ACCU Training Courses
on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2022

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

ACCU Training Courses on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2022

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

Edited and Published by
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
437-3 Somanouchi-cho, Tenri city, Nara, 632-0032, JAPAN
Tel: +81(0) 743-69-5010
FAX: +81(0) 743-69-5021
e-mail: nara@accu.or.jp
URL: https://www.nara.accu.or.jp
Printed by SHOBUNSYAⒸ Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) 2023

Preface
Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) was founded in Tokyo in 1971, one year before the General
Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritagein Paris. ACCU was established in collaboration with the Japanese government and the private sector, with the aim tocontribute to the development of culture and education and to foster mutual understanding and friendship among countries
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Subsequently, ACCU established the ACCU Nara Office in 1999 as a centre for activities promoting cultural heritage
protection in the region. Since then, ACCU Nara has advanced international cooperation for the protection of cultural
heritage through various training courses, international conferences, workshops, publication of international correspondents’reports, and so on. Since we launched the programmes, we have coordinated them in close cooperation with internationalorganisations such as UNESCO and ICCROM, and research institutes and museums under Japan’s National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage. We have also received generous support from regional organisations throughout Japan to conduct ACCU
programmes.
Due to the impact of COVID-19, all 23rd ACCU training programmes were held online in 2022. Regrettably, we were
not able to meet the participants in Japan and the participants were not able to visit the restoration sites and preservation
districts for in-person interaction and on-site learning.
Site visits and practical training have always been an important part of ACCU’s programmes and going online brought
new challenges of teaching heritage conservation remotely. Of course, it is a huge advantage that learning with video
materials has almost no restrictions either in the number of participants or the time of participation. Participants canaccess the material and study at their convenient time. However, it is becoming challenging to keep the pace required at a
training course and learn online, while at the same time being occupied with the everyday work. In face-to-face learning,
one can easily concentrate on the lesson by being “on-site” and having hands-on experience. Acknowledging this, we aretrying to improve the learning efficiency by implementing simultaneous, bi-directional communication platforms, and byencouraging a real-time interaction between the participants and the lecturers. Nevertheless, online sessions cannot fully
replace practical training courses. It is therefore necessary to understand the positive and negative aspects of both, face-toface and online learning, in order to create strategies for more efficient implementation of the training courses.
Outline of the training courses in 2022
Group Training Course (Online)- Target participants: young professionals with 5-10 years’ experience- Training period: 1 September – 30 September (for 1 month)- Theme: ‘Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage’*Usually we set the theme ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Conservation of Wooden Structures’ every other year.
- Number of participants: 15 from 13 different countries (Number of certificate recipients: 14 from 12 countries)-	Curriculum: video lectures, online discussions/Q&A sessions, Live-stream video, on-site lecture video
Thematic Training Course (Online)- Target participants: mid-career professionals with 10-15 years’ experience- Training period: 10 November - 25 November (for 2 weeks)- Theme: ‘3D Documentation Methods for Archaeological Sites’*The theme is set based on the requests from the participants’ country.
- Number of participants: 10 mid-career professionals from Viet Nam who belong to the Center for Archaeology,
Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS) and other national organisations in charge of research and preservationof cultural properties of Viet Nam.
- Venue : online platform (Viet Nam – Nara, Japan)*The course normally invites 5-6 participants from 1-3 countries to Japan.
-	Curriculum: video lectures, online discussions/Q&A sessions, online demonstration lecture
Regional Workshop (Online)- Target participants: young professionals (depending on the request of the host country)- Training period: 17 October - 28 October*The workshop normally takes place in the target country for about a week.
- Theme: ‘Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects’*The theme is set based on the needs of the host country.
- Number of participants: 15 from Kazakhstan who belong to the National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
the Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Pavlodar Pedagogical University etc. (Number of certificate recipients: 12)- Venue: online platform (Almaty, Astana, Pavlodar and Taraz – Nara, Japan)- Curriculum: video lectures, online demonstration lecture, online discussions/Q&A sessions, Live-stream video
International Workshop (Online)- Target participants: senior professionals/ decision-makers- Training period: 14 December – 22 December- Theme: “Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
Current State and Issues (II): Post-Disaster Recovery and Resilience-Building Case Studies”- Number of participants: 13 from 8 countries- Venue: online platform- Curriculum: presentations and panel discussion (online)
The international conference was streamed live and viewed by 212 observers from 32 countries.
This year, the programmes were conducted in a differently from usual, but I believe that the participants could acquire
technical knowledge and practical skills as well as broaden their experience through our online courses.
Finally, I would like to express my profound appreciation to the distinguished lecturers who kindly shared their expertise andto the organisations that provided generous support. I also thank all participants for their active participation and interest in
ACCU programmes. Lastly, I would like to thank all related personnel from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, ICCROM, andNational Institutes for Cultural Heritage for continuing cooperation and support for cultural heritage protection in the AsiaPacific countries.

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

Group Training Course
1. General Information ………………………………………………… 9
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 16
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 32

II.

Thematic Training Course
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 41
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 44
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 52

III.

Regional Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 61
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 64
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 72

IV.

International Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 79
2. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 84

V.

Appendix
1. Group Training Course …………………………………………… 88
2. Thematic Training Course………………………………………… 90
3. Regional Workshop ………………………………………………

91

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

93

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

95…………………………………

96

6. Staff Members of ACCU Nara

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

1. General Information
Group Training Course for Young Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2022

‘Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage’(Online)1. Background
From 1 to 30 September 2022 Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for
UNESCO (ACCU Nara) held the annual group training course for young professionals involved in the cultural heritage
preservation and conservation field in the Asia-Pacific region. Starting from 2000, in partnership with ICCROM, theAgency for Cultural Affairs, and the National Research Institutes of Cultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara), ACCU Nara
has initiated and conducted numerous thematic capacity-building and outreach programmes to equip course participants
with theoretical and practical knowledge essential for the research and analysis, conservation and management of cultural
heritage in the region.
The 23rd ACCU group training course focused on the Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage. The
course was open to young professionals who have been working for some years within the field of conservation andmanagement of wooden architecture and wish to expand their knowledge and skills, share experiences, and contributeto the sustainable conservation of wooden buildings, structures, monuments, or remains, which reflect the character andidentity of the Asia-Pacific countries and are, therefore, important to preserve for future generations.
2. Dates and Method
Dates: 1 September (Thu) – 30 September (Fri) 2022
Method: online (self-learning by the educational resources offered by the lecturers of the training course and several
online-discussions with the participants)
3. Organisers-	Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan: Financial support and professional assistance of the course (dispatchof 3 lecturers for Unit 2 and 5).
-	Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara): Overall
course planning and administration-	International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM): Support in
information-sharing, selection of the participants, and professional assistance during the course (dispatch of lecturers
for Units 1 and 5).
-	Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: Professional assistance (coordinating the interactive
sessions of Unit 2 and 5).
- Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: Professional assistance
Support- Japanese National Commission for UNESCO- Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage (JCIC-Heritage)- Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)- Nara Prefectural Government- Nara City Government- Tenri City Government
4. Objectives
Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2020, traditional skills, techniques
and knowledge for the conservation and transmission of wooden architecture are vast and deeply rooted in Japan. Here,nearly all traditional buildings, whether secular or sacred, World Heritage or local landmark, are made of wood. Hot andhumid climate, frequent natural or manmade disasters necessitated the continuous repair and restoration of these buildings,
forming the foundation of solid principles, methods and skills for their preservation and continuity that are widely
recognised and appreciated inside and outside the country.
Considering the above, the main objectives of this course were to provide participants with:9

-	Theoretical knowledge and skills-based techniques for the sustainable conservation and management of wooden built
heritage in Asia-Pacific region based on Japanese know-how and experiences;-	Establish a platform where participants and lecturers can share their knowledge and practice, strengthen communication
and build professional networks.
5. Course Curriculum
The course programme was designed so that participants can learn the protection systems, as well as the overall processof structural analysis and documentation, repair and restoration methods, and everyday management and utilisation ofwooden architectural heritage based on Japanese approaches and examples. In addition to Japanese professionals, staffs
from ICCROM delivered lectures and participated in discussions related to the international theories and practice forwooden architecture conservation and management.
Contents and schedule:
The course was carried out for four weeks and was structured into five interconnected Units. Each Unit involved two typesof training:
1) Self-paced distance learning (self-study)
The course digital platform was set up to provide the participants access to relevant pre-recorded video lectures, textbooks,
and other learning material to study before the live sessions. Participants were able to log on and access course resources at
any time that fit their schedules, post to discussion boards, exchange files, and chat with their peers.
2) Live sessions
By the end of each Unit, real-time interaction sessions between the lecturers, participants, and organisers were held
through Zoom. In addition to online lectures, live sessions included questions and answers (Q&A) related to the Unit topic,
discussions, and case study presentations from each participant.
Units:
1. Global Perspectives and Challenges in Conservation of Wooden Heritage
2. Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage in Japan
3. Recording and Documentation
4. Repair Methods and Restoration
5. Management and Utilisation (I and II)* For detailed programme see Curriculum
Online Platform
The course used two platforms ‘L-step’ and ‘SMARTSTREAM’, provided by NTT Smart Connect Company. ‘L-step’is an e-learning system, named ‘ACCU iPAGE’, and ‘SMARTSTREAM’ is a site for watching video lectures. ACCU
iPAGE has a chat function called ‘Talkboard’, assignment submission functions such as ‘Check-point Report’, a referencematerial download function ‘Library’, and a function that lets the organiser convey information such as ‘News’. In
addition, there is a function to display the progress level on the home screen, allowing participants to check the tasks at a
glance. This year, ‘Talkboard’ function was used for exchanging opinions among participants and for asking the questions
to the lecturers. During the one-month training period, a total of 26 lecture videos, or 12.8 hours of content, were streamed
through the online platform.

10CurriculumGroup Training Course on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region-Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage1 September - 30 September 2022 (online)
8/ 22
Live session

General Information Session (14:00~15:00 JST)

9/ 1
Live session

Opening Ceremony and Course Orientation (14:00~15:00 JST)

Unit 1: Global Perspectives and Challenges in Conservation of Wooden Heritage
Coordinators: Gamini Wijesuriya and Inaba Nobuko
Week 1(9/ 1-5)Videolecturesuploadday: 9/1

1-1: International Principles and Approaches to Conservation of Wooden Built Heritage
Introduction to ICCROM, Evolution of Conservation Concepts, Principles and Charters
1-2: Wooden Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
Characteristics, Approaches
1-3: Current State and Challenges of Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region
Issues of Authenticity
1-4: Protection of Cultural Properties in Japan
Evolution and outline of the legal system; categories of cultural properties
9/ 5
Live session- Unit 1 Discussion and Q/A Session (14:00 ~ 17:00 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (1) *Training Method

Self-study using lecture
videos distributed throughcourse digital platform

Lecturer/ Instructor
Gamini Wijesuriya(ICCROM)
INABA Nobuko(University of Tsukuba)

Zoom Meeting

Unit 2: Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage in Japan
Coordinator: Kanai Ken (Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (TOBUNKEN))
2-1: History and Diversity of Japanese Architecture
2-2: Conservation for Wooden Architectural Cultural Properties in Japan

Self-study using thematerials uploaded oncourse digital platform;

2-3: Preservation of traditional carpentry tools and materials(Activities of the Takenaga Carpentry Tools Museum)Self-study using thematerials uploaded oncourse digital platform;

9/ 8
Live session- Unit 2 Discussion and Q/A Session (14:00 ~ 17:15 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (2)INAGAKI Tomoya,
KIYONAGA Yohei(Agency for Cultural
Affairs)
NISHIYAMA Marcelo(Takenaka Carpentry
Tools Museum)

Zoom Meeting

Unit 3: Recording and Documentation
Coordinators: Kondo Mitsuo, Ikawa Hirofumi and Ueno Kunikazu

Week 2(9/ 5-12)

3-1: The Japanese Approach to the Conservation of Wooden Heritage Buildings in the International
ContextVideolecturesuploadday: 9/5

3-2: Survey and Recording Methods for Individual Wooden Structures in Japan

Self-study using the materials uploaded oncourse digital platform

3-3: Survey and Research of Groups of Traditional Buildings in Historic Districts
9/ 12
Live session- Unit 3 Discussion and Q/A Session (14:00~17:00 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (3)MARTINEZ Alejandro(Kyoto Institute ofTechnology)
KONDO Mitsuo(Japanese Assosiation forConservation ofArchitectural
Monuments (JACAM))
UENO Kunikazu(Nara Women's
University)

Zoom Meeting

Unit 4: Repair Methods and Restoration
Coordinators: Kondo Mitsuo, Ikawa Hirofumi (ICCROM)

Week 3(9/12-19)Videolecturesuploadday: 9/8

4-1: Basic Approaches to Repair of Wooden Structures in Japan and Formulation of Repair Policy
4-2: Case Study: Seki Family Residence

Self-study using thematerials uploaded oncourse digital platform

KONDO Mitsuo(Japanese Association forConservation ofArchitectural
Monuments (JACAM))

4-3: Repair Process at Conservation Site: on-site lecture at Todaiji (Kaidan-do)

Zoom Meeting Livestream video from Todaiji(Kaidan-do)

TANAKA Izumi(Todaiji)

9/ 19
Live session- Unit 4 Discussion and Q/A Session (14:00~17:00 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (4)Zoom Meeting

Unit 5 (I and II): Management and Utilisation
Coordinators: Inaba Nobuko, Kanai Ken, Rohit Jigyasu
5-1: Townscape to Pass on to the Future
5-2: Adaptive Reuse of Wooden Cultural Properties
Week 4
9/ 19-26

Video
lecturesupload
day:
9/12

9/ 22
Live session- Unit 5 (I) Discussion and Q/A Session (14:00~17:15 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (5)5-3: Heritage Impact Assessments for World Heritage Sites
5-4: Disaster Risk Management for Wooden Built Heritage
9/ 26
Live session
9/ 30- Unit 5 (II) Discussion and Q/A Session (12:00~15:00 JST)- Participant Case Study Reports (6)15:00~15:30 Closing Ceremony
Final Report submission deadline

Self-study using thematerials uploaded on course
digital platform;

WATANABE Yasushi(Shiojiri Board of
Education)
SAIMOTO Kenji(Saimoto Sekkei Jimusho/
Tanba Sasayama)

Zoom Meeting

Self-study using thematerials uploaded oncourse digital platform

NISHI Kazuhiko(Agency for Cultural
Affairs)
Rohit Jigyasu(ICCROM)

Zoom Meeting
To be submitted by all participants

11

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

6. ParticipantsAnnouncement and Response
The training course was offered to participants from the following 42 signatory countries to the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention from Asia and the Pacific:
Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia,
Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia,
Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Samoa,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu andViet Nam.
The course announcement was published on the ACCU Nara Office and ICCROM websites in April 2022. By the closing
date for applications 19 June 2022, we received 32 applications from 19 different countries. Although, the number ofapplications dropped since Covid-19, the number of applications recieved in 2022 showed an increase compared to the lastyear.
Selection of Participants
Training course is open to applicants who are:(1)	young heritage professionals with at least 5 years of experience working in the field of conservation andmanagement of wooden structures, are currently involved in the conservation practice at heritage sites, and are
motivated to make effective use of the outcome of the training course in their respective countries;(2) those who have a good command of English and are able to converse and write in English fluently;(3) able to participate in the entire training programme;(4) able to submit all required documents listed below within the defined deadline;(5) those who wish to continue to interact and exchange information with ACCU after the training course;(6)	those who have not participated in the ACCU group training course under the theme ‘Preservation and Restorationof Wooden Structures’ before;(7) able to organise uninterrupted online learning environment during the course.
Applications (32 applicants from 19 countries)
GenderCountryWest Asia,3,9%Female,16,50%

East Asia,4,13%Male,16,
50%

Central Asia,2,6%South Asia,12,37%

Pacific,5,16%South East Asia,6,19%

Training information source
ACCU participants,1,3%

Others,1,3%

No reply,1,3%

ACCU,2
6%

12NATCOM,3,
9%

ICCROM,12,
38%

50%

50%
Pacific,5,16%South East Asia,6,19%

Training information source

Others,1,3%

ACCU participants,1,3%

No reply,1,3%

ACCU,2
6%
NATCOM,3,
9%

ICCROM,12,
38%

Organisation,5,
16%

Friends/Colleagues,7,22%*ACCU/ICCROM: Websites
NATCOM: National Commission for UNESCO

