family residence. Following the disaster, the owners decided
to preserve it themselves. Situated on a cornerblock at an intersection in the vicinity of the port's
inner basin, this three-story wooden building has amemorable external appearance, portraying the image of a ship. A land adjustment project has been

Fig.3: Kakuboshi store front under restoration (Miyagi)− 199 −

Tokyo Symposium

brought into the area of the port’s inner basin, featuring a program of infrastructure development, including raising embankments by re-plotting land;
However, recovery in the area will still take time.
Other measures will also be needed before a fullscale restoration of these cultural properties canbegin in earnest. The Kesennuma Favorable Winds
Recovery Deliberations Committee has received
the cooperation of the city’s tourist association andother organizations. Such cooperation has allowed
for monitored tours to be conducted, targeted bothat people engaged in the restoration efforts as well
as at general tourists. Average citizens can now accompany their children to see and personally experience what is being done with respect to restoration work, focusing on the cultural properties foundin the vicinity of the port’s inner basin. The ownersof cultural properties themselves act as tour guides
and publicize the efforts we are making.
Domestic and overseas support has been forthcoming for cultural properties whose repair andrestoration have been decided on. Groups that havekindly contributed include the Foundation for Cultural Heritage and Art Research, with its Project toSupport the Restoring of Cultural Property-Listed
Buildings Damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake (the “Save Our Culture” or SOC Project), theWorld Monuments Fund, and others. With respect
to the damaged cultural properties that were leftlargely abandoned, we were unable to carry out
emergency repairs until the autumn of 2012, one
year after the Great East Japan Earthquake. While
cooperating with wider recovery efforts, restoration proposals have been prepared for cultural properties based on instructions received from the
Agency of Cultural Affairs, the Miyagi Prefectural
Government and other specialists such as architects. Furthermore, as a considerable amount oftime may elapse before full-scale restoration efforts
can start in earnest, measures are being employed
to keep these damaged cultural properties undersurveillance and to ensure that they are not forgotten. We are also undertaking monitoring tours andother events to promote public awareness.
As for the current situation, I would like to discuss the efforts to restore the Kakuboshi storefront.
The Kakuboshi storefront’s city block is one of thefirst to undergo a program of infrastructure development within the vicinity of the port’s inner basin.

Furthermore, full-scale construction restoration efforts are planned to begin in the fiscal year 2015. A
team of design specialists has been establishedwithin the Kesennuma Favorable Winds Recovery
Deliberations Committee. They have researched
the structure and materials of the original building’s second floor, by collecting old photographs
and records and by interviewing the building’s owner. This group of volunteers has progressed very
far, creating images of the restored Kakuboshi
storefront and developing basic design plans. The
whole city block is being developed with a focus on
the Kakuboshi storefront and its status as a culturalproperty. It will feature shops with common features well as the reconstruction of individual businesses.
Finally, what has become clear to us throughour activities, both in surveys of historic buildingsthat were conducted prior to the disaster and in our
proactive use of cultural properties in urban planning, is the importance of human networks. Be theygroups established for the purpose of ongoing preservation and inheritance of local cultural heritage,or be they organizations who coordinate and cooperate with entities and local municipalities engaged
in urban planning issues, these networks of people
are very important. Indeed, in the future we may
well find that such groups and the relationships weenjoy with them become the most important issueof all. Not only in periods of relative calm but also intimes of disaster, I think there is a strong case forthe need of systems and structures that allow for
mutual cooperation and support. I believe it will
also become even more important to develop wideranging networks that are capable of protecting cultural heritage from the major disasters that come in
the future. Moreover, rather than solely focusing on
the argument that cultural heritage should and deserves to be preserved, it is also important to connect it to the areas that surround it, and also to undertake measures to use cultural heritage within
the context of urban planning activities.
The road to full recovery in Kesennuma is still along and arduous one that shall no doubt take many
years to complete, so I humbly request your sustained support for the city in the future as well. You
have a site visit to Kesennuma tomorrow, and I lookforward to seeing you all there. Thank you.

− 200 −

Tokyo Symposium

Case Report <Fukushima>
The Current State of Conservation of Cultural Properties in Fukushima Prefecture
Takaaki Tanno
Culture Division, Fukushima Prefecture Board of Education

As is well-known, the prefecture of Fukushima experienced a great deal of damage due to the events
connected to the Great East Japan Earthquake. The
damage experienced by Fukushima resulted fromthree distinct causes: the earthquake itself, the resulting tsunami and the subsequent radioactive
contamination that was brought about by a series ofnuclear power plant accidents. Even today, many of
my fellow Fukushima citizens remain evacuatedfrom their homes, and they have been forced by circumstance either to live in other areas of the prefecture or to relocate to places beyond its borders.
Despite these circumstances, the situation in Fukushima is undoubtedly improving due to the great
domestic and overseas support over the last four
years. Despite the numerous issues that confront
us, little by little we have been making headway.
The same could be said about the recovery of Fukushimaʼs cultural properties and about our efforts to“rescue” disaster-stricken items. Through the kindness of numerous people and their great desire to
get involved, we have been the recipients of a greatamount of support. I speak to you today keeping an
overwhelming sense of gratitude in mind that I feelfor all that we have been provided with.
The prefecture itself is large, comprised of three
regions: Aizu, Nakadori and Hamadori. Of thesethree, the region most damaged by the events of
the Great East Japan Earthquake was Hamadori.

Certain areas have been designated as “Difficult-toReturn Zones.” Access to these areas remains highly restricted; they may not be entered freely. In theimmediate aftermath of the earthquake and its associated events, there was another classification put
in place called the “Restricted Zone,” which extended out from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
for a radius of 20 kilometers. Initially, access to thisRestricted Zone was also highly limited. We are still
moving forward with plans to rescue stranded cultural properties, which I shall discuss this in greater detail later.
Next, I would like to provide some information
about the damage to designated cultural properties
in Fukushima Prefecture caused by the Great East
Japan Earthquake. Currently, there are 295 cases ofdamage. This figure is the combined total of cultural properties designated at the national, prefectural and local municipality level. As for the given
combined monetary value of the damage caused to
the various classes of cultural property, they are official figures developed by Fukushima Prefecture in2011 through research conducted just after theearthquake. At the time, there were 82 cases ofdamaged nationally designated cultural properties.
The monetary value attached to this damage wasestimated at roughly JPY 4.2 billion. As for prefecture designated cultural properties, there were 66
damage cases with a projected total monetary value

Fig.1: Bodhisattra Kannon (Minanisoma City)

Fig.2: Former Fukushima-Jinjo Middle School (Kōriyama City)− 201 −

Tokyo Symposiumof JPY 600 million. Meanwhile, there were 147 cases of local municipality designated cultural properties, amounting to JPY 500 million of damage. Particularly, severely damaged were designatedhistoric buildings, of which damage to castles wasnotable. As for the percentage of damaged culturalproperties that have been repaired, 77% had undergone restoration projects as of November 2014, andI believe this figure will have climbed to 80% as ofMarch 2015. This does not mean, however, thatcomplete restoration has been achieved in every
instance. Indeed, within these figures there are also
cases where complete restoration proved impossible and instead, some alternative form of response
was carried out as a protective measure. In fact,
among the damaged cultural properties that were
nationally or prefecture designated, there were approximately 24 cases where instead of recovery
measures, treatments sometimes involving dismantlement were taken. For example, this is a stonecarved relief of the Bodhisattva Kannon in Odaka
Ward of Minamisoma City. Although the Buddhist
relief itself was not severely damaged, the shelterbuilding collapsed completely (Fig. 1). Restorationof the protective building has been started and it isprojected to be restored to its previous state by theend of the current financial year.
Next, we have the former Fukushima-Jinjo Middle School in Koriyama City. This is a very interesting building that represents a prime example of thearchitectural styles employed for middle schools in
Meiji Japan (1868–1912). The school building which
has been used as a film location was hit by theearthquake; all of the internal stucco walls collapsed and the building itself suffered great structural damage (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, we were able
to complete the restoration process on September
26, 2013.
This is a Fukushima Prefecture-designated cultural property called Kankaidō, and was historicallysignificant because it housed the first elementary
school opened in the prefecture. The building itself
also has a special place in the hearts of the townspeople. However, the tsunami that struck after theearthquake swept almost all of its traces away leaving only the foundations remaining (Fig. 3). To

Fig.3: The site of Kankaidō (Shinchi Town)

Fig.4: Damege of the site of Komine Castle (Shirakawa City)

Fig.5: Recovery of the site Komine Castle (October 2013)

Fig.6: Recovery of the site of Komine Castle (March 2015)− 202 −

Tokyo Symposium

complicate matters, the areaʼs post-tsunami redevelopment involves land raising. Discussions are
ongoing between the Fukushima Prefecture Boardof Education and the local township regarding thiscultural property.
The next example relates to a topic that came up
earlier. Namely, Iʼd like to focus on the situation surrounding the site of the former Komine Castle in
Shirakawa City where the front stone wall completely collapsed following the earthquake (Fig. 4).
The areas that had been restored in 1969 employing
modern concrete had all fallen. The task on this occasion involved members of Shirakawa Cityʼs Boardof Education identifying each individual stone andits position in the original structure. Work was thendone to replace the stones one-by-one to their original positions in order to recreate the wall. The work
progress can be traced in photos taken in Octoberof 2013 (Fig. 5) and more recently (Fig. 6). They
were able to employ traditional masonry techniques
to return the individual stones to their original positions in restoring the front stone wall.
Moving on, I would like to focus on non-desig-

nated damaged cultural properties. A rescue organization called the Headquarters to Support Fukushima's Damaged Cultural Properties wasestablished on May 15, 2012. The Great East Japan
Earthquake occurred in 2011, and it was finally in2012 that these activities could be launched. This
does not mean that we were not engaged in any rescue activities at all in 2011. Rather, the different specialist organizations within the prefecture frequently contacted one another to exchange information,
carrying out numerous emergency rescues of cultural properties and other objects. It was not until
the following year, 2012, that we were able to give
form to these initiatives through the establishmentof the aforementioned organization. Concerning
the time it took for such a systematized approach to
be initiated, perhaps our response may seem tohave been rather slow. However, the true reality ofthe situation is much more complex in its details. I
would now like to explain these matters.
As have been indicated earlier, all of the areaʼs
residents of the Restricted Zone that was imposed
across the prefecture's Hamadori Region were

Fig.7: Rescue operation in Tomioka Town (1)Fig.8: Rescue operation in Tomioka Town (2)Fig.9: Rescue operation in Tomioka Town (3)Fig.10: Rescue operation in Futaba Town