The documents necessary for application were as follows:(1) Application Form
(2) Letter of Recommendation from the institution of the applicant(3) Personal Statement (2 pages)
			 Personal Statement weighs heavily in the selection process. It should describe:		 -		 Reason for application
		 -		Brief summary of the applicant’s work related to the conservation or management of wooden architectural
heritage;		 -		 Future plans to utilise and develop the outcome of the training course in the applicant’s country.
(4) Certificate of English proficiency
ACCU screened and made a preliminary selection and then consulted with ICCROM and Agency for Cultural Affairs(ACA) for the final decision. After ICCROM and ACA announced the information of evaluated applicants, ACCU
and ICCROM selected 15 applicants from 13 countries and 3 applicants on the waiting list. Where deemed necessary,
ACCU also confirmed the English proficiency of the applicants. In early July, ACCU notified the results to the successful
candidates and respective NATCOMs. The number of certificate recipients were 14 from 12 countries.
The final group of participants consisted of:-	14 participants from 12 different countries: Southeast Asia 5, South Asia 5, Central Asia 1 and the Pacific 3 (refer toAppendix).
-	7 participants had backgrounds in architecture or architectural conservation and had worked on restoration sites. 1
participant was an archaeologist and 1 participant was a carpenter. Other’s backgrounds include agronomy, building
engineering, DRM, etc.
-	4 of the participants worked for national authority, 6 were from NGOs/NPOs and private firm. Others were from
NATCOM, local authority, museum and university.
- The youngest participant was 27 years old, the oldest 44. The average age was 34.6.
- There were 7 male and 7 female participants.
Training Participants
GenderRegionCentral Asia,1,7%

Female,7,50%

Male,7,
50%

Pacific,3,21%

South Asia,5,36%South East Asia,5,36%

Affiliated institution
Museum,1,
7%
Local Authority,1,
7%Years of experience
University,1,7%

13

South East Asia,5,36%

Affiliated institution

Years of experience
University,1,7%

Museum,1,
7%
Local Authority,1,7%

National Authority,4,29%International
Organisation,1,7%
NPO/NGO,2,
14%

11 years or more,5,36%

1-4 years,5,36%

Private Firm,4,29%
8-10 years,2,14%

5-7 years,2,14%

Major at university
Islamic History and Culture,1,7%
History and Geography,1,7%
Disaster Management,1,7%
Carpentry & Joinery,1,7%

Architecture,5,36%

Building,1,7%
Anthropology, Sociology, and Archaeology,1,7%

Architectual Conservation,2,15%

Agronomy,1,7%

Certificate of Completion
14 participants submitted a final report and evaluation form by the deadline (30 Sep.) and were awarded a certificate uponcompletion of the course. This year, one participant was unable to complete the course due to insufficient participation.
7. The role of the participants during the course
During the course period, each participant was required to attend all interactive sessions, present a case study report
describing the current state and issues of wooden heritage conservation in their respective countries, watch all lecture
videos, and write 14 check-point reports related to the content of the lectures, in addition to their understanding on how toutilise the outcomes and knowledge gained. Finally, they were asked to submit a final report and evaluation form by thescheduled deadline.
English is the working language of the course and participants also need a high level of English proficiency.
Check-point report
Check-point report submission answering the questions from each lecturer was necessary to let the participants deepen
their understanding of the lectures after the watching the videos and Live sessions.
Final Report
The participants submit a report summarising the following two subjects:
1. Long-term and short-term action plans developed from the training outcomes.
(What you have to do, what you want to do, what you can do)
2. Possible solutions for the challenges mentioned in the Case Study Report (other than lack of budget and humanresources).
8. Secretariat
ACCU Nara Office
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director of Programme Operation Department and Meladze Tamar, Director of International
Cooperation Division were responsible for the overall course planning, arrangement and the moderating of the Livesessions. HIRAYAMA Naoto and YOSHIDA Machi, staff of International Cooperation Division were responsible fordisseminating the course information and creating the training materials. AOKI Aya, project staff, was in charge of liaisingamong the participants and moderating the Live sessions. HATA Chiyako was Japanese and English interpreter during theLive discussions. The Planning Coordination Division aslo assisted the course.

14

ICCROM
Valerie Magar, Unit Manager and IKAWA Hirofumi, Project Manager, Programmes Unit assisted ACCU with selectionof participants and overall administration. Mr Ikawa also participated as a training coordinator of Unit 4 of the course.
Additionally, Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM Special Advisor, gave opening message, contributed with lecture videos andjoined an interactive session at the beginning of the course. Rohit Jigyasu, Project Manager, Urban Heritage, Climate
Change & Disaster Risk Management, Programmes Unit, kindly attended the closing ceremony and also prepared lecture
videos and participated in an interactive Q &A session on the final day of the course.

15

2. Course Summary
Due to the continued impact of COVID-19, this year as well, the course was taught entirely online combining self-study
through pre-recorded videos and reference materials and interactive live sessions which allowed the participants to discuss
the lecture contents and share knowledge. To convey the experience of site visits and practical training, ACCU also
implemented a new method of real-time lectures from the conservation sites in Japan.
Also this year, in the first half of each interactive session, participants gave case study presentations reflecting on thecurrent approaches and issues in the conservation of wooden heritage in their countries. An online platform (ACCU
e-learning page) was used during the course for distributing the learning materials and exchanging information andopinions between the course participants, lecturers, and ACCU staff. Before the official opening of the course, anintroductory video about ACCU Nara and its activities, as well as a welcome message from the ACCU staff wasdistributed to the participants. In addition, orientation and information session was held to know each other and let theparticipants familiarize themselves with ACCU’s digital learning environment.
The programme greatly benefited from the lecturers and coordinators who assisted in building the training’s content anddelivered their knowledge and experience during each interactive session.
■1 September: Opening CeremonyGroup Training Course 2022 on Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage opened with greetings from theorganisers. ACCU director, Mr Morimoto Susumu; Mr Oku Takeo, Councillor for Cultural Properties, Agency for Cultural
Affairs, Government of Japan; and Dr Gamini Wijesuriya, Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM warmly
welcomed the participants and talked about the benefits this course provides by building and extending knowledge and bycreating the networks between the heritage practitioners in the Asia-Pacific countries.
Mr Prasanna B. Ratnayake, an additional Director General at the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Buddhist,
Religious and Cultural Affairs, in Sri Lanka and the participant in ACCU’s very 1st Group Training Course, was invited asa guest speaker at the opening ceremony. Mr Ratnayake talked about his training experiences and opportunities that haveopened up to him after completing the training course in Japan.
In the concluding part of the opening ceremony, each participant introduced themselves, highlighting the work they are
currently involved in and their motivation as well as expectations from this training course.

MORIMOTO Susumu (ACCU Nara)

Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM)

OKU Takeo (Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan)
Opening ceremony and welcome address from the organisers16

1-5 September■UNIT 1: Global Perspectives and Challenges in Conservation of Wooden Heritage
Lecturers: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM) and INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba)
Unit Summary
The first unit of the course included four lectures describing the evolution of international principles and current
approaches in the conservation of wooden built heritage globally and in the Asia-Pacific region delivered by Dr
Wijesuriya; and touched on the development of cultural properties protection system in correspondence to the populationneeds on the example of Japan, in the lectures of Prof. Inaba.
The lectures also looked at the concepts of authenticity and integrity and discussed the difficulties of comprehending
these terms in different languages. The lectures of the first unit provided basic knowledge and understanding of the origin
and evolution process of cultural heritage preservation policies and practice globally and in Japan, and encouraged theparticipants to re-assess their own approaches according to the needs and resources of their countries.

Excerpts from the lectures “Wooden Heritage Conservation in the Asia-Pacific Region” by Gamini Wijesuriya (left) and “Cultural Properties
Protection System in Japan” by Inaba Nobuko (right)

During the interactive session of Unit 1 with lecturers: Prof. Inaba and Dr Wijesuriya

Key points raised during the discussion
Unit 1 was active by participants questioning and discussing the culture-nature linkages, cultural landscapes, forests, placesof scenic beauty, animals, and the need for recognition and integration of their cultural values at the policy levels in eachcountry. In this regard, another issue of ministerial demarcation was raised by professor Inaba. In addition, the evolution of
the concepts of “authenticity” and “integrity” in parallel to the material-focused versus immaterial approaches to heritage
values have been discussed.
The key points discussed are as follows:• Nature-culture linkages in heritage conservation and the ways of connecting those two under the joint protection
system; the benefits of working together for sustainable conservation drawing on the examples from Japan.
• Development and tourism pressure control on World Heritage Sites and how to stop the projects in buffer zones before
those projects had been approved, under the existing regulations.
• Issues of protecting the forest reserves and securing timber resources. As highlighted both by the participants andlecturers, due to the scarcity of locally available material, many countries nowadays have to import the timber to
respond to the architectural characteristics and demands of their timber structures (e.g., long and large diameter logs).

17

It was also highlighted, however, that importing timber from outside sources is not a sustainable practice, therefore
efforts must be put into action to secure the resources inside each country.
• How to implement and answer the requirements of the concepts of “authenticity” and “integrity” in Asian reality, whenboth of these words are of European origin. It must be made clear that although “authenticity” is still a controversial
word and yet to be defined, it is not a value itself but rather a tool to measure the quality of conservation work.
• Replacement of deteriorated members of the wooden structure with new material is approved method in many
countries and cultures. If such techniques exist locally, the western understanding of the word “authenticity” should
not hinder these practices.
5-8 September■UNIT 2: Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage in Japan
Lecturers and Coordinator: INAGAKI Tomoya and KIYONAGA Yohei (Agency for Cultural Affairs, Governmentof Japan), NISHIYAMA Marcelo (Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum), and KANAI Ken (Tokyo National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties) as a Unit coordinator / HATA Chiyako (Interpreter)
Unit Summary
From the three lectures of Unit 2, the participants first learned about the history and architectural types of Japanese wooden
structures, developed following the socio-environmental conditions of the country.
Then, the core of the conservation process, regular maintenance, as well as the issues of disaster risk management andseismic reinforcement of exclusively highest-level architectural monuments (national treasures and important culturalproperties) were introduced. Lastly, on the example of the Takenaka Carpentry Museum and its concept, the course
participants got an understanding of the ways private entities in Japan are also contributing to the preservation of traditional
carpentry tools and materials and to the process of handing down the conservation skills.
In addition to the video lectures provided by the unit teachers, six extra videos from Takenaka Carpentry Museum
exploring Japan’s rich carpentry tradition from both its practical and philosophical perspectives have been distributed forviewing.
Key points raised for discussion
The interactive session was divided into two sections. The first part was coordinated by Mr Kanai, who proposed toaddress the issues raised in the case study presentations of the participants from India (Ms Asha Theres) and Papua New
Guinea (Mr Benjamin Leme) by sharing and drawing parallels with Japanese examples.
- Traditional knowledge and techniques of conservation versus the modern repair methods of contractors
Participants pointed out that they have experienced this problem at some point in their careers. Participants from India
and the Philippines emphasised that when conservation projects are conducted by private companies, they tend toprioritise profit and thus, make some compromises in conservation by doing shortcuts, using low-quality materials, etc.
Conservation plans are drafted and prepared by qualified experts but once the project is transformed to the contractor for
implementation, they are many flows in the process. The participants wanted to know how Japanese heritage experts havebeen dealing with such issues. Mr Kiyonaga talked about some initiatives implemented in Japan. He explained the custom
of daily maintenance, which facilitates the continuation and passing down of the techniques, knowledge and awareness not
only from expert to expert but also from the heritage owners; The same system allows for quality monitoring practice at
the regional levels.
In addition, the techniques and craftsmanship that are indispensable for the conservation of cultural properties have been
specially selected as Conservation Techniques for Cultural Properties and are currently protected by the law.
Prof. Inaba mentioned that although new construction projects are way more in numbers than the conservation works on
heritage sites, keeping as much as possible the genuine traditional techniques and materials is the fundamental issue ofpreservation.
Mr Kanai added that central to the Japanese thinking of conservation is the evaluation of the change of the status quo of thebuilding: tool to measure of heritage status which is similar to the western understanding of the authenticity and integrity.
Therefore, any changes in the historic buildings are thoroughly documented and the conservation projects are monitored.
- Wood supply and forest protection
As one of the initiatives in Japan, Mr Kiyonaga introduced the project implemented by the Agency for Cultural Affairs
called Furusato Bunkazai no Mori (Forests for our Cultural Properties) to secure the wood and other plant material used in
restoration work (e.g., cypress bark, lash for tatami mats, urushi sap, thatch, etc), and to develop skilled workers to produce
those resources. The initiative entails not only selecting the Furusato Bunkazai no Mori as forests for harvesting and/or

18

producing resource materials but also establishing them as a facility for holding training programs, conducting workshops
and disseminating information.
- Encouraging the local community participation and getting support in heritage conservation
The question was raised by the participants of PNG and Indonesia. Prof. Inaba commented that one of the essential steps tocreating ties between heritage experts and local communities is decentralisation and the creation of regional capacities. In
Japan, municipal-level officers are dealing with the day-to-day monitoring and decision-making on the ground. Participantsalso learned about another initiative by the local governments in Japan: Comprehensive Cultural Properties Protection andManagement Local Plan which has a legal basis at the municipal levels and facilitates community participation in culturaland natural resources mapping. Following this explanation from Prof. Inaba, Mr Pema (Bhutan) asked about the ways toexpand the capacities outside the centre, in regions and municipalities. Professor Inaba said the best is to start from school
and involve school kids and teachers in any kind of heritage-related mapping.
Some other questions to the lecturers in the first half of the session:
Q: Is Disaster Management integrated part of the Conservation Report / Conservation Plan prepared?
A: Not only the management plan but also the DRM facilities need to be put in place.
Q: What is the difference between a conservation architect and a licensed architect for historic building?
A: Licenced architect = also known as a “heritage manager,” attends the 60-hour lecture course on cultural heritage
administration, repair techniques, urban planning and conservation, and practical sessions.
Conservation architect = Licenced conservation architect undergoes a specific training and attends 600 hours of lectures inorder to work exclusively on the Important Cultural Heritage Properties and National Treasures.

Video lecture by Mr Kiyonaga Yohei on conservation for wooden

Mr Inagaki Tomoya on History and Diversity of Japanesearchitectural cultural properties in Japan

Architecture

Video lecture by Mr Nishiyama Marcelo “Preservation of Traditional

Case study report by Asha Theres (India)

Carpentry Tools and Materials”

19With the lecturers of Unit 2

In the second half of the session, Mr Nishiyama from Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum joined in. Reflecting on the casestudy presentation from Mr Benjamin Leme on the preservation issues of the wooden canoe in the coastal region of Papua
New Guinea, Mr Nishiyama shared some examples of how his museum is trying to keep alive the wonderful yet graduallydisappearing traditions of wooden boatbuilding, and other craftsmanship. He emphasized that not only the exhibition but
workshops involving the demonstration of using the tools and creating the product are essential for maintaining the statusquality of traditional skill sets, passing on and further developing traditional craftsmanship.
Below are some of the issues pointed out by the participants related to the preservation of traditional craftmanship:- With the development of modern technologies, the interest is fading in traditional things (Benjamin, PNG)
- People still holding the traditional skills are reluctant to pass down the knowledge to the next generation (Asha, India)-	People are reluctant to share the knowledge because traditional knowledge is kept within the tribes and communities,
they are afraid that someone may use this knowledge for the profit (Leone, Fiji)- Moreover, some of this knowledge is sacred and they need to be kept, not released (Benjamin, PNG).
These comments were addressed by Mr Nishiyama, Prof. Inaba and Mr Kanai. Mr Nishiyama’s take was to stress theenjoyable part of the traditional techniques through workshops. Museums have the power to demonstrate that wood
crafting is enjoyable, and safe for children. In addition, not only the heritage people but modern-day architects canimplement some of these traditional approaches in their projects, and keep the techniques alive by making use of them.
Japan had similar issues but it is getting better with the realisation that being reluctant to share knowledge will resultin skill shortage and the loss of jobs. Another great way to inherit the techniques to the next generation is to make themuseums attractive to children. We need to think about how to invite the children to our heritage sites. This is the key point
for conservation as well.
Prof. Inaba added that to facilitate the integration of the traditional techniques into the modern constructions, the agencies
for cultural heritage protection and the ones in charge of development and infrastructure need to collaborate and work
together on bringing some of the traditional elements in modern constructions. Otherwise, the carpenters of ordinary
construction projects cannot survive. They will not be able to secure enough work.
Another important point was then brought forward by Mr Nishiyama. He noted that the protection and use of traditional
methods in repair, conservation and construction works are not only for sake of preserving certain buildings but also theenvironment. Reflecting on the SDGs and carbon neutrality, it is important to be cautious about the use of environmentallyfriendly materials and heritage buildings provide the keys to solving these issues.
Mr Kanai wrapped up the session by adding that indigenous knowledge and people who hold this knowledge can indeed
provide the key source of information and insight to the social system in responding to the threat of climate change. Thisknowledge, encompassing most aspects and principles of the SDGs, is going to be more important than ever before not
only with regard to heritage conservation but in all aspects of global sensitivity.