− 203 −

Tokyo Symposium

Fig.11: Student volunteers

Fig.12: Temporary storage facilities

Fig.13: Communlty Center (Tanshio District)Fig.14: Evacuating Village Picture survived (Tanshio District)evacuated. As a result, all museums as well as otherpublic buildings and houses within the Restricted
Zone had to be abandoned with no residents in thearea. There were serious concerns that the objects
left in museums within the area would continue deteriorating as time went by. However, the Fukushima Prefectural Government had no previous experience to support the idea of actually trying to enter
the Restricted Zone for rescuing these items. In
fact, at that time there was no information available
at all about the impact of the prevailing radiationlevels upon the human body. At the prefectural level, they were still working to decide what evidence
to base these matters on and to finalize the framework for selecting this evidence. Against this backdrop, by obtaining access to a great variety of data,
the Tohoku Pacific Offshore Earthquake Damaged
Cultural Property Support and Rescue Committee
undertook detailed research and analysis as how tobest act given the circumstances. The committee
was originally established in 2011 by Iwate, Miyagi
and Fukushima Prefectures to promote the rescueof cultural properties from a wide-ranging area, andone of its tasks was to determine whether or not
rescue operations were possible within the contaminated areas of Fukushima.
Having obtained the opinions of specialists on
the data of specific radiation measurements drawn
from within the Restricted Zone and also having established specific operational guidelines, the committee was finally able to consider the possibility ofundertaking work within these areas. This groundbreaking work by the committee proved to be agame changer for Fukushima Prefecture with respect to its cultural property-related activities within the Restricted Zone. Additionally, we were fortunate enough to receive great assistance from Dr.
Kamei, who served as the chairperson of the support and rescue committee, as he made approaches
on our behalf to all the related organizations under
his control. He resolutely declared that, “It is safe to
execute rescue cultural properties within the Restricted Zone, and we would like to ask for the cooperation of organizations that are able to participate.”− 204 −

Tokyo Symposium

It was against this backdrop that the prefectural rescue and support headquarters finally made a decision that would allow these activities within the Restricted Zone. This decision was made on May 15,
2012. Following these developments, actual workwithin the Restricted Zone commenced on August
1. During the course of the year 2012, about 323
people participated in a series of activities in the Restricted Zone for a total of 21 days. We are gratefulthat to have had the participation of 18 organizations including the National Research Institute forCultural Properties of Tokyo; the Tokyo National
Museum, the Kyushu National Museum and the
Agency for Cultural Affairs.
In the following year, 2013, both the activities of
the Fukushima Prefectural Museum of Art and the
Fukushima Historic Materials Network werebrought into the prefectural rescue and support
headquarters, further completing the activities ofFukushima Prefectureʼs own rescue and support
organization. However, after its activities in 2011
and 2012, the Tohoku Pacific Offshore Earthquake
Damaged Cultural Property Support and Rescue
Committee was disbanded, and there was certain
degree of uncertainty as to whether activities could
proceed beyond this point through the efforts ofFukushima-based organizations alone. Nevertheless, we received support through the offices of the
Agency for Cultural Affairs and the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, and for a limited time a
new organization called the Rescue and Support Office for Damaged Cultural Properties within Fukushima Prefecture was established. It was throughthis development that these national institutions
continued their support of Fukushima Prefecture.
I would now like to discuss some of the activities
that have taken place in the Restricted Zone. One
example is the structure of the Tomioka Town Art& Media Center housing the historical museum of
Tomioka town. In addition to being architecturally
magnificent, this building was constructed in amanner that incorporated an ecological system into
sections of the roof, allowing for rainwater capture
and usage. Unfortunately, however, the tanks holding the rainwater were ruptured by the earthquake,and this resulted in the accumulated water leaking
out into the building. To further complicate matters, the leaking rainwater had been contaminatedby radioactive substance, and this in turn meantthat contamination had spread inside the building.
Indeed, the level of radiation to be confronted wasrather high. As may be appreciated in the photos,− 205 −

staff members wore protective Tyvek suits (Fig. 7).
The maintenance of sufficient safety was a constantconsideration when working in these areas.
This photo (Fig. 8) shows the removal of a painting that had hung in the entrance lobby of the building. When removed, the work processes proceeded
while sufficient care was taken for safety. The picture's radiation levels were measured. Much packing work was done in the collections storage, whichamazingly spared the combined threats of radiation
contamination and mold infestation (Fig. 9). Staff
members from the Fukushima Prefectural Museum of Art were hard at work in Tomioka, packing
works of art for transportation.
Materials of the collection at the history and ethnology museum in the town of Futaba were also
packed (Fig. 10). After the radiation was measured,
an information card was made, and later, each individual record was digitalized. Objects were thenpacked and removed from the museum. They weredispatched to the classrooms of the closed Soma
Girls High School, which is situated in a low radiation area and was provided as a temporary storage
location for these materials. Corrugated boxes
were used to mask windows to prevent sunlightfrom entering the rooms, so that the interior environment could be kept stable.
Student volunteers also worked hard in this effort (Fig. 11). I would like to say that the students
studying history at Fukushima University made awonderful contribution to our activities. Of course,
both Professor Koichi Abe and Professor Yoshio
Kikuchi acted as a driving force, getting their students involved in non-restricted areas. Nevertheless, these young volunteers were also able to play
an active and important role that helped us greatly.
Finally, I would like to report to you that temporarystorage facilities for these materials have been constructed on the premises of the Shirakawa Branchof the Fukushima Cultural Property Center (Fig.
12). The recovered materials are being transported
to this facility, and once there, they can be stored ina stable environment for perhaps quite a while. Initially, two buildings were erected in order to accommodate these materials, each with a floor space ofapproximately 200 m2. However, it has become apparent that the space provided by two buildings
alone is not sufficient to meet the demands, so a total of four buildings have been completed. At thesame time, we have been planning and conducting
special exhibitions to provide chances for people
who were forced to evacuate from their homes toTokyo Symposium

see these recovered materials. To date, we haveheld three special exhibitions.
A list of all the materials recovered from museums within the Restricted Zone in three townships̶Futaba, Okuma and Tomioka̶tells us that
we have recovered 2,874 cardboard boxes of archival materials and other objects from the threetowns. In Futaba there are still some 60 boxes ofmaterial. Among what remains in the towns arelarge items that cannot be readily removed. Meanwhile, one item remains in Ōkuma. It was left there
because high radiation levels were detected when it
was checked using a dosimeter.
Activities also took place in locations other thanhistorical museums and archives. One example
comes from the community center of the Tanashio
District, which is located along the coast of Namie
Township. Inside the community center building
was a picture depicting Tanashio Village during the
Meiji period. This picture had been left behind.
However, in response to strong requests from local
residents to recover it, a rescue mission was carriedout. Although the exterior of the building remained,
the force of the tsunami had shattered all the windows. Basically everything on the first floor was
carried off by the water (Fig. 13). Miraculously,
however, the prized picture remained hanging near