20

8-12 September■UNIT 3: Recording and Documentation
Lecturers
KONDO Mitsuo (Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)), UENO Kunikazu(Nara Women’s University), Alejandro Martinez (Kyoto Institute of Technology) / HATA Chiyako (Interpreter)
Unit Summary
The objective of Unit 3 was to teach the recording and documentation principles and methods of wooden-built heritage as
performed in Japan. Participants learned about different types of surveys from damage and specification surveys to trace
investigations on concrete examples of individual heritage buildings (important cultural properties) in Japan. They also got
to know how the documentation and survey are done for the groups of traditional buildings and historic towns and why thesurvey is considered an indispensable part of conservation planning.
Before getting into the particularities of the survey and documentation in Japan, participants also learned what is the
position of Japanese methodology in the broader international context by describing the international principles, andproviding examples of different wooden buildings and their repair methods in different parts of the world.

During the interactive session of Unit 3. Top from the left: Mr Kondo, Prof. Ueno, Mr Watanabe;
Below: Prof. Martinez, Mr Ikawa

Key points raised for discussion
The online session opened with the case study presentations from the participants centring around the importance of survey
and documentation of timber constructions in Bhutan, the challenges of conservation of cultural heritage in historic towns
and cities of India and the problems and needs concerning the protection, preservation and management of Philippine
Ancestral Houses in the District of Quiapo, Manila.
Topics raised during the discussion included the ones of technical character (correcting the deformations, identifying
erosion by non-destructive methods, etc), as well as the ones related to the written guidelines and conservation principles.
The latter was especially engaging and was brought up several times in the discussion. The participants learned that inJapan there are no written guidelines on conservation. As a means of quality control, the group of certified conservationarchitects go through the same training courses and annual meetings, and as a result, they develop a shared understandingof conservation principles. The fact of not having a written standard or guideline in conservation/repair but rather having acommon understanding and policy among conservation architects throughout the country surprised the participants.
Another point brought up during the meeting was the use of 3D technologies in the documentation of heritage buildings.
Participants were interested in knowing the efficiency, advantages and disadvantages of using digital scanning incomparison to traditional, hand measurement. As explained by Mr Kondo, 3D scanning can make a very accurate
measurement of the current state of the building. But in the case of historical buildings, which have been damaged,
deformed and gone through many transitions throughout the centuries, tracing these alterations is essential. Making
drawings by hand requires observation of the building and its structural members on traces, damages, and various
modifications. Therefore, manual documentation is not only about putting the measurement numbers on the drawing but
also getting to know the building, its characteristics and its history. Such knowledge cannot be attained by digital scanning.
However, it has also been noted that when there is a time limitation and in the case of extreme working environments, theadvantages of using 3D scanning become apparent.
Lastly, questions were asked about the conservation reports. Participants wanted to know if the reports in Japan are usually
written for experts (in an academic manner) or for the public (in casual language). Lecturers clarified that the reports
for townscape preservation selection and important cultural property conservation are prepared in a different manner:
while the conservation reports are made exclusively for experts and include detailed drawings, research results andargumentation of repair works, townscape preservation reports target the community and aim to explain the attractivenessof the town and the ways of its preservation.

21

Case Study presentation by Pema (Bhutan)“The Japanese Approach to Conservation of Wooden Heritage
Buildings in International Context”, Lecture by Alejandro Martinez“Survey and Recording Methods for Individual Wooden Structures“Survey and Research of Groups of Traditional Buildings in Historicin Japan” by Kondo Mitsuo

Districts” by Ueno Kunikazu

12-19 September■UNIT 4: Repair and Restoration
Lecturers and Coordinators
KONDO Mitsuo (Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)), TANAKA Izumi(Todaiji Temple World Heritage Site) and IKAWA Hirofumi (ICCROM) as a Unit coordinator
HATA Chiyako (Interpreter)
Unit Summary
Lectures on the repair and restoration of wooden heritage buildings are usually followed by intensive on-site practicaltraining. Course participants learn how to make a comprehensive judgment on the values of the building and eventuallydevelop a repair plan. This year, due to the online format of teaching the basic principles of repairing wooden structuresin Japan and the formulation of repair policy were taught using case examples. One of the biggest appeals of this trainingis that the participants are given unique opportunities to study directly at the World Heritage Sites, and take part inconservation works while interacting with the head conservators in charge. This year, we decided to provide such an
opportunity by setting up the internet connection, cameras, and interpretation system for the live broadcast from theconservation site. Participants were able to see an actual repair process at Kaidan-do and directly communicate with thesupervisor of the conservation works.
Key points raised for discussion
15 September (On-site lecture through Zoom from Kaidan-do)
The reference material (handouts and introduction video) describing the architectural characteristics and current
conservation works on the building was distributed to the participants in advance, so when we set up an online lecturefrom the conservation site, they had a basic understanding of the monument and ongoing works. Cameras were placed at
two spots and the participants could observe the roof repair process from different angles. Mr Tanaka, the site supervisor
gave a comprehensive explanation of the conservation process (seismic reinforcement requiring roof load reduction andother structural interventions), including the purpose and objectives of undertaken works. After the explanation from Mr
Tanaka, participants had an opportunity to ask several questions:22

Q: Are the damaged tiles replaced and if yes, what kind of tiles do you use as replacements?
A: We maintain the traditional technique of making the roof tiles, shapes, specifications and materials. So, even if the tiles
need to be replaced, we have no concerns about this.
Q: Do you ever use modern materials in conservation?
A: Yes. If the condition of members is not too bad, we only repair the surface without extra interventions. But sometimes
materials such as adhesives, metal fixations, and wires (for roof tile fixations against the strong wind) are used for serious
damages. But all these interventions with new material should be discreet and have supplementary purposes and should
not diminish the original shape or techniques.
Q: Is this wooden structure made of only one (same) species of timber or are different materials also used?
A: Different wood species are used for different purposes. Pillars are made of keyaki (Japanese zelkova), main structuralmembers are hinoki (Japanese cypress) and pine trees, boards and other invisible parts are made of cedar. In ancientconstructions, mostly hinoki was used. From the 17-18th centuries, more variations were added. In this conservation
project, when we have to replace the members, we use the same wood species. Clearly, the builders had good knowledgeof which timber would be most appropriate to use for each purpose.
Q: Before the conservation works, did you do a foundation check and did you find any damages due to the earthquake?
A: We carried out the foundation check by boring. Stability and good ground condition were confirmed. Before the survey,
we thought that the damages were caused by the unstable ground condition, but we did not find any issues.
Q: If the damaged members need to be replaced but the same timber species cannot be obtained, what would you do?
A: In such a case, our primary objective is to keep the shape and techniques. Conservation architects get together anddiscuss which material to use, what implication it may have, etc. These discussions are documented in written form for
future reference.
Q: Regarding the termite attack, you change the affected members. What else do you do?
A: In this case, all the termite damages were very serious we had no other choice but to replace the whole members. If thedeterioration is not too extreme, partial treatment such as injecting synthetic resin into the deteriorated parts of the timber
can also be applied.

Roof repair process at Kaidan-do and an explanatory lecture by Mr Tanaka Izumi

23

Participants attending the on-site lecture through Zoom

19 September (Unit 4 interactive session)
Interactive session of Unit 4 opened with the case study presentations from the participants (Uzbekistan, Fiji, Bangladesh),which triggered several points for discussion:- Challenges of structural reinforcement of the monuments while maintaining the maximum possible amount of theoriginal material
It was noted by the lecturers that it is always better to consider improvement or rehabilitation of the existing material bydifferent modern methods (such as stainless steel, waterproof seals, reducing the weight of the roof by removing part ofthe soil, etc) rather than simply replacing the members. In the cases when the damage is too extreme, to use of the samematerial and following the original construction method is required. Even the parts that are not visible from the outside
have cultural significance and should be part of what we conserve.
- Training for architectural conservators and the issue of skilled workers scarcity
This is a shared issue for many countries and it takes a good amount of time to set up a system that trains heritage
professionals and ensures quality control. It has been pointed out that in the early 20th century in Japan, there werecarpenters but they had no knowledge of cultural heritage repair and old construction methods. However, the systemstarted to develop without creating written guidelines. Prof. Inaba explained that in Japan, conservation architects started
to become skilled through a series of training, workshops, and discussions based on consultations with each other. Such asystem also facilitates self-training and progress and creates a shared understanding among conservation architects. Written
guidelines only exist for cultural property owners and these are written in a very easy-to-understand manner.
The second half of the session was dedicated to the questions based on the lectures of the Unit 4. Below are several topics
brought into question:
Q: How do ICOMOS and UNESCO react when the conservation process involves dismantlement and repair withcompletely new material, as well as removing some later additions when you select one particular period to which thebuilding is restored?

24

A: We do not always return the buildings to their original or certain period of time. We have to consider many otherfactors. For example, in Nagasaki, one particular building had damage in the roof truss from the atomic bomb explosion.
We decided to retain this as part of the history of the building.
A: Dismantlement is not something we always perform. Even when it is done, the post and beam structure of Japanese
wooden buildings allows such intervention and sometimes even require dismantlement for structural stability. This is why
quality control of conservation is very important. For nationally protected buildings, we have careful considerations anddiscussions among professionals taken place. All decisions need final approval from the national committee. We have been
explaining this process and each step undertaken to the World Heritage Committee since Japan ratified the WH convention
in 1992, continuously. You have to do the same. International experts do not know local approaches and they make“pragmatic” decisions based only on the guidelines and charters.
Q: How to approach the dismantlement of the living heritage, that is functioning on daily bases and its use will beterminated for a certain period of time?
A: In the case of religious monuments in Japan, the shrine is the main body to initiate the repair in the first place, therepresentative (priest) of the shrine is the one who applies for the subsidy from the government. In the very initial stages,
we also discuss whether or not to build the temporary hall, however, since the initiative of starting the works comes fromthe priest, there are no further arguments about the temporary closure of the facility etc.
Q: Regarding the subsidies for repairing the traditional houses which are the properties of the community, what kind of
incentives does the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Japan) provide apart from technical support?
A: In Japan, not only the nationally protected buildings but also the ones recognised at the municipal level are subsidised.
Of course, not all countries have the budget for this. Perhaps your government can offer something else (for example,
repair material) instead of cash. In Japan, the remote areas also depend on government help. But these subsidies do notcome for individual buildings. The whole area is receiving development subsidies. Sustainable development plans shall
include the budget for the repair of heritage buildings and traditional houses.

“Basic Approaches to Repair of Wooden Structures in Japan and“Case Study: Seki Family Residence” Kondo Mitsuo

Formulation of Repair Policy” Lecture by Kondo Mitsuo

Case Study report by Ratu Leone Matanitobua (Fiji)

Live session of Unit 4 was joined by Ikawa Hirofumi (ICCROM)
and the lecturers of Unit 1,3, and 525

19-26 September■UNIT 5: Management and Utilisation (I)Lecturers and Coordinators
WATANABE Yasushi (Shiojiri Board of Education), SAIMOTO Kenji (Saimoto Architectural Design Office)
KANAI Ken and INABA Nobuko as Unit Coordinators / HATA Chiyako (Interpreter)
Unit Summary
The final and concluding unit of the course was divided into two parts and included two online meetings. The first partaddressed the issues of townscape preservation and management of groups of traditional buildings and taught about thesystem of adaptive reuse of registered and non-registered cultural properties in Japan. To convey the atmosphere of thepreservation districts in Japan, ACCU made an on-site lecture video where Watanabe Yasishi (Shiojiri Board of Education)and local residents and business owners gave a comprehensive explanation of the community-centred townscapepreservation and management on the example of Narai post-town.
The second and concluding part of the unit was about understanding the Heritage Impact Assessment for the World
Heritage Sites and the Disaster Risk Management for the wooden built heritage in the Asia-Pacific region.
Key points raised for discussion
The first meeting of participants with the lecturers and coordinators was held on September 22. After the case study
presentations, the discussion centred around the issue of the change of materials from traditional to modern during therestoration or adaptive reuse. The participants learned from the lecturers that unless we are dealing with designatedimportant cultural properties or the World Heritage Sites, which require strict compliance with the conventional
conservation principles, alteration in the use of traditional materials (such as, for example, roofing material) can be
accepted for the vernacular houses for sake of continuation of the use of the building and as long as overall appearance(design) of it can also be preserved.
Different strategies and ways of community involvement for the sustainable preservation of historical districts wereactively brought to attention. Based on the examples of Narai and Tamba-Sasayama, the participants and lecturers
discussed how to keep up and maintain the interest of the residents to support the preservation and revitalisation
movement, highlighting the importance of commemorative events, festivals, school activities, and other incentives such asencouraging the young generations to move to the rural areas by providing governmental support. It was also stressed thatwithout the full consent and will of the communities, which is assessed by the experts of the Agency for Cultural Affairs
upon their visit to the place, Agency cannot go forward with the registration of the townscape and that community is themost important factor for townscape preservation.
With regards to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings into hotels or other commercial sites, participants were mostinterested in how to keep the balance between historical preservation and the requirements of a modern and comfortablestay. The answers from Mr Saimoto encouraged the participants, as he went on to explain that the main attractive pointof adaptively reused hotels is indeed their historical value and that the people who choose to stay in such places are notparticularly expecting the high-end comfort but the experience of living in a traditional house. “Keeping original to themost possible extent is the key. Even if it is too cold inside the rooms, the guests will not complain. This is the experience
they are looking for ” – pointed out Mr Saimoto.
By the end of the session, Mr Kanai and Prof. Inaba offered the concluding remarks of the session. Mr Kanai talked about
the role of the architect in the preservation movement of the townscapes. He emphasised that “the role of an architect isto transform the required social-economic functions into the future heritage value. An architect with proper awarenesscan conceive and design the renovation and modification to meet socio-economic demands that are considered positive
intervention that enhances the heritage value. […] Such diverse methods of renovation and modification that enhance
heritage values will promote innovation in architectural conservation while also enhancing life quality and the sense ofcommunity.”

26

Excerpts from the on-site video lecture on Narai post-town
preservation district

Examples of adaptive reuse of historical buildings in Tamba Sasayama,

Case Study report by Panyaporn (Singapore)

lecture by Saimoto Kenji■UNIT 5: Management and Utilisation (II)
Lecturers: NISHI Kazuhiko (Agency for Cultural Affairs), Rohit Jigyasu (ICCROM) / HATA Chiyako (Interpreter)
Unit Summary
The second part of Unit 5 introduced the participants to two powerful tools that aim at protecting cultural heritage andOUV of the World Heritage Sites from the impact of various forms of developments (Heritage Impact Assessment - HIA)
and the natural and man-made hazards that create the risks for disaster (Disaster Risk Management - DRM). Mr Nishi
Kazuhiko who is a key person involved in the development process of the Japanese HIA guidelines, and Dr Rohit Jigyasu
risk management professional currently working at ICCROM as Project Manager on Urban Heritage were invited to
discuss why such tools have been introduced on the first place and why they are needed, also looking at the challenges thatcome with the implementation process at the national level of each country.