the second floor entrance. The photo (Fig. 14)
shows the picture being carried out. I believe thisone photo well represents or rescue activities. In
the background there is a waiting truck, but in theforeground it is human labor at work, guiding thepicture on its way to safety.
Concerning all these rescue activities, they weremade possible through the efforts of the Agency for
Cultural Affairs and the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, and through the great many organizations that kindly stepped up and participated.
About 760 people participated in our activities between the years of 2012 to 2014, and that total figure
does not include members of the Fukushima prefectural office. We have been truly moved by thegenerosity and level of support of people who offered to cooperate and actually participate in our
rescue efforts.
We always took group photographs each time a
series of rescue activities ended (Fig. 15). As recordsof activities that have been carried out in Fukushima, I believe that these photographs will become avery important treasure. Our rescue efforts willcontinue in the future. We will be very grateful foryour continued support and cooperation. Thankyou very much for your attention.

Fig.15: Thanking everyone for their Support− 206 −

Tokyo Symposium

Case Report <Fukushima>
Management of Cultural Properties Located in Radiation-Contaminated Areas
Chie Sano
Head, Conservation Science Section,
Center for Conservation Science and Restoration Techniques, NRICP-Tokyo

At the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo (NRICP), there are a few of us researchers in the natural sciences who have specialized knowledge of radiation, and we discussed
amongst ourselves how to best handle culturalproperties from the previously restricted zones inFukushima as part of the cultural heritage salvage
effort. We did not, however, foresee a situation inwhich the environment would be contaminated byradioactive substances. Because of this reality, inthe fiscal years 2012 and 2013, we at the NRICPTokyo started up an emergency project to deal withradiation and cultural properties. As part of thisproject, we sought collaboration from researchers
at museums as well as academics in conservation
science, and specialists in radiation and radiation
protection, and we had them specify the guidelines
on how to work safely.
Let me first explain how the radioactive matter
moved when it was released into the atmospherewith the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant accident. The building collapsed due to a hydrogen explosion, and its remains were scatteredaround. The radioactive substance iodine 131
mixed with the atmosphere and was diffused. The
formed droplets, that were slightly larger clusters,
stayed relatively close and probably fell within the
grounds of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant. Cesium 134 and cesium 137 gasified becauseof the heat; others of a certain size remained close
by while smaller ones mixed with the atmosphere
and went around the earth.
When it rained, all of this fell to the ground, andthis is how the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant contaminated the soil. Part of the cesium thatwas released into the atmosphere locked solidly
into the clay contained in the soil. It is estimatedthat approximately 70% immediately attached itself
to the clay. The rest spread as cesium ions or spreadby being absorbed into organic material, and in theend it locked into the clay by moving with water. It
stayed in the topsoil and in places that were relatively close to the surface of the earth, and sometimes it would fly up into the air when the wind
− 207 −

blew. The Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
soil was covered with a scattering inhibitor̶ameasure taken so that the contamination would not
spread beyond the area that was severely contaminated.
We conducted these rescue activities in thetowns of Futaba-machi, Ōkuma-machi, and Tomioka-machi, located close to the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant. The cultural heritage salvage
activities we conducted in Fukushima comprised
carrying cultural properties left behind in museums to these three towns, away to locations where
they could be taken care of. The crucial work was todecide on the rescue procedures for these culturalproperties. Our first aim was to protect the workers
according to the guidelines published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection(ICRP) in 1990, so that their health would not beharmed. Luckily, Japanese museums are built ofconcrete for fire prevention, and this concrete
turned out to be a good buffer. At the preliminary
research stage in 2012, we discovered that even formuseums within the former restricted zones, theradiation dosage indoors was very low, so we could
work inside the museums.
Another very important aim was not to spreadthe contamination caused by radioactive substances. Cultural heritage objects are a public asset, andwe needed to make sure that they would be in astate in which anyone could touch and make use ofthem without fear of contamination. So we thoughtthat we needed to prove that they were not contaminated. For that, first we determined a standard value for removing items and we decided necessary its
procedures. We also considered establishing advance how to decontaminate in case we found objects that were contaminated.
When deciding on the standard value, we first
followed the example of Japan’s domestic law, “Acton Prevention of Radiation Disease Due to Radioisotopes.” We decided to deem contaminated any
material whose surface value of contamination exceeded a certain amount. The value was expressedin legal terms as “exceeding a tenth of the limit ofTokyo Symposium

surface contamination concentration.” Cesium 134
and cesium 137 still remained when we were conducting the rescue activities, but these were isotopes that stabilized by releasing beta and gamma
rays. The limit of surface contamination concentration was 40Bq/cm2 and a tenth of the value of thatwas 4Bq/cm2. We made it a rule that anything that
did not exceed this value could be removed. Another thing we considered as our basis is import andexport limitations. At the time, many foreign countries were requiring contamination examinations of
the surface of any imported products from Japan.
We referenced the restricted values for these andthe value at which an import would be rejected. We
decided to use the GM-tube style survey meter witha 50 mm diameter probe, which the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology had approved for use in examinations. We converted the values according to the unit conversion
methods posted by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, which
established the standard value at 1300 cpm including the background. Then, we measured the material surfaces using the GM-tube style survey meterand decided that we would remove from the restricted areas only material that did not exceed
1300 cpm.
Before beginning the removal work, we also conducted preliminary research to measure the radiation dosage in the air and confirm that we could
work indoors. We educated and trained all of theworkers on how to measure surface contaminationlevels, on the basics on radiation, and especially on
protection against radiation. During the actual activ-