27Key points raised for discussion
In the discussion with Mr Nishi, the philosophy and idea behind HIA, its implementation process, legal basis, and somebasement issues have been brought up. The lecturer summarised the aspects of its implementation based on some Japaneseexamples, and highlighted two key points to keep in mind: 1) the challenges related to defining and writing down thevalues and attributes of the heritage sites based on which the HIA should be prepared and 2) legal issues which stem fromthe fact that not many countries have the legal bases and national policy frameworks for integrating impact assessment
tools. While sharing the chart showing the whole process of HIA in Japan, Mr Nishi explained each stage of this process,including the analysis of whether or not HIA is necessary, the investigation of mitigation methods, gathering information
on previous studies and analysis, translating the reports in English, etc. He also highlighted that although the HIA process
is rather time and cost-consuming, it should be designed for each situation and case individually.
Some questions raised during the session are as follows:
Q: Heritage impact assessment is always asked by the World Heritage Centre. But in Uzbekistan we don’t have individual
buildings listed in WHL; all our sites are living cities. In such case, how should we determine the values and prepare HIA?
A: This is also connected with the difficulty of how to write down the values in HIA. When we have a stack of layers andvalues it is difficult to write down as a simple text and therefore, difficult to understand the impact of the development
project as well. At this moment I have no clear answer to this question, but perhaps writing down the clear attributes of thevalues will be helpful to understand the impact. Also, training for implementing HIA is quite important. Still, we are in theinitial phase of accumulating experience but ICCROM, ICOMOS,WHITRAP have some good knowledge. Several video
lectures should also be available. But HIA is a case-by-case basis initiative we cannot just read it and then implement. We
have to design the process to each site/country individually.
Q: What exactly are the challenges of identifying the attributes?
A: The point here is that if it is the case of the recent nomination, the attributes of the heritage in question are quite
precisely described. However, in old dossiers the attributes’ description is not detailed enough. When the attributes are
not clearly described in the nomination dossier, we have to retrospectively identify the attributes and then connect thevalues and the substantial items of the heritage. Another challenge is that we have to analyse the previous, old nomination
documents written by someone else and determine the attributes through the analysis of the existing text.
Q: Japan just recently issued the guidelines for HIA. Can you give us an idea how the national government was able tointegrate its national policy to conduct the HIAs?
A: It was issued about 3 years ago. Still, it is not a definite guideline, but rather a referencing one. There are two aspects
shown in Japanese HIA guidelines: procedural matters and technical matters. These explain how to evaluate the impact.
I think this guideline became possible because we already had experience in other fields, such as environmental impact
assessment and landscape. So, we used the same technique and procedures for the heritage. An important point here is also
to let the people know that government cares about the HIA and its existence.

Discussions on HIA process on Japanese example, Prof. Inaba, Mr Kanai, Mr Nishi

28

Further, the debates went on how to integrate HIA in national policies when it is usually authorities who make decisions
on a big development project and most of the time, they do not consider heritage as a resource. Mr Nishi pointed out that
this happens also because HIA still has no clear position in the tree of legal frameworks. Adjusting regulations is a difficult
process and HIA also has a long way to go.
A supplementary comment about the implementation of HIA in Japan was provided by Prof. Inaba. She explained thatin recent nominations from Japan, the responsibility of top management of the World Heritage sites is assumed by thegovernors. In Japan, regional governors have the power to halt the development projects which they consider as harmful
to the heritage sites. Therefore, if development projects cause any problems, the governors should take responsibility todeal as well. If the local government wishes to nominate sites to be inscribed in WHL, it should also be responsible formanagement.

Lecture of Dr Rohit Jigyasu on DRM

After the short break, participants gathered again to discuss the lecture contents on Disaster Risk Management. Dr Jigyasu
introduced DRM for cultural heritage which is an important part of the heritage conservation practice and summarised the
key points of his lecture. On the examples from many different countries and natural hazards, participants learned about
the key principles of risk management for cultural heritage to keep in mind, such as understanding the vulnerabilities ofdifferent heritage sites; reducing the risks to all the attributes of cultural heritage; taking into account multiple events that
may happen in parallel; interaction of climate change, disasters and conflicts; how to balance the human safety while
making minimal impact on heritage values; integration of cultural heritage needs into disaster risk management policies atnational level, etc.
Related to the topic of DRM, two participants - Jeffrey Cobilla (Philippines) and Govinda Adhikari (Nepal) presented
their case studies. Jeffrey introduced the work he has been involved recently to develop practical guide that can enableowners and custodians implement a preventive maintenance program specific to wood materials and building components
in Philippines. He further stressed that by equipping owners and custodians with knowledge about the proper and active
care of wood components and materials through preventive maintenance, vulnerabilities of the structure can be minimized
and risks can be reduced. Dr Jigyasu and other participants highly evaluated the work performed, emphasizing that theguidelines and plans which are born as an outcome of the process are crucial and have less chance of simply ending up on
the shelves.
Then the participants shared their experiences in the DRM field one by one. Pema noted that in Bhutan which has very
special geographical features and many challenges to consider, there already exists principles on DRM, and currently they
are trying to implement cultural heritage in its framework. Cultural Heritage professionals are part of the response team of
overall disaster management, also working on preventing measures.
As also pointed out by Dr Jigyasu, every disaster is opportunity to prepare for another disaster. This statement was provedby the presentation by Govinda from Nepal. He introduced risk mitigation measures for the built heritage developed29mostly after the 2015 earthquake in Nepal. The mitigation includes not only earthquake preparedness but also measuresagainst multiple other types of hazards. Dr Jigyasu praised the work done and added that when we design the mitigation
measures it is important to consider not only one-time solution but also their maintenance, monitoring, as well as theirimpact on the safety of people and the values of cultural heritage. On this matter Prof. Inaba brought an example of Japan,
where after 2011 devastating earthquake and following tsunami, as one of the ways of prevention, national government
proposed to build concrete walls between sea and residential areas, also requiring the fishermen to move in the upper areas.
Building a wall may cause destruction of the connection between the fishermen and sea, as well as the landscape. But on
the other hand, how to prevent the impact of future tsunami is still an issue the solution of which still needs to be found.
By the end of the interactive session, Charmenne (Philippines) shared another example of DRM initiated and implemented
by the local religious sector with the help of heritage professionals, which has had very positive effects. Such cases provethat small communities can be very capable in mobilizing resources and action before, during and after the disaster.
Closing Ceremony
Closing addresses were given by the course organisers and two representatives from the participants. First, Mr Morimotoof ACCU Nara thanked the participants for their hard work during one-month, lively exchanges between the lecturers
and participants, and expressed his hopes to continue to maintain and make meaningful use of this relationship between
lecturers, ACCU staff and the network of fellow participants. He also extended his gratitude to all the resource persons andinstitutions that cooperated and supported the course.
Ms Saito Rika, from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan also congratulated the participants for the
successful completion of the training and extended her gratitude towards ACCU, ICCROM and all lecturers for theirefforts. She also expressed hope that participants took the most of the online teaching advantages and concluded heraddress with the wish for further progress in international cooperation.
In his closing message, Dr Rohit Jigyasu conveyed ICCROM’s appreciation and congratulations. He further stated that
ICCROM is proud to be the partner of ACCU Nara for many years, pointing out some of the important joint initiatives.
He also made a comment on the challenges of online teaching, while also stressing that we have successfully handled
this challenge, although there shall be no replacement for face-to-face interactions and relationship-building. He then also
conveyed greetings and congratulations on behalf of other members of the ICCROM family.
Finally, two participants - Tatyana (Uzbekistan) and Pema (Bhutan) offered their closing speeches. In her address, Tatyana
conveyed her appreciation to the organisers and all the resource persons of the course and stressed that although allparticipants are different and have various backgrounds, we all have common challenges and concerns about the protectionof cultural heritage. She noted that the course curriculum touched almost all aspects and there was something new tolearn for everybody. After conveying his gratitude towards the lecturers, Pema also addressed his fellow participants
expressing his wish to continue international cooperation outside the virtual world. Pema closed his speech by encouraging
participants to go beyond the country borders and think globally for the good of the shared heritage of mankind.

Address by Ms SAITO Rika, Agency for Cultural Affairs

Closing addresses by Pema and Tatyana

30

Dr Rohit Jigyasu, ICCROM

Group Photo at the Closing Ceremony

31

3. Course Evaluation
Fourteen participants completed the training course and submitted the course evaluation. This year, it was the first online
training on the theme of wood conservation. The participants observed that they need practical trainings for some lectures
to better understand the contents and also supplementary learning materials: a set of a videos and a handouts (pdf text) for
each lecture. ACCU will try to improve the points highlighted by the participants.
1. Overall
Are you satisfied with the course?

Satisfied,14,100%

Usefulness for current work

■Satisfied■Unsatisfied■Others

Course duration and extensity

Relevancy to work

■Just right■Too long■Too short

Did the course curriculum and lecture contents meet yourexpectations?
To some extent,1,7%

Yes, just as I expected,13,93%

32■Overall, yes■I donʼt know
■Not really

Only some,1,7%

Not really,1,
7%

Too short,2,
14%

Just right,12,86%

Overall, yes,14,100%■Yes, just as I
expected■To some extent

Overall, yes,12,86%■Overall, yes■Not really■Only someWould you recommend this course to your colleagues?

Yes,14,100%■Yes■Maybe■Not sure1) Did the course (including the hours required for studying and attending the live sessions) disturb your everyday
work?
• The course hours were not disturbing.
Did the course disturb your daily work?
Depth of the course contents• I needed time to absorb and understand the lecture
A lot,1,7%
materials and write the checkpoint reports. So often, I
Not at all,2,Tooitshallow,2,didduring my work hours when my concentration was
14%
17%
in good condition.
• The live sessions did clash with my afternoon work
hours on Mondays and Thursdays. I found that the
studying could be realistically completed outside of
Just right,9,To some extent,11,■Just right■Not at all
work hours. 75%
79%■Too deep■To some extent
shallowhours.
• I attended the Zoom sessions during
working■Too■A lotHowever, I received approval from the Head Office toToopassdeep,1,8%
this course (2 participants).
• I live some miles away and work elsewhere. I had to		wait to participate because if I am traveling, I may run out of time and may miss the training. That was a bit
challenging I guess. But I enjoyed it though.
• As I had to attend the office and continue my responsibilities including site visits for the preparation of detail drawingsand cost estimates during this training course, it was very difficult to catch up with the training course.
• Sometimes I needed to travel for other work during the training hours. It would have to be face -to-face training toavert this issue.
2. Curriculum and Video Lectures
1) How challenging did you find each unit?
Unit 1

Unit 2

Too easy,1,7%
Very challenging,2,14%

About the right level,11,79%

Unit 3■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

About the right level,11,79%

Unit 4Too easy,1,7%
Very challenging,2,14%

About the right level,11,79%

Very challenging,3,21%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

Too easy,1,7%

Very challenging,4,29%

About the right level,9,64%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

Unit 5

Very challenging,5,36%
About the rightlevel,9,64%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

33

About the right level,11,79%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

About the right level,9,64%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy

Unit 5

Very challenging,5,36%
About the rightlevel,9,64%■Very challenging■About the right level■Too easy2) Which unit(s) and lecture(s) did you find most useful and why? (Score 5: highest, Score 1: lowest)
Unit 1: Global perspectives and challenges in conservation

Unit 2: Protection systems for wooden built heritagein Japan
Score 1,1,6%
Score 2,1,
6%

Score 1,2,
14%

Score 3,3,
19%

Score 5,6,
43%
■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

Score 4,5,
36%
Score 3,1,
7%
Unit 3: Recording and documentation

Score 1,1,7%

Score 3,1,7%

Score 5,5,36%

Score 5,6,
43%
■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

Score 4,6,
43%
Score 3,1,
7%
Unit 5 (I): Management and utilisation

Score 4,6,
43%

Score 1,1,7%

Score 2,1,7%

Score 5,5,36%

Score 5,6,
43%
Score 4,6,
43%

■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

Unit 5 (II): Management and utilisation

Score 1,1,7%

Score 2,1,7%■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

Score 4,4,25%

Unit 4: Repair and restoration

Score 1,1,7%

Score 2,1,7%

Score 5,7,44%

■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

Score 4,7,50%

■Score 5■Score 4■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1• Although all the units were insightful, I found Unit 4 very useful as it focused on the repair and restoration process.
• Unit 4 and Unit 5 were very useful. It was relevant to the contemporary work that I am pursuing these days.
• Units 3 and 5, especially the Japan documentation report and Dr Rohit's DRM lecture. For unit 5, this is the first time
for me to be introduced to DRM, and I'm looking forward to integrating a smaller scale of DRM into my work.
• ALL UNITS because although there were some areas, not related to my job, I can exchangeably did it with my34

colleagues, covering all the areas in this division, Culture and Museum. Even though, only a few of them covered myown areas, all units covered other areas in this office which I can do now because I built my capacity from these grouptraining units.
• Unit 2 was definitely the most interesting because it is relatable to me as a trade person, especially the tools in
Takenaka Tools Museum and how they were displayed, and I was really interested to follow the path of Exhibition.
• I found that all of the lectures were relevant and useful in one way or another and the sharing regarding the Japaneseexperience was really eye-opening. My personal focus & interest would be the topics covered in Units 2 - 5 part 1.
• Documentation, conservation approaches, international norms and Japanese norms were very useful, because there islimited knowledge in these areas in my country.
• I was interested in and fascinated with the lecture on Narai. I still think of this lecture.
• For me Unit 3: Recording and Documentation and Unit 4: Repair and Restoration were most useful because thecontent of these units directly reflected my daily responsibilities in my organisation.
3) Please specify if you had any issues comprehending the English used during the course (e.g. simultaneoustranslation, video lectures, textbooks, communicating with lecturers, course participants and organisers, etc.)• If only the video lectures had English narration and two or more on-site learning experiences.
• Overall, I appreciate the effort by ACCU Nara in providing comprehensive translation/ interpretation throughout thewhole course.
• The comprehensive translation was a little distracting.
4) Did you observe any issues in the pre-recorded video guides that should be improved or done differently?
• No, all pre-recorded guides were clear, safe and sound.
• Have more videos like this since it is an on-line course, or links to it if it were on any social media platform.
• At first, the video lectures had difficulty playing on the Microsoft Edge browser but I was able to sort it out.
• The interviews of Narai Town residents were very helpful since I could see a different perspective of the general userthat utilises heritage properties.
Length of the video lectures
Too long,1,7%Just right,13,93%

Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum and Narai
Preservation District
Somewhat helpful,2,14%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Very helpful,12,86%■Very helpful■Somewhat helpful■Not helpful

3. Zoom Meetings
1) How did you find the duration of each meeting?
Usefulness of Zoom sessions
Somewhat useful,2,14%

Very useful,12,86%

Duration of each meeting
Too long,1,7%■Very useful■Somewhat useful■Not usefulAppropriate,13,93%■Appropriate■Too long■Too short35

Number of times

How well did you understand the lecture?
50-60%,1,8%70-80%,2,17%
Just right,14,
100%■Just right■Too many■Too few

Video narration speed

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

Narration intonation• It was an appropriate duration because we always finished right on schedule.Difficult
I also liked
to use the talkboard function
to understand,1,8%
in ACCU iPAGE for follow-up questions.
to understand,2,• Perhaps more appropriate to be broken up into 2 sessions per topic, maybe 1-2Easy
hours
each if logistics and schedules
17%
allow
2) Were there any issues during the live stream video that should be improved or done differently?
right,12,Live-streamJust
video
from Todaiji Temple■Just right100%
Somewhat useful,2,14% ■Too fast
■Too slow

Not useful,0,0%
The most easy-to-understand video format

Very useful,12,
86%
Narration,4,34%
Both,7,58%
Were the Zoom sessions useful?