Fig.1: Measurement in the Tomioka town museum

ity, we wore disposable gloves, masks, shoe covers,
and when necessary, protective clothes to prevent
ourselves from being exposed to radiation. In addition, we wore pocket-sized dosage counters andglass badges to monitor individual exposure dosage. Locally, we first measured and recorded the
dosage in the air, and measured and recorded thisfor all materials one by one (Fig. 1, time constant 10
seconds, measured three times over 30 seconds,
judged by the average value). We confirmed thatthe value did not exceed the standard value; anything that measured above that, we deemed to becontaminated and left it there.
Looking at the results of the contamination levelmeasurements for all of the materials that we removed (Fig. 2), Tomioka had none that exceeded
the standard value, and there was only one suchitem from Ōkuma. This was a wooden mortar con-Fig.2: Results of surface contamination measurement− 208 −

Tokyo Symposium

taminated by water that had leaked through a ventfan attached to the outside wall. What exceeded thestandard value in Futaba were clay vessels. The
Futaba museum had kept some artifacts with lower
environmental sensitivity in a separate location outside, but these were all contaminated by flooding.
Ultimately, we left behind eleven items.
The amount of daily cumulative radioactive dosage for the workers was not very high, at 2–9 microsieverts. There were relatively low dosage amounts
in Tomioka and Futaba, and slightly higher inŌkuma. When work involved physically removing
objects, much was carried out in the exterior, outside so the numbers became a little higher. The exposure dosage per day in Tokyo is about 1 microsievert, and Japan’s annual average is 2100
microsieverts. Compared to these values, the exposure dosage of the rescue workers was not particularly high. We can say that we were able to keep tothe level recommended by the ICRP in 1990.
Concerning decontamination, since cesium
locks itself into the clay, we thought that we might
be able to rid contamination if we removed the duston the surface of the material. For objects stored
outdoors in contaminated containers (such as vinyl
bags or boxes), unless the container was of historical significance—in which case it would need to be
set aside—the contamination level could be reduced by changing out the external cover. We decided not to wash the materials with water, as that
could lead to spreading radioactive dust inside themuseums.
We also considered the possibility of preserving
the material by, instead of actively decontaminating,

simply monitoring the reduction of radioactivity
while managing the objects according to legal regulations. We tested methods of decontamination. We
carried an oil painting that used to hang in a community center to the museum. The center’s door
had been broken, and the center was full of dust
and fallen leaves that had blown in. We also asked
Futaba to entrust to us a partition screen that stoodin the entrance hall of an ordinary residence, andwe removed it. For both of these objects, we measured the surface contamination value and removed
them after confirming that they were not greatly
contaminated.
As for the cleaning, we repeated a procedure ofholding a cleaner nozzle close while gently brushing off the dust with a soft brush. After the first andthe second cleaning the surface contamination level
eventually decreased (Fig. 3). Using glass containers as hypothetical objects to be decontaminated,
we experimented with different methods of decontamination. We tried a soft brush, a hard plastic
brush with a cleaner attached to it, and wiping downwith water, and we found that a hard brush takes off
most but can damage the surface, so the durabilityof the surface is something that should be assessedby a specialist before removing dust with a hardbrush. How to use the tools is a critical technicalissue.
The cultural properties that were rescued wereshown in an exhibition that was visited by many of
the residents. I believe that the historical materials
from their hometown can help to give psychologicalgrounding to those who still are in a state of evacuation and cannot return to their homes.

Fig.3: Radioactive dust removal test for oil painting− 209 −

Tokyo Symposium

Future Prospects: Developing Networks for Cultural Heritage DRR
Yuji Kurihara
Secretary General,
National Task Force for the Japanese
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network, NICH

My talk will focus on mitigating disaster risk to cultural properties and what to do to improve our system.
The Agency for Cultural Affairs’ Disaster
Prevention Operating Plan states that when an
emergency disaster occurs, an “Agency for Cultural
Affairs Emergency Disaster Headquarters shall beestablished.” But as was mentioned earlier, theCommittee for Salvaging Cultural Properties Affected by the Great Tohoku Region Pacific Ocean
Earthquake (2011) was disbanded as of March
2013. In other words, it was only in existence fortwo years. We, on the other hand, thought that itwas necessary to maintain such an organization in
regular standing, so in July 2014 we created a “National Task Force for the Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network” (TF for CHDRM Network) within the National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage (NICH). For the time being, thisis being financed through a grant from the Agency
for Cultural Affairs. The network itself is not yet established, as we are still in the formative stages ofdevelopment.
As you know, Japan’s cultural heritage objects
are concentrated in the three cities of Kyoto, Nara,and Tokyo. That is one of the reasons why there arenational museums in Tokyo, Kyoto and Nara. We
are planning for the Tokyo National Museum andthe Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties to become the headquarters for disasterprevention and rescue for national heritage objects
in eastern Japan. Of course, we will continue with
our rescue efforts of cultural heritage items in
Fukushima. In 2020 we plan on opening a National
Ainu Museum in Hokkaido.
For Kyoto and Nara, we are planning for the
Nara National Museum and the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties to be thecenters for protecting cultural heritage objects of
the Kansai region, and we will have the Kyushu National Museum be the protector of the cultural heritage items in the Kyushu region and beyond. However, a mere six institutions cannot cover all ofJapan. We are planning on building the network bylinking up and collaborating with other organizations and people, including local historiography networks.
Another institution that you may not have heardof before is one called “Work Experience Center for
Youth,” which was built by the Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare. It failed as an experiential facility, however, and now been closed and stands empty.
It was handed over to Kyoto Prefecture for free by
the national government, and they are now considering how to make use of it. It is a solidly built facility right between Kyoto and Nara, so we jumped on
this and have rented part of it. We are considering
whether we can use this in the future as a salvage
headquarters or perhaps as a temporary storage
space in the case of a disaster such as an epicentral
earthquake hitting Kyoto or Nara, where many cultural heritage artifacts are concentrated.
In eastern Japan, there is a vacant lot that used to
be a US base near Tokyo. We are also consideringbuilding a salvage headquarters for eastern Japan
there. We have received a five-year subsidy fromthe Agency for Cultural Affairs, with which we started the TF for CH-DRM Network. Our director isserving as the head of this task force, in which seven organizations under the auspices of NICH are
collaborating. In addition, we have hired thirteen
junior researchers in charge of disaster prevention
at each of the facilities as network staff. These researchers are on multi-year contracts, and we arerelying on to their hard work to build this cultural
heritage disaster prevention network.
Let me briefly describe our enterprise and layout our three aims. The first is to create a nationwide system for disaster preparation and rescue;
the second is to develop and conduct research on
the ongoing cultural heritage disaster prevention
and rescue. As the third, we aim at building capacity, especially among younger researchers, in disaster prevention for cultural heritage.
Let me explain our operational plan in a little
more depth. In reality, disaster prevention operations are not clearly positioned within NICH’s midrange goals or mid-range plans as an independent− 210 −

Tokyo Symposium

administrative institution; it is necessary to incorporate this clearly into our operations from now on.
First, we must collect information on DRM and therescue of cultural properties from all over Japan. In
addition, in case a disaster happens in multiple regions, we want to be able to reliably direct efforts,
offer advice, and offer training in DRM and rescuing cultural heritage.
This is our fourth aim: as Chie Sano of the Tokyo
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
explained in detail earlier, we should conduct anddevelop further research on how to conduct emergency care, stabilization, and reconstruction of affected cultural heritage items based on conservation science.
As the fifth aim, we would like to build a network
for cultural heritage disaster risk mitigation andrescue in case of emergency situations. We havethe experience from Great East Japan Earthquake,
but when we look back, we see that things did not
go as well as they could have in some cases. We
must use this experience as a lesson to properly
consider what kind of network to establish for the
future, including how to collaborate with the government and NGOs.
The sixth aim is international collaboration concerning disaster risk reduction and the rescue of
cultural heritage artifacts. Using opportunities suchas the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, we are planning to develop international
collaboration while gaining a varied and deeper perspective from abroad.
Next, I will introduce what we have accomplished this past fiscal year. First, as NICH cannot
build such a network operation alone, we aimed fora system that involves all of Japan, one that can deploy swift rescue activities of cultural heritage items
in case of an emergency situation. Towards that
goal, we have collaborated with many national academic associations such as the Japanese Association of Museums and The Japanese Council of Art
Museums, national organizations such as the National Museum of Art, the National Museum of Nature and Science, the National Diet Library, and the
National Archives of Japan, and representatives ofvarious specialist organizations all over Japan. Aiming to build this as a permanent structure, we haveestablished “Committee for the National Task
Force for the Japanese CH-DRM Network,” withtwo meetings within the fiscal year.
In addition, there are currently over twenty networks established all over Japan for historical docu− 211 −ments, and they held their first national meeting
early last month. We think that it is important tobuild a national system for disaster prevention ofcultural properties, even in places that do not havea national facility, by holding national meetings ofthese historical document networks on an ongoingbasis or to work collaboratively with the private sector to build a system of response. As Yohsei Kohdzuma of the Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties explained to us yesterday, we
are aiming to have all curators learn scientific conservation knowledge such as emergency care of affected cultural heritage objects, including how to
use a vacuum freeze dryer, by holding special trainings on preserving cultural heritage objects.
We also held the “National Task Force for theJapanese CH-DRM Network Experts Meetings.” As
opposed to the Committee, which is a network oforganizations, this was set up as a conference of individuals working at the forefront of their fields,
who are in a better position to deliver a wide range
of opinions. Many of them have their own unique
viewpointss, so we can keep working with a sense ofurgency while being whipped into shape. We justheld the first meeting on March 10. We would liketo continue our development through leveraging
such occasions as well.
In addition, we held a symposium at the Tokyo
National Museum on March 11, which unfortunately overlapped with this meeting. We are holding a
special exhibition entitled The Great Tsunami ofMarch 11, 2011, and the Restoration of Cultural
Properties at the Tokyo National Museum until the
day after tomorrow. At the same time, we are holding a symposium, which we have made efforts toadvertise to those coming to the exhibit, including
general visitors.
Finally, our largest operation of this fiscal year
for the CH-DRM Network is, in fact, this meeting.
While we are currently grant-funded, we would liketo develop our network as a permanent entity within
the NICH in the future. I would like to ask for yoursupport in that endeavor.
For the following fiscal year and beyond, we willcontinue to discuss what is needed to keep expanding the CH-DRM Network and for building a comprehensive DRM system for cultural heritage. We
also consider it necessary to build a database that
includes hazard maps with information about thelocations of cultural properties, areas of disaster
risk, and how far the damage might reach. We arelooking at developing this database over the long