■Very useful■Somewhat useful■Not useful

Length of eachFair,9,Zoom session
75%

Too long,1,8%

Evaluation of text materials

Just right,11,92%
Good,6,50%■Narration■Easy to understand■Fair■Difficult to understand■Just right■Too long■Too short

Excellent,6,50%

Lecturer’s response to Q&A■Excellent• No, the live stream video was clear,■Subtitles
safe and sound (5 participants).
■Good
Good,1,■Both• I 8%
would appreciate it if it were possible
to view some more video coverage of activities (ongoing■Fairor completed) from■Poor
the site.
Subtitles,1,8%• Close up of some architectural details and building technology
Good,3,25%• No issues, but a suggestion would be to share the printed pages which
Sensei was holding as another screen during the
ppt presentation, like a shared screen just for slides.
• The background noise from the surrounding activities was a bit distracting but I guess it added the vibe of actually■Excellent■Excellent
Excellent,9,Excellent,11,
experiencing
the site being conserved.
■Good
■Good
75%
92%
• Itʼs not exactly an issue. I often paid
attention more to the roofing repair screen. Thus, I caught■Fair
up late with what
■Fair
■Poor It was a good thing that I could still ask questions after■Poor
Tanaka-sensei said during his live lecture.
the session andwatch it again.
• Barring technical limitations, it would have been great to see different parts of the building aside from the roof (2).
• It was helpful. However, it would be more helpful if we could watch the video later, perhaps make it accessible todownload.

4. Online Platform
1) Was the online platform (ACCU iPAGE) easy to use? (e.g. logging in, webpage layout and user navigation, access tolearning materials, connecting to Zoom, etc).
• If only I had more experience using a PC, it would have been beneficial since I am only used to using smart phones• For instance, in my case, I had submitted my evaluation report through my phone. but it did not appear in ACCU
system.
• Vocabulary should be added for all the terms used in the training notes.

36

Usability

Did ACCU staff members give quick support in case ofproblems?
Never had issues,2,14%

Neither easy, nor difficult,2,14%

Yes, I had no issues,12,86%■Yes, I had no issues■Neither easy, nordifficult■Difficult, I had someissuesYes,12,86%■Yes■Never had issues■No

Use of ‘Talkboard’ or ‘Inquiry’

Sometimes,8,57%

Often,6,43%■Often■Sometimes■Never used

2) Which feature(s) of iPAGE did you find most useful?
• All features are very useful. Easy to access (3 participants).
• Course tab, the library (2), Course content, Talkboard (4 participants), and Check point report are very useful.
• The notes and handouts shared with the lecture video were quite useful. Besides that, the talkboard gave an
opportunity to interact with the lecturers and co-participants, which made it more engaging.
• I liked the talkboard function. But it’s too bad that the first post doesn't show the writer’s name. Of course, we canmanually write our name, but some forget to do this, so we have to guess it.
5. Overall suggestions for the Training Course in Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage
1) Is there any topic you would add to the existing curriculum?
• It would be useful to add some technical details/briefs adopted in Japan/internationally for the investigations, methods
and treatment of the deteriorated wood.
• I suggest there should be more lectures in Unit 3 and Unit 4. I was expecting more detailed and wider expressions inthese units. Else, the course content has wide and interlinked sessions.
• Mitigation of wood rot, termite control• Preservation of intangible heritage associated with heritage towns, since in the Asian context, festivals and othertraditions play an important role in their sustenance.
• Perhaps a backgrounder on the science and engineering aspect of wood.
• A topic about current issues in Japan and the international conservation scene• Curatorial area for built heritage• Maybe more practical parts. For example, how to conserve a site. It could be part of a wall or a small structure, but
showing the whole process starting from documentation and ending with conservation works. It could also be apractical example for participants, to choose some site and complete the entire process. In this way, more questions
will appear and we will know how to do conservation works for all phases that were covered during the course.
• Chemical conservation of wooden elements
2) Were there any issues in the overall organisation of the course you wish to be improved?
• The course was very well organised (7 participants).
• For better understanding, an on-site course is always preferrable.
• I would add more practical parts.  
• I think the timing. I wish, instead of online videos, that you make videos available so that they are easy to watch
anytime.

37

Which is the most ideal training course style for you?

On-site course,6,43%
Hybrid style (Online lectures &on-site training),8,57%■On-site course■Online course■Hybrid style (Online lectures & on-site training)

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

38

Yes,
8,67%

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

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

1. General Information
Thematic Training Course for Mid-Career Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2022 (Viet Nam)
‘3D Documentation Methods for Archaeological Sites’

1. OrganisersThis course was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Goverment of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara); and the National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
2. Background
Every year since 2000, ACCU Nara holds Thematic Training Course for the mid-career cultural heritage professionals
coming from the Asia-Pacific countries. Training courses are designed to answer the particular needs and issues of eachcountry, empower the course participants with practical skills and theoretical knowledge to address these issues, and foster
the international cooperation in cultural heritage field.
This year, ACCU Nara partnered with the Center for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS) in Ho Chi
Minh City, Viet Nam, which leads a range of research programmes, and has specialists actively engaged in excavation
works as well as further analysis of archaeological data. Following the request from the SISS, Center for Archaeology,
to introduce new and emerging methodologies in archaeological research and expand the knowledge base of the heritage
practitioners, ACCU organised the course ‘3D Documentation Methods for Archaeological Sites.’
While the digital methods used in the documentation of archaeological artefacts are not alien for the mid-career
professionals in various archaeological institutions across Viet Nam, the methods of 3D recording and modelling of sites
and structural remains are yet to be developed. Moreover, digital documentation activities are often thought to require
expensive equipment, software and specific technical knowledge, all of which significantly limits their systematic use.
This training course, therefore, aimed at disseminating theoretical and practical knowledge about 3D documentation
methods of archaeological sites and structural remains by introducing optimal modern techniques which do not involve
expensive instruments, although were effective and precise and can be immediately implemented by the course
participants.
Given the course format (online), the course lecturers focused on equipping the participants with solid theoreticalknowledge of the use and limitations of digital methods. In addition, practical training sessions and group discussions
enabled the participants to apply the learned skills to their work.
3. Dates and Format
November 10 (Thursday) – November 25 (Friday), 2022
The training course took place online and included self-study through ACCU’s digital platform as well as 4 live sessions
including the opening ceremony delivered from ACCU Nara Office and Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties.
4. Participants
10 mid-career archaeologists and cultural heritage specialists working at the Center for Archaeology, Southern Institute ofSocial Sciences (SISS) and other national organisations in charge of research and preservation of cultural properties of Viet
Nam (see Appendix).
5. Theme‘3D Documentation Methods for Archaeological Sites’
6. Programme
The course programme was designed based on the requests of the Vietnamese counterparts and therefore taught the 3D
documentation methods of the archaeological sites. The aim of the course was to assist the participants in documenting
archaeological sites in a way that later allows for the creation of 3D models, on their own. Theoretical and technicalsupport (video lectures) was available on ACCU online platform. The practical part of the course focused on the41

discussions related to the use and limitations of digital tools in archaeological research, photography, and 3D recording.
Full programme is shown below:
Thematic Training Course for Mid-Career Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2022
‘3D Documentation Methods for Archaeological Sites’
10 – 25 November
Unit No.

Programme【Orientation】Welcome Adresses and the Course Orientation–

Unit 1

Lecturer

Date of upload

ACCU【Orientation Materials】
Course schedule and guidelines, list of participants, list of lecturers–【Introduction video 1】
World heritage site in Nara (Historic Monument in Ancient Nara)–【Introduction video 2】
World heritage site in Nara (Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area)–

Nov-10
11:00~12:00(JST)【Lecture video】
Introduction to Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based oncase studies

Yamafuji Masatoshi(Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties)

Nov-10【Online Meeting】
Discussion, Q&A
Introduction to Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based oncase studies

Yamafuji Masatoshi(Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties)

Nov-16
11:00~14:00(JST)【Lecture video 2】
Overview of digital recording methods used in archaeological prospection (UAVs/drones, GPR
and laser scanning, satellite imagery and LiDAR)

Yamaguchi Hiroshi(Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties)【Lecture video 3】
Image-based 3D modelling of archaeological sites (photography basics and 3D recording using
SfM-MVS)

Nakamura Akiko(Independent Researcher)【Online Meeting】
Practical Training/assignment guidance, Q&A
Unit 2【Assignment submission】
Practical training assignment (photographs for 3D modeling) submission【Online Meeting】
Practical Training, Q&A【Submission deadline】
Final Report and the Course Evaluation

Yamaguchi Hiroshi(Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties)
Nakamura Akiko(Independent Researcher)Nov-10Nov-21
11:00~14:00(JST)
Nov-23
Nov-25
11:00~14:00(JST)
Nov-30

7. Coordinators and Lecturers(Coordinators)
UENO Kunikazu
International Goodwill Professor, Center for Research of Ancient Culture, Nara Women’s University
YAMAGATA MarikoSpecially Appointed Professor, Graduate School of Arts, Rikkyo University(Lecturers)
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi
Researcher
Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Department of Archaeological Operations, Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties
YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
Senior Researcher
Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties
NAKAMURA Akiko
Independent Researcher42

8. Others (Reference: number of past participants)
The Thematic Training Course (former Individual Training Course) was held in 2000 for the first time and has accepted
126 participants from 25 countries since then.
9. Certificate
A certificate of completion was awarded to 10 participants who satisfactorily completed the course programme andsubmitted a final report.
10. Working Language
The course was conducted in Vietnamese (consecutive translation from Japanese).
11. Interpreters
Nguyen Anh Phong, Freelance Interpreter
TASAKI Hirono, Freelance Interpreter
12. Requirements
Participants were expected to arrange:
1. Uninterrupted internet connection during the live sessions
2. 1 personal computer for practical training
3. 1 device (PC or tablet) to attend the live sessions
4. 1 digital camera
13. Secretariat(ACCU Nara)
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director, Programme Operation Department
MELADZE Tamar, Director, International Cooperation Division
YOSHIDA Machi, staff, International Cooperation Division
HIRAYAMA Naoto, staff, International Cooperation Division432. Course Summany
The training course was held from 10 to 25 November 2022 using the ACCU e-learning website iPAGE. The theme was“3D documentation methods for archaeological sites.” All five lecture videos uploaded to the website were in Vietnamese.
Three online lectures (10 hours in total) were held during the training period.
Professor Ueno Kunikazu of Nara Women’s University and Professor Yamagata Mariko of Rikkyo University, experts on
Vietnamese cultural heritage, offered advice about the theme of the training course. The prior consultation meeting washeld online with Vietnamese counterpart Dr Nguyen Khanh Trung Kien of the Centre for Archaeology, Southern Instituteof Social Sciences (SISS), and the content of the training course was worked out. One of the challenges of archaeologicalresearch for the department concerned and southern Viet Nam is the insufficient experience in using new technologies
despite the need for quick and accurate documentation of remains due to an increase in the number of excavation works.
Upon consultation with the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (co-organiser), it was decided todispatch the experts who specialise in Japanese research technologies and assist in solving this issue. The following threelectures on digital documentation were selected:
1. Introduction to Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based on case studies
2. Overview of digital recording methods used in archaeological prospection (UAVs/drones, GPR and laser scanning,satellite imagery, and LiDAR)
3. Image-based 3D modelling of archaeological sites (photography basics and 3D recording using SfM-MVS)
Lecture videos were uploaded and watched before each of the three online (Live) meetings. The sessions consisted of
Q&A, demonstrations, and practical training. On the last day of the course, participants attended an online practicaltraining session where they created 3D images using data from photographs they had taken in advance. All participants
completed the training course.
10 November■Opening Ceremony and Orientation
First, Director Morimoto Susumu of ACCU Nara (organiser) and Vice Director Nguyen Khanh Trung Kien of theSouthern Institute of Social Sciences (co-organiser) gave speeches on the purpose of this course, and International
Goodwill Professor Ueno Kunikazu and Specially Appointed Professor Yamagata Mariko, the coordinators of this training
course, offered their welcome speeches.
On the same day, the lecture videos were published on the ACCU e-learning website iPAGE. Participants watched thevideos in between their usual tasks and prepared questions for the Live sessions. They also began preparing for thepractical training session, such as completing the assignment of taking photographs of cultural heritage sites that theywould eventually turn into 3D models.

At the opening ceremony

44

Orientation meeting after the ceremony■UNIT 1: Introduction to Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based on casestudies
Lecturer: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
The lecture in Unit 1 introduced 3D measurement technology, which has been rapidly implemented in the cultural heritage
field in recent years. The lecturer touched upon the issues and benefits of such digital tools. The lecture consisted of thefollowing three major topics:
1. Examples of 3D measurements of archaeological artefacts in Japan
2. Advantages and disadvantages of documenting archaeological artefacts in 3D
3. Implementation of 3D measurement and its application (case study: mapping and listing)
The lecturer talked about how 3D measurement is becoming widespread and an essential item in the field of cultural
heritage. He also mentioned that there are advantages and disadvantages and that those who use it need a proper
understanding of the technology. He emphasised that 3D measurement technology is only to be used by cultural heritage
specialists, and useful documentation cannot be created unless it is based on expert knowledge. Participants took note ofconsiderations for conducting 3D measurements and proceeded to undergo practical training in the next lecture in Unit 2,
where they were required to create 3D documentation.

The lecture video by Dr Yamafuji (Video 1)

16 November (11:00–14:00 JST)
■Live session 1
Lecturer: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi, Coordinators: UENO Kunikazu, YAMAGATA Mariko, Interpreters: Nguyen Anh
Phong, TASAKI Hirono
A Q&A session for Unit 1 was held for three hours. The participants who had already used the technology were especiallyinterested in knowing the details. The Q&A session was a good opportunity not only for the trainees but also for theJapanese lecturers, who learned about the kind of challenges Vietnamese archaeologists face and what kind of themes
they are interested in. The key questions from the participants of the training course and the answers from the lecturers aredescribed below:
Q1: Which extension will be most versatile for 3D data in the future?
A:	I recommend using -obj and -stl. These extensions can be used on free software, such as CloudCompare and MeshLab.
File formats for 3D printing depend on the 3D printer used. For colour printing, .obj, .ply, and .fbx are often used, and.stl is used for monochrome printing.

45

Q2: Please tell us about the level of precision of 3D printers. For example, can they reproduce objects in their actual size?
A:	It depends on the type of scanner used, but I believe 3D printers have high precision and reproducibility. One of
the indicators of precision and reproducibility is the print pitch (layer pitch), the smaller the pitch, the higher the
resolution. In addition to 3D printers, there is also the option of computer numerical control (CNC) lathes.
Q3: What is the difference between SfM and 3D scanners?
A: Characteristics of SfM and 3D scanner:
SfM-MVS

3D scanner

Cost

Low initial cost

Relatively high initial cost

ColourHigh reproducibility

Low reproducibility

TextureCan be reproduced

Cannot be reproduced or exported bysome scanners

Size of target

Capable of capturing extremely small
objects and the entire site

Measurable size depends on thescanner

Precision

Depends on quality of the photograph(proper photographs ensure highprecision)

Relatively highItems that cannot be measured

Parts that cannot be photographed(e.g., inner surface of a vase with anarrow neck)

Glossy items, black items

Creation of drawing

Possible

Possible

Information on size

Needs to be configured manually

Can be obtained automatically

Explanation by Dr Yamafuji in Q&A session

Dr Yamafuji streaming at the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties46

Q4:	Are there any artefacts that cannot be reproduced by 3D scanners? How good is the reproducibility of colours formetal artefacts?
A: The reproducibility of colours is low. It is hard to capture artefacts that are white and glossy or black.
Q5: Is it possible to find the order of approximation of cast artefacts (whether they are made by the same mould)?
A: The technology is used for research on tiles made from the same mould and mirrors.
Q6:	There are artefacts that are as large as two metres. Can they be captured by 3D scanners? What is the largest-sized
artefact that can be captured by the biggest scanner?
A: You can use a handheld 3D scanner, or you can use SfM to make 3D models of large artefacts.
Q7:	3D data are large and hard to store. What is the best way to store it in terms of the storage period and costeffectiveness? (It is difficult to store large amounts of data because it is costly).
A:	Store hot data (data in use) in the cloud, such as OneDrive and iCloud. In the future, most data will likely be stored
on cloud servers. Using optical disks for cold data (permanent storage) is effective, but its high cost is an issue. Japan
faces the same cost-related issue. It is important to use different storage methods for different purposes and have
two or three methods ready. For example, I recommend storing the same data on both the cloud and physical storage
media.
Q8: Is it possible to create 3D documentation of wooden buildings and their repair process?
A:	Fixed 3D laser scanners are excellent for accurate documentation of building shapes. If you would like to create
approximate documentation of a wide area, you can use LiDAR, which allows you to take measurements whilemoving. Use SfM if texture (e.g., colours) is a priority. Use UAVs (drones) to capture areas that are not visible fromthe ground (e.g., roofs).
Q9:	How long does it take to collect 3D data? In Viet Nam, we need to sort out many artefacts in a limited time. How
much time can we save with 3D documentation?
A:	It takes about 30 to 40 minutes to create a 3D model and drawing for one clay pot. But we can go through the process
for multiple items simultaneously, so the time required is not just simply multiplied. Also, the time required varies
depending on the shape of the object, its texture, and purpose of the documentation. (It takes longer to document anartefact with a complex shape.) It also depends on the amount of the initial investment; measurements can be made in
as short as a few minutes if multiple sensors (3D scanners or cameras) are used.
Q10:Many Chinese ceramics are being excavated. Is it possible to scan them with a 3D scanner? Can the scanner
accurately reproduce the blue and white patterns?
A:	3D scanners cannot capture the shape of the white areas but SfM can. Cross-polarised photogrammetry is suitable forglossy artefacts.
Q11:What is the lifetime of May Quet 3D Next Engine HD Pro, the relatively cheap scanner that you (Dr Yamafuji)
introduced?
A:	The equipment I introduced was able to capture over 10,000 documents when an American university used it in adesert region. It can scan clay pots in 3D. The lifetime of the scanner depends on the operating time and environment.
The same applies to cameras. For example, recent-model digital cameras are said to have a lifetime of 200,000 shutter
actuations.
Q12:Is it possible to perform 3D documentation of a large site with artefacts scattered across it?
A:	The best option would be to create a 3D model by SfM using photographs taken by drones. A UAV (drone) is an
option. If you would like to document an artefact that is smaller than the size of your fist and is in the structural
remains, you would need to take images with relatively high resolution by mounting a digital camera on a monopod (ifyou want to document even the small artefacts).
Q13:I was unsure of the difference between SfM and 3D scanners, but this lecture helped me to understand it.
A:	If the artefacts are similar in shape and size and are not glossy, it is possible to establish a pattern for measurements
using 3D scanners, which standardises the quality and time required.