Tokyo Symposium

term, because it cannot be done within one year.
It is also crucial that we not only conduct cultural
heritage rescue activities as we have been doing,but also to pass on our experiences to others. People in charge change over time, so we must makesure not to be complacent about passing on our expertise to future generations. Other issues we needto deal with are how to ensure that these salvage
centers that I mentioned earlier function. I believethat Japan the country with the biggest number ofmuseums devoted to the commemoration of disasters. A cursory look shows that there are more thanforty disaster commemoration museums and disaster prevention museums. Museums concerning volcanoes have already organized a committee. I thinkthat different and new knowledge can be gained if
these facilities form networks.
Another thing we need to do is to continue disseminating information internationally through international forums. Specialists already know this,but for some non-specialists in the audience I will
mention that there is an international framework
called the Committee for the Blue Shield. This is a
joint body comprised of the international NGOs
that include ICOM, IFLA, ICA (International Council on Archives), ICOMOS , and CCAA (Coordinating Council of Audiovisual Archives Associations).
They originally began as a framework to protect
cultural properties in times of armed conflict basedon the 1954 Hague Convention, but they have alsodecided to leverage the network for the times ofnatural disaster and various other activities. There

are no countries in Asia that have established a national committee so we must also start planning forparticipation in activities with the Blue Shield. And
there is actually an ulterior motive. All of these fiveinternational organizations have related organizations in Japan. We are thinking, however, that if we
can encourage the so-called MLA collaboration(museum, library, and archives) within the framework of Blue Shield activities, we might be able toencourage domestic collaboration as well. We areplanning on holding a research group in Fall, so I
would like you to keep this word “Blue Shield” inthe back of your minds.
I would like to advertise one more thing. We are
bidding to hold the 2019 ICOM General Conferencein Kyoto. If we are able to hold it, this should help
increase international collaboration concerning
CH-DRM through ICOM. The Eighth World Archaeological Congress (WAC-8) will be held in Kyoto in 2016, the ICOM meeting in 2019, and the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics will be held in 2020.
Japan is hosting many cultural and sports-related
international meetings in the next five years. If theyalso help us to bring more specialists of CH-DRM tovisit Japan, this will also contribute to broadening
the international network.
While continuing to collaborate with all of you
around the globe, we would like to keep encouraging the building of the CH-DRM Network in Japan.
Thank you very much.

− 212 −

Tokyo Symposium

Discussion[Facilitators]
Kumiko Shimotsuma, Toru Tateishi

Stefano De Caro:
I would like to congratulate you with the impressive
job that has been carried out in such difficult circumstances. And you have offered once again an
outstanding example of resilience which is very impressive. I have two questions and one observation.
I will start with the observation. The observation
is about Yoshio Negitaʼs presentation on archaeology. Itʼs impressive that the work has been conducted in such difficult circumstances, and that it is being conducted as a regular administrative job,because you have a law that enables preventive archaeology. And the fact that there is a total of as
many as 6,000 specialists in archeology working
under local governments is impressive, too. Itmeans that you are at the highest standard of thearchaeological protection.
For this reason, I would suggest that you call thisnot “rescue archaeology,” but “preventive archaeology.” Rescue archaeology is a terminology whichcomes out from the bridge system, whereas the Valletta Convention and the European conventions
deal with preventive archaeology. Rescue archaeology, in fact, is also commercial archaeology or salvage archaeology and it is archaeological work conducted for discoveries by chance at endangeredsites; whereas, what you do is the normal assessment and evaluation of projects in case of excavations, which is preventive archaeology. It also includes the discovery of hazardous and rescue
excavations.
So I think that what you do is more in line withpreventive archeology, which is very, similar to the
public work on preventive assessment, such as impact evaluation for natural disasters.
Next, my two questions are very simple. Question 1. Nobuo Kameiʼs keynote speech showed howthat, great earthquakes and great tsunamis are concentrated on a not-so-long section of the coast. Do
you think that there will be a long-term land use assessment? I donʼt think that settlements will be stabilized in a short term. It seems as a trend that willaffect Japan for centuries. If there is no land-use
systems to encourage resettlement or the transfor− 213 −mation of cities, it will take even longer.
My second question is if there has been somemeasures in taxation, which enables the burdens of
rescue work to be lower for the general public. In
Italy, we have adopted a taxation exemption systemfor 20 years in order to allow cheaper and easierworks of rescue. Thank you so much.
Toru Tateishi:
Thank you very much for your intervention. For Japan, I think your comment is quite insightful. I
would like to ask Yoshio Negita and then Nobuo
Kamei to give us some comments.
Yoshio Negita:
Thank you for your positive review and commenton the Japanese system for archaeological remains.
As I have mentioned before, I think it is characteristics of the Japanese system to have rescue archaeology carried out under the administrative structure.
Therefore, archaeology and rescue archaeology areviewed separately and I think this differs from theEuropean system.
Stephano De Caro:
The European system is split into two, because you
have the rescue system in Great Britain and you
have the Inrap (Institut National Pour La Recherche
En Archéologie Préventive) in France. So, in Europe, you have these two systems. There is not one
European system, there is a British system andthere is a worldwide system.
Yoshio Negita:
Thank you for your suggestion. I would like to
study about other systems besides the one in England. In Japan, there are about 6,000 archaeological
specialists working in municipalities, and during
the last three years, about 200 were dispatched to
the Tohoku region to carry out rescue archaeology.
I think this is quite a high ratio. For some time in
the future, the staff dispatch program will be continued if requests are received from the three prefectures affected by the disaster, and the consensus ofTokyo Symposium

municipalities in other prefectures could be obtained. I think the number of local government archaeological specialists in England is extremely
small, whereas in Japan there is a large pool ofstaffs from the municipalities which allow suchmeasures to be taken. I suppose the protection
measures for archaeological remains vary in European countries and I would like to learn about thearrangement for carrying out rescue archaeology
in emergency situations, or whether it is being carried out.
Nobuo Kamei:
I would like to thank Stefano De Caro for his very
insightful comments. Avoiding living in the area
which is dangerous is an effective matter. However,in the Sanriku area, there are fishermen communities, which need to be close to the coastlines. Of
course, reconstruction plans have been made andsome actually involve communities moving toraised grounds, or the creation of the evacuation
shelters 30 meters-height, which cannot be reachedby tsunami. Those are the works that are done incompliance with the voices from the communities.
Regarding taxes, we have an income tax for thereconstruction of the area. So, we all are temporally
paying extra tax for the recovery of the Tōhoku
area. In the Tōhoku area, the land tax is rather low,
therefore tax reduction would not be so effective.
And if you donate to funds which support the
Tōhoku area, then some amount can be deductedfrom your income tax. I believe that Japanese tax
authorities are thinking of various ways.
In modern history of the Sanriku area, in 1870,
there was a large earthquake of magnitude 8.2 thatdevastated entire villages. Tsunami caused by the
Chilean earthquake in 1960 of magnitude 9.5 hit thecoasts of the Pacific Ocean. And this time was thethird. Historically speaking, in a cycle of 300 years,
this region has been heavily damaged. At Nara Cultural Property Institute, they are presently surveying traces of tsunami disasters at archeologicalsites, to analyze when and what scale of tsunami
struck Japan in the past so that we can use this information to determine whether an area is safe or
not for town building in the future.
Returning to the lives of people in the region, inorder for the local people to continue living in theirpresent places, we need to consider protective
measures, learning from the tsunamis weʼve experienced. For example, if we know that a tsunami of 10
meter height had once reached the coastline, there

might be plans to build a huge dike. But we are notsure how effective such structures can be. There
was an earlier dike that was destroyed by the tsunami, so, we have to analyze why this was destructed before building again. Such analyses would help
us create a safer town in the future.
It may not be easy for us cultural heritage specialists to speak up regarding town building; however, by analyzing what we have learned from dataacquired over the years, we would like to bring attention to have such information taken into accountin the recovery plan. Thank you very much for yourcomment.
Toru Tateishi:
At the Tokyo expert meeting, we discussed a very
important topic, that is to have a list of baseline information on the location and state of preservationof cultural properties before disasters strike. A database of 30,000 properties is kept by the Architectural Institute of Japan, and each of the governmental bodies have compiled their own lists. In the caseof movable assets, the total number would be much,
much more. In the aftermath of East Japan Earthquake, Miyagi Shiryō Net activities have proved to
be of a great help in locating cultural properties. If
Masashi Amano from Miyagi Shiryō Net is here today, could you tell us about your activities before
the disaster and how it unfolded after the disaster,so that we can learn from your experiences as a system effective for the entire country of Japan.
Masashi Amano:
I am Masashi Amano. I work for the Miyagi Shiryō
Net, an organization that goes by the English nameof the Miyagi Network for Preserving Historical
Materials. Our group was established in 2003 in response to an earthquake in northern Miyagi Prefecture. What we learned from that particular earthquake was the importance of confirming thelocations of historical materials in advance of any
future disasters. Thus, after its establishment, theMiyagi Shiryō Net has mainly focused on confirming the whereabouts of both non-designated cultural properties and other items of importance.
Through this process, we became especially interested in identifying historical materials retained in
private collections. However, it is particularly rather
difficult to obtain information on materials in private hands. Thus, our belief was that it would bepossible to quickly recover such materials in theevent of a disaster if the information previously− 214 −

Tokyo Symposium

stored in a great variety of sources was collated andconsolidated within a single database, which could
then be shared with local municipalities. This wehave done since 2003, with most of our work undertaken since 2004.
During the upheaval of the Great East Japan
Earthquake, the aforementioned arrangements
seemed to work well. By being able to share ourinformation with local municipalities from the outset, I feel that we responded to the circumstances
quickly. However, one issue that we confronted wasthat, throughout the country, there is a greatamount of non-designated historical material retained in private hands. Its sheer volume is far inexcess of what we had imagined when the Miyagi
Shiryo Net was initially established. Thus, it subsequently proved difficult for us to grasp the whereabouts of everything. At the time of the Great East
Japan Earthquake, we had not yet been able to trace− 215 −

all materials.
Another matter I should comment on is our efforts to digitalize everything. Concerning old written documents in particular, we have pursued astrategy of advanced photography and summarization so as to develop a primary information source.
We have done this in the belief that, even if the original documents were subsequently destroyed, acopy of their content would nevertheless survive.
This strategy has paid back in the sense, eventhough original historical materials from the vicinity of Ishinomaki City were washed away during theGreat East Japan Earthquake, we still have a copyof their content in digital format. Thank you verymuch.

Tokyo Symposium

Closing Remarks
Masami Zeniya
Executive Director, Tokyo National Museum

On the successful conclusion of this Tokyo Symposium, I would like to take the opportunity to offer a
few words. By way of introduction to my remarks, I
would first like to sincerely thank everyone who
participated throughout the long symposium schedule planned for today. Secondly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to those kind individuals who delivered speeches and reports. To
each of the speakers who gave the keynote addressthat started proceedings, and the speakers who presented the various activity reports on cultural properties as well as the case reports on the measures
being undertaken in Miyagi Prefecture’s Kesennuma City and in Fukushima Prefecture, I would again
like to express my deepest gratitude for the invaluable insights that their presentations offered.
This symposium has given us a chance to lookback at the range of activities undertaken to salvage
and restore those cultural properties damaged by

the events of the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Through the experiences of the speakers, we, theparticipants here today, were exposed to a widerange discussion. For both myself personally, andfor everyone in attendance, I believe that we had aprofitable time today. I feel that in today’s symposium, we examined both how to salvage assets andhow to create and maintain systems for rescuing
cultural properties owned by regional communities
after major disasters. This gave us a good opportunity to consider the issue of cultural heritage disaster prevention. I hope that this symposium will giveus the opportunity to help expand networks that
may be invaluable when responding to disasters occurring when the future. I would like to conclude
my remarks by expressing my deepest gratitude to
the individuals whose efforts made organizing today’s symposium possible. Thank you very much.

− 216 −