47

■UNIT 2: Overview of digital recording methods used in archaeological prospection (UAVs/drones, GPR and laser
scanning, satellite imagery and LiDAR) / Image-based 3D modelling of archaeological sites (photography basics
and 3D recording using SfM-MVS)
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)
NAKAMURA Akiko (Independent Researcher)
In Unit 2, participants first watched two videos. The first video introduced various types of digital equipment that can beused at archaeological sites. It provided explanations about each piece of equipment, their advantages and disadvantages
and what kind of sites each of them is most suitable for. The video also provided an explanation on SfM-MVS, whichenables 3D documentation at low cost. This method does not involve any special equipment and only requires a camera
and PC. The second video introduced the procedure for 3D documentation by SfM-MVS. Participants followed theprocedure and received practical training in the following steps:
1. Participants took photographs of an excavation site or cultural heritage site for which they wanted to create 3D
documentation and submitted the data to ACCU.
2. 21 November: The lecturers analysed the submitted photographic data and during the second Live session madecomments on where the data were insufficient. After this, participants retook the photographs.
3. 23 November: Participants resubmitted the photographic data.
4. 25 November: Practical training was held (third Live session), and participants created 3D data online with thelecturers.

The lecture on various types of digital equipment (Video 2)48

Video lecture on the procedure for 3D documentation by SfM-MVS (Video 4)

21 November (11:00–14:00 JST)
■Live session 2
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi, NAKAMURA Akiko
Coordinators: UENO Kunikazu, YAMAGATA Mariko, Interpreters: Nguyen Anh Phong, TASAKI Hirono
Ms Nakamura, first commented on the submitted photographic data. She created 3D documentation using some of thephotographs, explaining where the data was insufficient and points to note or improve while sharing the analysed images
with the participants. For example, some of the data did not include enough photographs to create complete 3D image.
In another example, although the camera setting had to be consistent when taking the photos, the aperture was changed
and created an inaccurate image. Next, Dr Yamaguchi launched an SfM software programme and shared his screen withthe participants to demonstrate how to import the photographs taken and create 3D documentation. He also answeredquestions.

Streaming from the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Dr Yamaguchi explains the laser scanner

Ms Nakamura analysing photo data49

Analysed photo data taken by participants

23 November
Photographs for 3D modelling submission
25 November (11:00–14:00JST)■Live session 3
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi, NAKAMURA Akiko
Coordinators: UENO Kunikazu, YAMAGATA Mariko, Interpreters: Nguyen Anh Phong, TASAKI Hirono
In the third Live session, practical training on creating 3D documentation was conducted using photographs that were
improved according to the comments made by Ms Nakamura in the previous session. First, Dr Yamaguchi gave anadditional lecture about the points to note when taking photographs. When creating documentation by SfM, the finishedproduct will not be sharp if the photographic data are inaccurate. So, he provided an additional explanation on the basics ofphotography. Lastly, he chose the photographic data of one of the participants to share with everyone and had participants
follow his demonstration to create 3D documentation. Eventually, almost all participants were able to create 3D models.

3D images created from participants' photographed data50

After the third Live session was complete, a closing ceremony was held, although the course is officially concluded only
when the participants submit their final reports. In the closing ceremony, remarks were given by ACCU Director Mr
Morimoto Susumu, followed by speeches by Dr Shoda Shinya (Head of the International Cooperation Section of Nara
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties) and Vietnamese counterpart Dr Nguyen Khanh Trung Kien (SISS).
Then the training course was concluded with hopes for further collaboration between Viet Nam and Japan in the future.

Closing message from Dr Kien

Dr Shoda giving closing remarks

All participants at the closing ceremony51

3. Course Evaluation
The thematic training course period was two weeks and 10 mid-career participants took part. There were many practicaltrainings in the curriculum, so we increased the time of the live sessions compared to last year, and received responses thatthe questions and answers time was sufficient. Additionally, there were many requests for an on-site practical training inJapan or Vietnam to fully understand the content of the lectures and utilise it for the future work.
1. Participants
GenderYears of Experience
less than 4 years,1,10%
5-10 years,1,10%

male,10,
100%

■male
■femalemore than 10 years,8,80%■less than 4 years■5-10 years■more than 10 years

2. Overall
Overall

Did it help you learn new things and deepen yourknowledge?
Not enough,1,10%More than
anticipated,4,40%
Useful,6,60%

As anticipted,2,20%■More than anticipated■Useful■Not useful

Course Contents

More than
anticipated,7,70%■More than anticipated■As anticipted■Not enough

Depth of the course contents

Too detailed,3,30%
Appropriate,10,100%■Appropriate■Too broad■Too narrow

Relevancy to work
70% (more
50% (around half),1,10%
than half),1,
10%

Appropriate,7,70%■Appropriate■Too detailed■Oversimplified

Application to work
Not applicable,0,0%
Only partially,3,30%

90% (most contents),8,80%

52■90% (most contents)■70% (more than half)■50% (around half)■<30% (not much)

Applicable,7,70%■Applicable■Only partially■Not applicableAppropriate,10,100%■Appropriate■Too broad■Too narrow

Relevancy to work
70% (more
50% (around half),1,10%
than half),1,
10%

Appropriate,7,70%■Appropriate■Too detailed■Oversimplified

Application to work
Not applicable,0,0%
Only partially,3,30%

90% (most contents),8,80%

Applicable,7,
70%■90% (most contents)■70% (more than half)■50% (around half)■<30% (not much)■Applicable■Only partially■Not applicable

Would you recommend this course to your colleagues?

Yes,10,100%■Yes■Maybe■No1) Which lecture were most relevant and useful for you? (Please rate each lecture with scores from lowest 1 to highest 3)
Use and Limitation of Digital Technologies

Digital Tools in Archaeological Prospection
Score 2,1,
11%

Score 2,1,
13%
no answer: 2

Score 3,7,87%

■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

no answer: 1
Score 3,8,89%

■Score 3■Score 2■Score 1

SfM-MVSno answer: 1
Score 3,9,100%

■Score 3■Score 2■Score 153• The course brought knowledge that can be applied to archaeology. If possible, please increase the teaching and training
time for the participants.
• The lectures are practical to apply in my real work, I would like to learn more about 3D model for architectural ruins.
• The course provided not only how to use 3D scans on archaeological relics and sites, but also many applications for
documenting technical drawings of archaeological relics and sites. A lot of information is also provided on how tomanage, classify, and optimize storage methods for data. In addition, I acquired the skills to collect image materials ina standard way, so I think that the contents of the lecture can be applied to the standardization of archaeological image
materials.
• Although I have been exposed to and used 3D records of historical remains, architecture or relics and artifacts, I have
not had the opportunity to study directly. This course has equipped me with the most basic knowledge, helping me
initially understand 3D recording methods using different equipment. Understanding the advantages and disadvantagesof each set of equipment allows us to choose the most optimal method for current and future work.

3. Learning materials (lecture videos)
Length of video lectures

How well did you understand the lecture?

no answer: 1
Appropriate,9,100%

no answer: 1
80-100%,6,67%■Appropriate■Too long■Too short

Speaking speed in videos■80-100%■50-80%■Too difficult

Word choice and intonation in videos

no answer: 1
Appropriate,9,100%

50-80%,3,33%■Appropriate■Too fast■Too slow

Possible tofollow,5,
56%

Excellent,4,
44%

no answer: 1■Excellent■Possible to follow• Wide variety of learning materials. The video sections were very practical.
• Learning materials with visualizations and specific illustrations for each unit are easy to approach and understand (2participants).
• Additional reference materials for learners through videos could have been provided.
• The lecture presentation and illustration content must have been carefully selected so they were simple yet so effective.

54

4. Zoom Sessions
Length of the sessions

Interpretation to Vietnamese

Good,2,22%
no answer: 1
Appropriate,9,100%■Appropriate■Too long■Too shortAnswers to your questions from the lectures
To some extent,1,11%

no answer: 1
Excellent,7,78%

Enough opportunities to exchange opinions with thelecturers
To some extent,1,11%

no answer: 1
Yes,8,89%■Yes■To some extent■No■Excellent
■Good
■Poor

no answer: 1
Yes,8,89%■Yes■To some extent■No• Future training courses can be conducted by this method because it is very convenient and easy to connect even forlearners who are far away.
• The discussion on Zoom allowed plenty of time to talk, exchange ideas, and submit discussion questions. Theinteraction between instructors and learners was excellent, varied, and thoughtful.
• The content of the lecture, the instructors’ visualized presentation, and the learners’ request to prepare created aprofessional and effective environment.
• Even though I only attended 2 classes, the discussed issues were presented within a suitable timeframe, all questions
were answered in detail by either the lecturers or other various methods.
5. Future training course
Do you think on-site training is necessary to follow up theonline course to deepen you understanding?

Which course style is the most suitable for the training?
On-site training,1,11%

Neither agree
nor disagree,1,11%

Online training,2,
22%
no answer: 1

no answer: 1
Yes,8,
89%■Yes■Neither agree nor
disagree■No

On-site & Online
training,6,67%■On-site training■Online Training■On-Site & Online
Training• Topographic Survey by LiDAR and Archaeological Site Exploration by Ground-penetrating Radar GPR• We are interested in the SfM-MVS method and the application of 3D laser scanners (to provide the experience togenerate 3D models).
• Application of digital measurements• In-depth analysis of recorded data by 3D method such as comparison of the similarity in artifact manufacturing

55

techniques.
• I hope to learn directly with Japanese experts in the field of archaeology and relic restoration, preservation, and risk
prevention for monuments.
• I want to learn how to use a portable 3D scanner on museum artifacts or archaeological remains.
• In the future, if possible, I hope to receive face-to-face training combined with online training depending on theparticular stage, and combining theory with practice to improve the quality of the final product.
What kind of training/capacity-building project would you wish to be implemented in Vietnam?
• Excavation and archaeological data collection methods• Methods of preserving wood and metal artifacts for museum staff in South Vietnam• 3D technology in archaeology• 3D data logging techniques for monuments and relics• Archaeology and restoration of monuments• To study appropriate preservation solutions for archaeological sites in the South (Vietnam) so that they can beeffectively applied to research and preservation of cultural heritage.
• The training about combination of devices such as fixed 3D recording devices and movable ones
• Improving photography skills and using drones to make 3D recordings of large areas, massive architectural structures,and in different types of terrain and geology
6. Technical issues
Usability

Not good or bad,1,11%

no answer: 1
Easy,8,89%

Sometimes,5,
50%

No,5,
50%

■Easy
■Not good or bad■Difficult

Technical Difficulties: Watching the lecture videos?

No,10,
100%

Technical difficulties: Entering the e-learning page

■No
■Sometimes■OftenTechnical difficulties: Taking part in the Zoom sessions
Sometimes,1,10%■No■Sometimes■OftenTechnical Difficulties: Opening or downloading text
materials
Sometimes,1,10%■No■Sometimes■OftenNo,9,90%

Suport from ACCU

Never hadproblems,3,
30%
No,9,
90%

56

■No
■Sometimes■OftenYes,7,
70%■Yes■Never had problems■NoWhat is the useful function(s) of the e-learning page?
Please suggest any additional functions to make the online course more effective or useful.
• The designed features on e-learning system are very good and effective (5 participants).
• E-learning makes it accessible to learners from any place.
• It is necessary to add more reference materials so that students can study on their own.
• All lessons were screen-recorded so learners who want to consolidate their knowledge can review the lessons manytimes.
• More features needed: some 3D products that have been successfully processed for students' reference.
• Images (for practice) should be compressed so that they can be downloaded at once and avoid being missed, as theprocess is time-consuming due to the necessity of opening each image.
• Learners can follow and practice the exercises easily under the guidance of teachers using technical equipment.
• To make online courses more effective. You can add grading and comments about learners' interactions to encourage
participation.
• Create document exchange boxes, so that learners can exchange materials and add them to the reference database,
thereby contributing to the E-learning lectures.

57

58

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

1. General Information
Workshop for Cultural Heritage Protection in
the Republic of Kazakhstan:‘Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects’(Online)1. OrganisersThis course was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara); Nara National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties; and the Margulan Institute of Archaeology.
2. Background
ACCU Nara began holding international training courses on cultural heritage protection in 2000, with participants comingfrom various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. To date, there have been a total of nine participants in this programmefrom the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In Kazakhstan, a great number and variety of examples survive of heritage attesting to cultural exchanges between Eastand West, such as the Silk Road. It is very important for the country itself, as well as for its immediate neighbours, toresearch and preserve such cultural heritage for the purpose of transmitting the region’s history and culture.
In Japan, the UNESCO/Japanese Funds-in-Trust Project, Support for Documentation Standards and Procedures of the Silk
Roads World Heritage Serial and Transnational Nomination in Central Asia (Phase I), was conducted from 2011 to 2014.
Also, until last year the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties has been transferring its archaeologicalresearch technology for three consecutive years as part of the Networking Core Centers for International Cooperation on
Conservation of Cultural Heritage Project, and has been providing continuous assistance to the researchers in Kazakhstan.
These contributions have been well recognised by our counterparts in Kazakhstan and they have expressed interest inreceiving further training in the areas of archaeology. During the information-sharing and consultations among officials of
the National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Japanese experts of the Nara
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, and ACCU Nara, more advanced training related to the use of digital
tools for preservation and display of museum objects was requested by the Institute.
In response, as part of the programme of support provided to Kazakhstan, we have decided to co-organise this cultural
heritage workshop on the theme of ‘Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects’, together with the
Margulan Institute of Archaeology and the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
3. Dates
17 (Mon)–28 (Fri) October 2022
• Online streaming of lecture materials during the period• Real time lectures on Zoom (four times) during the period
4. Participants
15 individuals working at museums, research institutes and relevant organisations in Kazakhstan, and involved in the
research, conservation, or utilisation of archaeological objects in their collections (see Appendix).
5. Theme
Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects
6. Curriculum(1) Online materials• Digital Technologies in Museums: use and limitations based on case studies• Utilisation of 3D data in the Conservation Science Field• Image-based 3D modelling of archaeological objects(2) Interactive online demonstration• Latest technologies for effective visualisation of archaeological information(Example of Gunma Prefectural Museum of History)61

(3) Interactive online sessions on Zoom
• Lectures through demonstrations• Q&A(4) Submission of the final report
Workshop 2022 (Republic of Kazakhstan)
Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects and Artefacts(Online)17 (Mon) ~ 28 (Fri) October 2022
Distribution of
Theme I : Digital Technology and Museums
Video Lectures
10/17
Live session Opening Ceremony and Orientation (13:00 ~ 14:00 JST)I
(Lecture)
Digital Technologies in Museums: use and limitations based on case studies
10/10 ~
Learning
throughvideos(Lecture)
Utilisation of 3D data in the Conservation Science Field(Lecture)
Latest technologies for effective visualisation of archaeological information at the museum

10/17

10/21
Live session
II
10/25
Live session
III

Theme I summary and Q&A (13:00-15:00)(Live-stream)
Latest technologies for effective visualisation of archaeological information on the example ofGunma Prefectural Museum of History (18:00-19:00)

ACCU

Live session

YAMAFUJI Masatoshi(NNRICP)WAKIYA Soichiro &YANAGIDA Akinobu(NNRICP)
FUKASAWA Atsuhito(Gunma Prefectural
Museum of History)
YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
WAKIYA Soichiro
YANAGIDA Akinobu
FUKASAWA Atsuhito(Gunma Prefectural
Museum of History)

Lecture videos
PDF material

Live session
Live session

Theme II : 3D Recording of Museum Objects
10/17 ~
Learning
throughvideos(Lecture/Practical training)
3D recording of museum objects (using the method of SfM-MVS)

10/23

Deadline for submitting the photographs to be used for 3D modeling

10/28
Live session
IV

Theme II practical guidance, discussion, Q&A (13:00-15:00)

11/10

Deadline for submitting Course Evaluation and Final Report

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(NNRICP)

Upload on Google Drive
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(NNRICP)
NAKAMURA Akiko(Independent Researcher)

7. Working Language
Text materials: Russian
Lecture and demonstration videos: Russian subtitles
Interactive session: consecutive interpretation between Japanese and Russian
8. Instructors
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP)- YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
		Senior Researcher
		 Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations- WAKIYA Soichiro
		Head		 Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations- YANAGIDA Akinobu
		Researcher
		 Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations- YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi
		Researcher
		 Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Center for Archaeological Operations
Gunma Prefectural Museum of History
FUKASAWA Atsuhito
Chief Curator

62

Lecture videos
PDF material

Live session
Upload on course
online platform

NAKAMURA Akiko
Independent Rresearcher
9. Interpreters
Kobijaeva Mariya, Freelance Interpreter
Rustemova Aktolkyn, Freelance Interpreter
10. Secretariat(ACCU Nara)
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director, Programme Operation Department
MELADZE Tamar, Director, International Cooperation Division, Programme Operation Department
YOSHIDA Machi, staff, International Cooperation Division
HIRAYAMA Naoto, staff, International Cooperation Division632. Course Summary
The training course was held from 17 to 28 October 2022 using the ACCU e-learning website iPAGE. The theme was“Digital Tools for Preservation and Display of Museum Objects.” All six videos uploaded to the website were in Russian.
Three online meetings (five hours in total) were held during the period (See the schedule for details).
The theme was chosen upon consultation with Dr Akhan Onggaruly of the Margulan Institute of Archaeology. The course
was intended as a follow-up to the Networking Core Centers Project carried out by the co-organiser, the Nara National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties. The Kazakhstan institute requested that digital archaeology (digitisation,
documentation, database) be included in the course as a large framework. The request included the following training
themes:1. 3D documentation of the state of excavation and museum artefacts
2. Technology for mapping archaeological remains using GIS
3. Preparation of digital archives for archaeological survey reports
Upon consultation with the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (co-organiser), a theme was selectedfrom the topics above, and a request was made for dispatch of relevant experts.
The curriculum had two themes, and the following four lectures, interactive training, and demonstrations were conducted.
Theme 1: Digital Technology and Museums
1. Digital Technologies in Museums: use and limitations based on case studies
2. Utilisation of 3D data in the conservation science field
3. Latest technologies for effective visualisation of archaeological information at the museum (Gunma Prefectural
Museum of History)
Theme 2: 3D Recording of Museum Objects
4. Lecture and practical training: 3D recording of museum objects (using the method of SfM-MVS)
Lecture videos were uploaded, and participants watched them before each of the three online meetings. In session 3, after
the lecture videos were uploaded, the lecturer did a live stream from the museum’s exhibition room and gave a study tour
where he answered questions while showing the exhibition. Session 4 consisted of Q&A and demonstration. On the final
day, the participants watched the lecturer’s demonstration and learned about the process of creating 3D images using
photographs of artefacts. Out of the 15 participants, 12 people successfully completed the training course. Some of theparticipants attended the course from the excavation site and had difficulties receiving training online while conducting
their usual tasks in Kazakhstan.
17 October■Opening Ceremony / Orientation
First, welcome speeches were given by Director Morimoto Susumu of ACCU Nara (organiser), Dr Shoda Shinya of theInternational Cooperation Section of Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (head of section and coorganiser), and Dr Akhan Onggaruly of the Margulan Institute of Archaeology. The lecturers, Dr Yamafuji Masatoshi of
the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties and Ms Nakamura Akiko, also attended the opening ceremony
and introduced the content of the lectures. Participants from different regions of Kazakhstan (Almaty, Astana, Pavlodar,
and Taraz) attended this training course. The participants met online, and the two-week training course began.

64

At the opening ceremony (Dr Shoda Sinya (left), Dr Akhan Onggaruly (middle) and Ms Aktolkyn, an interpreter)

Director Morimoto of ACCU Nara

Opening message from lectures (Dr Yamafuji and Ms Nakamura)All participants at the opening ceremony

Theme 1: Digital Technology and Museums■Lecture1: Digital Technologies in Museums: use and limitations based on case studies
Lecturer: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
The lecture introduced 3D measurement technology that is being adopted in the cultural heritage field, also touching on its
potential application and issues. The lecturer focused on usage examples of digital technology in museum-related work.
The lecturer talked about how 3D measurement is becoming an essential item in the work conducted at museums. He
also mentioned that there are advantages and disadvantages and that those who use it need a proper understanding of thetechnology. He emphasised that regardless of how advanced the technology may be, and useful documentation cannot becreated unless data is used based on expert observation.

65

■Lecture 2: Utilisation of 3D data in the Conservation Science Field
Lecturer: WAKIYA Soichiro and YANAGIDA Akinobu (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(NNRICP))
Exhibition/storage conditions or conservation treatment may promote the deterioration of archaeological artefacts.
Therefore, it is important to: 1) create an appropriate environment (e.g., temperature, humidity) and 2) constantly monitor
artefacts for any signs of deterioration. Deterioration of archaeological artefacts can be identified mostly by the changeof colour and shape. Documenting the artefacts in 3D is extremely effective in identifying minute changes that cannot be
observed by the naked eye. Technology such as SfM is extremely useful in preserving archaeological artefacts as it is a
simple documentation method and the output contains image information of the surface and information of the shape. The
lecture introduced usage examples of digital technology, such as 3D measurement and X-ray CT, conducted in Japan formonitoring archaeological artefacts for preservation purposes.

21 October (13:00–15:00JST)■Zoom session 1
Lecturers: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi, WAKIYA Soichiro and YANAGIDA Akinobu
Interpreters: Kobijaeva Mariya, Rustemova Aktolkyn
Dr Yamafuji first summarised the lecture and then proceeded to the Q&A session. In the lecture, Dr Yamafuji mainly
introduced the method of creating a drawing using laser scanners. The questions raised in the Q&A session are as follows.
Q:	How would you make a 3D model if the inner surface of an intact clay pot (clay pot that is not broken) cannot bescanned?
A:	Generally, you would get data for the exterior and parts of the interior that can be scanned. But if artefacts such as vases
are still intact, it is difficult to document the inner surface with a laser scanner. In such case, you can document theinside using an X-ray CT scanner.
Q:	When creating 3D data of a clay pot that has been restored by joining the broken pieces, how can the missing pieces beshown? Can the missing parts be reconstructed in the 3D data?
A:	The artefacts will be captured as is in 3D, so the missing pieces will be shown as missing. By using Texture later on, it
is possible to distinguish the missing parts from the remaining pieces by adding colours. (Response by Ms Nakamura
Akiko.)
Q: Is it possible to capture 3D data of small artefacts?
A.	Yes. When documenting small items, I recommend using the high precision mode. Laser scanners can create 3Dmodels of artefacts that are at least 1 cm large and can fit inside the scanner. Large areas such as an entire city can be
documented in 3D by photogrammetry.
Other questions were about considerations for storing data and methods for reproducing colour in 3D models, overcoming
challenges, and recording patterns on the surface of clay pots. The lecturers answered the questions.

66

Questions by the participants

Explanation on 3D recording of artefacts in NNRICP by Dr Yamafuji

Next, the session moved on to the lecture by Dr Wakiya and Dr Yanagida. A Q&A session was held after the lectures weresummarised.
In Kazakhstan, changes in the artefacts before and after conservation treatment are mainly managed by photographic
documentation. The lecturers noted that 3D documentation is effective as it allows us to observe changes in the artefacts
objectively by numbers. They also added that it is important that the person in charge understands the mechanism ofdeterioration when capturing metal artefacts, which are often excavated in Kazakhstan, in 3D or by X-ray CT scanning formonitoring. Participants commented that they understood the effectiveness of 3D documentation, as it quantifies the stateof the artefacts and allows objective monitoring of changes in the artefacts. The following questions were also asked.
-	Method for documenting prints of artefacts remaining in the soil of the archaeological site: If the soil is firm, silicone canbe used to take a cast of the print. If the soil is fragile, the soil with the print can be removed. Documenting the print on
the surface by SfM is also an effective method.
-	Confirmation of the type of X-ray CT equipment introduced in the lecture: High-energy (950 keV, 0.1 mm resolution)equipment is used. The method of use was introduced while showing images of the CT equipment at the Nara National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
-	Method of conservation treatment using sugar alcohol (trehalose): Conservation treatment using trehalose is primarily
for wooden objects. For artefacts that combine wood and metal, a conservation method for wood is preferentially used.
But, since water corrodes metal, a method for treating wood that does not use water is used. The method introduced isalso one of the conservation methods that does not use water.
The participants asked for additional materials on the conservation method that uses trehalose.

Zoom session at the NNRICP (from left, Dr Wakiya, Dr Yamafuji and Dr Yanagida)

67

Explanation of X-ray CT equipment

3D recording in Kazakhstan introduced by the participant■Lecture 3: Latest technologies for effective visualisation of archaeological information at the museum
Lecturer: FUKASAWA Atsuhito (Gunma Prefectural Museum of History)
Many clay figures designated as National Treasures are displayed at the Gunma Prefectural Museum of History. Digital
data is created for these items and used for management and effective use of the figures. The lecture explained thenecessity of digitisation, method of digitisation, and utilisation of digital data. In the section about necessity, the lecturer
mentioned that even if artefacts go through changes such as aging deterioration, storing accurate and high-definition 3D
data will allow us to reproduce them to the state before the change. He also explained that the data can be used for various
content, such as digital archives, without moving the actual artefact. The lecture also touched on the balance between
volume of data and price as a challenge and a point to note regarding digitisation. He talked about how he created two
types of data for different purposes, which were data for documentation and storage (high cost) and data for use (low cost),
at the museum. He added that it is important to think about the purpose of the use of data before introducing digitisation
to a museum. Lastly, the lecturer introduced the digital exhibition room and shared information that connects with the live
lecture on the 25th.

Left: The digital exhibition room (3D exhibition is performed in the colored part)
Right: 3D hologram image of artefacts in the digital exhibition room

25 October (18:00–19:00JST)■Zoom session 2 Live-stream: Latest Technologies for Effective Visualisation of Archaeological Information on The
Example of Gunma Prefectural Museum of History
Lecturer: FUKASAWA AtsuhitoInterpreters: Kobijaeva Mariya, Rustemova Aktolkyn
An hour-long expository tour was given after the museum was closed. Dr Fukasawa guided the participants to the digital
exhibition room and explained the method of utilising data. The following exhibitions were introduced:
1.	Clay figure hologram exhibition: digital content using 3D data where clay figures look as though they are floating andkeep appearing and disappearing
2.	Clay figure scope section: digital content using 3D data where visitors can rotate 3D models of clay figures in any
direction and can view them from various angles
3. AR clay figure photo spot: digital content using 3D data where visitors can take a photo with the AR clay figure
4.	Hands-on clay figure section: section where several 3D-printed clay figure replicas are displayed for visitors to touch68and hold.
Lastly, there was a Q&A session. The key questions from the trainees are as follows:-	Material used to 3D print the touchable clay figure replicas and its durability: The replicas are made of resin and have a
durability of at least 20 years.
-	Reactions of children when AR clay figures were brought to schools: They were incredibly surprised. They were able
to see the actual size of the figures, so they were surprised at the size. This made them want to see the actual figures,
leading to visits to the museum.
-	Creators of 3D data: The creation of 3D data was outsourced to a professional private contractor. The technology used
was of the contractor, but the curator gave specialised and detailed instructions for creating the data.
-	I am thinking of what the museum can do for visually impaired visitors. Is there something digital technology can do?
A: At our museum, guests can touch 3D-printed clay figure replicas. This allows the visitors to feel the size and shape ofthe exhibit.
Other questions were asked, such as the effects of introducing digital exhibition and visitor reactions to the exhibition, andthe hour-long session was concluded.

Entrance of the digital exhibition room

Clay figure hologram exhibition

Left: Clay figure scope section, Middle: AR clay figure photo spot, Right: 3D-printed clay figure replica

Theme 2: 3D Recording of Museum Objects■Lecture 4: 3D recording of museum objects (using the method of SfM-MVS)
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties), NAKAMURA Akiko(Independent Researcher)This lecture introduced the procedure for 3D documentation by SfM-MVS. Participants watched the procedure andreceived practical training in the following steps:
1. Participants took photographs of museum objects for which they wanted to create 3D documentation and submitted
the data to ACCU.
2. The lecturers analysed the submitted photographic data. They made comments on where the data is insufficient andshared the points to note.
3. 28 October: The lecturers gave a demonstration online on how to create 3D data (third Zoom session). In thedemonstration, the lecturers made 3D images using photographs of artefacts that the trainees took and outlined the
key points in creating 3D data using the photographic data that the lecturers prepared.

69

28 October (13:00–15:00JST)■Zoom session 3
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi, NAKAMURA Akiko
Interpreters: Kobijaeva Mariya, Rustemova Aktolkyn
The contents of the Zoom session were as follows: 1) additional lecture, 2) comments on submitted photographs, 3)demonstration of creation of 3D images, and 4) introduction of analysis results of participants’ data.
1. Additional lecture
Dr Yamaguchi gave a PowerPoint presentation on photo shooting of archaeological artefacts for creation of 3D models
by SfM. He went over the key points as the accuracy of the 3D data depends on the resolution of the photographic data.
The lecture covered the basics of photography, such as the appropriate camera setting (aperture: f-number between 16
and 20), how the camera needs to move when taking photos of the artefact from all angles (360 degrees), need for a whitebackground during photo shoots when the artefacts need to be moved, necessity of overlap when taking photographs, andhow the brightness needs to be consistent when taking photographs outside.
He also explained the method of taking photos of artefacts indoors, method of photographing patterns on the surface ofclay pots, and method of creating 3D images of small artefacts like coins and impressions of huller at the bottom of claypots.
2. Comments on the photographs
The lecturer explained the points to note, such as not using the backdrop in the photos taken, insufficient overlap, andartefacts out of focus (photograph is blurry), while looking at the features of the submitted photographs.
3. The lecturer shared the computer screen to demonstrate how to create a 3D image using data of photographs of a clay
pot that he took. Since the bottom of the clay pot cannot be photographed from the front, he took photographs and created
3D models of the top and bottom separately. He introduced how to combine the 3D images and created a single 3D imageof the clay pot.
4. Analysis results of participants’ photographic data
Ms Nakamura used photographic data of three participants and created 3D images. She gave advice on how the 3D images
could be improved by obtaining data of the parts that were insufficient and improving the granularity of the photographs.

Left: Additional lecture by Dr Yamaguchi
Right: Dr Yamaguchi demonstrated how to combine the 3D images and created a single 3D image of the clay pot from the separate
images.

70

Analysis results of participants’ photographic data by Dr Nakamura

After the Zoom session was complete, a closing ceremony was held. Closing remarks were given by Mr Morimoto
Susumu (Director of ACCU), followed by a speech by Dr Shoda Shinya (co-organiser who dispatched the lecturers; headof the International Cooperation Section of Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties). Then, Ms Dana
Dossayeva of the National Museum shared her thoughts on the training course on behalf of the participants. The training
course was concluded with hopes for further collaboration between Kazakhstan and Japan in the future.

All participants at the cloging ceremony71

3. Course Evaluation
Out of fifteen participants, twelve responded to the questionnaire. There was an opinion that last year's WS did not haveenough time for Q&A, so we increased the time. In addition, we held an online live tour (on-site lecture) at the museum
for the first time, which was highly evaluated. However, many participants feel that online practical training is not enoughto fully understand the contents. This has been a consistent opinion throughout the three years of online training.
1. Participants
Position

GenderAffiliation
LLP,2,13%

Others,2,13%

Head,4,27%

Assistant,4,27%

Female,7,47%

National Institute,5,34%

Museum,3,20%

Male,8,53%

Researcher,5,33%

University,5,33%

2. Overall
Overall evaluation

InstructivenessNot enough,1,8%

General,2,
17%

Excellent,10,83%

Coverage of course contents■Excellent■General■Poor

Too broad,1,8%

Enough,11,92%■Enough■Not enough

Depth of the course contents
No response:1

Too shallow,
3,27%
Just right,11,
92%

72■Just right■Too broad■Too narrow

Appropriate,8,73%■Appropriate■Too deep■Too shallow

Relevant Contents

Application to work

Only some part,1,8%

Almost, 90%,
4,36%
About half, 50%,
7,64%

Applicable,11,92%■Almost, 90%■About half, 50%■Not really, <30%

Practical training of 3D documentation: SfM-MVS

On-site lecture■Applicable■Only some part■Not applicable

General,1,8%

No response: 1

Neutral,4,36%

Just right,7,64%■Just right■Neutral■Too easy

Q&A on Zoom

Excellent,11,
92%■Excellent■General■Poor

Did you receive useful feedback from the lecturers?

Poor,1,8%

General,2,
17%
Excellent,9,75%■Excellent■General■Poor

Almost always,12,100%■Almostalways■Sometimes

Please comment on what were the actual learning outcomes of the practical training for you• During practice, I learned about the grey card to adjust the white balance. I used to have problems with colour
rendering in other programmes when exporting with Agisoft software.
• The camera settings in this context, the viewing software, and some of the subtleties of taking pictures.
• Features of taking photographs to create a 3D model. The dimensions of creating 3D models (2).
• I found out that 3D scanning can be used to monitor the corrosion process of metal products.
• Of particular importance were discussions of the quality of the photos provided, the shooting algorithm and theprocess of working with Agisoft Metashape.
• I found the museum lecture and information about Japanese artefacts interesting.
• Learned new things about the photography techniques of small-size objects.
Please comment what were the actual learning outcomes of on-site lecture for you• The lecture at the Gunma Museum was very interesting, I especially liked that you could virtually control the 3Dmodel with your hand right in the museum (4).
• It's great that the museum uses virtual artifacts even if they are not visible until one takes a photo. I first saw thesetechnologies on Google and in the Kinder application, the children were delighted.
• It was interesting to know the approach to the planning of the exhibition hall, and the reasons why the objects arearranged in this way. It was also interesting to learn about the experience of off-site exhibitions.

73• Interesting expositions and ways to present them using innovative technologies• The idea of organising exhibitions and presenting exhibits using QR codes and 3D models is very interesting. The
museum staff's deep love and respect for cultural heritage was very moving.
• All in all, I enjoyed the whole virtual visit.
Please give an example of how you are going to apply what you learnt in this course in your job• I will use the knowledge gained in this course for building 3D models in the Agisoft Metashape program. Knowledgeof camera settings for SfM-MVS will also be useful.
• I studied from your video lectures to make 3D recordings of swords and sabres• I have already made a 3D model of the felt saddle and inserted it in the report. One such model has replaced several
photos and given more insight into its shape. I plan to use these methods for making 3D models of the fossil imprints
and for 3D printing.
• I plan to have some objects digitalised for display in presentations, lectures and videos, also for the archive.
• Capturing micro traces of wear and traces of technology on artefacts, compiling databases to record exhibits and fieldmaterials, maintaining field documentation.
3. Course materials
Length of video lectures

Just right,12,100%

How well did you understand the lecture content?
About half,1,8%■Just right■Too long■Too short

How did you find the speaking speed in the videos?

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

Well understood,11,92%■Well understood■About half■Not well

Language used in videos

Understood,12,100%■Understood■Difficult tounderstand• You can add more practice. When setting up the course, it may be a good idea to focus not only on the general
direction, but also to collect the information on narrow interests and issues of the participants. What did not work out
and why, what difficulties arose, etc.
• I think there was not enough time for discussion during online meetings.
• The material is very good, and it is clear how well the lecturers have prepared.
• The course material was mainly of a theoretical nature, perhaps more detailed examples of the main difficulties in
conducting SfM measurements would have helped not only to generate interest, but also to promote the method.

74

4. Interactive (Zoom) Sessions
Length of each session

Interpretation

Too short,1,8%

Fair,2,17%

Just right,11,
92%

Excellent,10,83%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Did you receive clear answers to your questions from thelecturers during the sessions?

Sometimes,3,25%■Excellent
■Fair
■Poor

Were there enough opportunities provided to interact withthe lecturers?

Not enough,4,33%
Always,9,75%

Quite enough,8,67%■Always■Sometimes■Never■Quite enough■Not enough• Excellent• If possible, it would be good to be able to send the questions to the lecturers by the end of the sessions. The participants
were able to ask questions using the e-learning talk board function, but it seems that there was not enough recognition.
5. Future Training Course
Which is effective, on-site or online training

Both on-site andonline training
are effective,
6,50%

Necessity of on-site training

Agree,4,27%

On-sitetraining,6,50%■On-site training■Online training■Both on-site and online
training are effective

Strangly agree,11,73%■Strangly agree■Agree■Neither agree nor disagree■Disagree

Which topic(s) would you like to have additional or follow-up content for?
• I would like to learn more how to mark 3D models of finds when photographing them
• Restoration of degraded archaeological metal of the 5th degree (when there is no metal core remaining and the metal
has practically turned to dust and the only thing holding its shape is the surrounding soil) and its further preservation inmuseum.
• Conservation, restoration of notches in semi-precious and precious metal.
• As well as methods and techniques for the restoration of thin-walled fragmented metal objects and their protection in
the museums. Conservation, restoration of archaeological and ethnographic natural fabrics with metal (copper, brass,silver) threads (oxide removal from fabrics, stabilization of metal threads).
• There are also questions as a whole about the cleaning and restoration of ethnographic fabrics.

75• How to preserve wet (dump) wood.
• Building a 3D model from scratch (from drawings, photos and videos).
• I would like to learn more about examples of the use of 3D scanning in conservation and other resources on LiDAR• 3D recording of museum objects and archaeological sites using the method SfM-MVS (part 3).
• More practical sessions and details of working with different artefacts• 3D models of the combined objects (when several objects of different size are in one model)
What kind of local trainings/capacity building project sponsored by Japan would you wish to be implemented in yourcountry?
• Preservation and museum display of the Mongolian mound Maykhan-Uul in Ulaanbaatar• How to analyse lipids. Biological, Physical-chemical and similar analyses.
• 3D laser scanning and SfM technology as well as GIS technologies• Documentation and monitoring of cultural heritage sites by means of satellite imagery, aerial photogrammetry, LiDAR
applications, geophysical survey methods.
• 3D modelling training
6. Technical issues
Was the e-Learning site easy to use?

Did you get help promptly from ACCU if required?

Normal,4,
33%

Yes,6,50%
Easy,8,67%

Never hadissues,6,50%■Never had issues
■Yes
■No

■Easy
■Normal■Difficult

Did you manage to join Zoom sessions without any problems?
I could not join Zoom meetings,1,8%

Never hadproblems,4,34%
Internet connection
was not stable,7,58%

76■Never had problems■Internet connection was not stable■I could not join Zoom meetings

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

1. General Information
International Workshop for Senior Professionals 2022
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
Current State and Issues (2): Post-Disaster Recovery and Resilience-Building
Case Studies
1. Background and Objectives
Each year the countries of Asia and the Pacific face disasters caused by natural hazards such as floods, landslides, typhoons(cyclones), earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, volcanic eruptions, and so forth. How to protect cultural heritage fromthese disasters is common issue for all the countries throughout the region.
International Workshop on Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region is a three-year
project which promotes the sharing of experience, expertise, and case studies on the issues created by natural disasters
in the Asia-Pacific countries, and aims to discuss the ways of minimising the damage to cultural heritage by undertaking
measures on an everyday basis. Last year, the workshop focused on the case studies of emergency response. This year, we
would like to address the issues of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. In the third, concluding workshop, we willsummarise the opinions expressed in the previous years and discuss the methods of effective disaster mitigation.
In the aftermath of a disaster, even if the local infrastructure is restored and livelihoods and economic activities aremaintained, a true regional recovery can only be achieved by reviving the elements of culture and heritage. The
relationship between the local heritage and relevant stakeholders is very tight and cultural properties play a profound rolein the process of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. However, this process does not imply an identical restoration of
the pre-disaster situation. Post-disaster recovery should concern with creating the conditions which will better resist future
hazards. By making the most of the lessons learned from the disaster response and taking measures to prevent the samedamage from reoccurring, we can strengthen recovery capacity and the effectiveness of disaster mitigation.
In this year’s International Workshop, the relationship between cultural heritage and the local communities wereconsidered through opinion exchanges and sharing various cases related to post-disaster recovery and resilience-building.
The role of cultural heritage in the recovery through build back better approach was discussed. At the same time, theworkshop seeked to support the development of leaders in this field and establish networks among the professionals incharge of Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region.
2. OrganisersThis workshop was organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation Office, the Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU); National Institute for Cultural
Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan; and the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Support is provided by the National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara); Nara Prefectural Government; and Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University in collaboration with Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in
Cultural Heritage.
3. Dates and Venue
14-22 December 2022
The workshop was hosted online.
*A two-day symposium (21–22 December) took place at Nara Prefectural Convention Center. All events broadcasted
online for international participants and attendees.

79

4. ScheduleA) 14-22 December: Distribution of presentation papers and slides
			Keynote speeches and case study reports (Japanese, English) were distributed to all participants before theSymposium.
B) 15 December: Preliminary meeting of the panellists (online)C) 21-22 December: Symposium (two-way online participation)
21 December 15:00-18:00
Keynote Speech I:HIDAKA Shingo
Professor, National Museum of Ethnology, JapanThe Significance of Supporting Damaged Cultural Property Conservation: Learning from the Great East Japan
Earthquake Experiences
Case Studies:
Karma Tenzin
Executive Architect, Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites, Department of Culture, Ministry of Home and Cultural
Affairs, Bhutan
Post Recovery and Reconstruction of Wangduephodrang Dzong after the Fire
Shuang Hao
Engineer, World Heritage Center of China, China Academy of Cultural Heritage, China
Post-Disaster Recovery of China’s Cultural Heritage: A Combination of Community Participation and Disaster Risk
Management Technologies
SAMPEI Hidefumi
Deputy Director (Curator), Archive Museum of Tomioka; Assistant Head, Lifelong Learning Section/ Senior Staff,
Lifelong Learning, Tomioka Board of Education, Fukushima prefecture, Japan
Conservation and Management of Cultural Properties in Tomioka Town, Fukushima Prefecture, developed after Great
East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident

80Suresh Suras Shrestha
Joint Secretary/Head, Culture Division, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Nepal
Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Earthquake Recovery and Rehabilitation of Cultural Heritage
Amanda Ohs
Senior Heritage Advisor, Heritage Team, Christchurch City Council, New Zealand andFiona Wykes
Area Manager, Southern Regional Office, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, New ZealandWeaving Heritage Values into Earthquake Recovery on Ōtautahi – Christchurch
Michael Querido
Project Officer, Project Development and Management for Heritage Conservation, Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation,Inc., Philippines
Preventive Conservation of Heritage Structures and Sites Towards DRR: Empowering the Managers, Administrators, andthe Local Community in the Philippines
22 December 15:00-18:00
Keynote Speech II:
Aparna Tandon
Senior Programme Leader, First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis, Sustaining Digital Heritage,
Programmes Unit, ICCROM
Building Back Better for, and with Cultural Heritage: Perspectives, Tools and Training from First Aid and Resilience forCultural Heritage in Times of Crisis(FAR) Programme of ICCROM
Panel Discussion:“Cultural heritage in Post-Disaster Recovery - towards Build Back Better”
Moderator: KOHDZUMA Yohsei (Director, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage, Japan)
Commentators: Hidaka Shingo, Aparna Tandon, Shakya Lata (Associate Professor, Kinugasa Research Organization,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University), Victoria Pearce(Director and Senior Conservator, Endangered Heritage Pty Ltd.), Morimoto Susumu (Director, Cultural
Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara)).
Panellists: Seven case study presenters involved in disaster risk management of cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific region
and beyond
5. Secretariat, co-operators and cooperating organisations
ACCU Nara and the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center,
Japan were responsible for the overall management of the symposium. We obtained cooperation from Prof. OKUBO
Takeyuki, Director of Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University; Ms Li Hongfrom WHITRAP Shanghai; Mr IKAWA Hirofumi, ICCROM; Ms Pema, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, Bhutan;
and Ms Vanessa Tanner, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga for recommending panellists. We received support from
ICCROM, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, ICOM Japan, Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in
Cultural Heritage for publicising the online symposium.

81

The online symposium at the Nara Prefectural Convention Centre

Opening address by KOHDZUMA Yohsei

Keynote Speech 1: HIDAKA Shingo (National Museum of Ethnology)

Keynote Speech 2: Aparna Tandon (ICCROM)

Case Study from Bhutan: Karma Tenzin

82

Case Study from China: Shuang Hao

Case Study from Japan: SAMPEI Hidefumi

Case Study from Nepal: Suresh Suras Shrestha

Case Study from New Zealand: Amanda Ohs and Fiona Wykes

Case Study from Philippines: Michael Querido

Panellists during the Discussion83

2. Course Evaluation
The online symposium was held on December 21–22, 2022. Two keynote speeches and six case studies were presented,
after which the speakers joined the panel discussion. Four Japanese panellists participated at the venue in Nara, whileothers joined in via Zoom.
Eleven out of thirteen participants filled in the questionnaire. Taking the last year’s evaluation into the consideration, thisyear the moderator addressed the comments and questions from the observers as well.
There were some opinions regarding the preparation of the symposium to make it better from the panellists. We would liketo take them into account when planning the third (final) year’s programme.
1. Panellists
GenderRegionFemale:5,38%Years of Experience

Europe:1,8%

Oceania:3,
23%

Less than
10 years:3,
23%

East Asia:5,38%

10-14 years:1,
8%

Male:8,62%
South Asia:3,23%

Over 20years:7,
54%

15-20 years:2,
15%

Southeast Asia:1,8%

2. Overall
Overall

Networking Opportunity
Dissatisfied,1,9%

Satisfied,6,55%

Very Satisfied,5,45%

Neutral,4,36%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied,5,46%

Satisfied,1,9%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

Engagement from the Audience and Other
Speakers/Commentators
Dissatisfied,1,9%

Neutral,3,27%

Very Satisfied,4,37%

Satisfied,3,27%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied• It may be that a questionnaire could be sent to participants to get their questions or concerns even before thesymposium. I felt that with such a diverse audience it may be that embarrassment about language translations or otherissues prevented questions to the panel.
• Overall, it was satisfactory; however, I felt it would be nice to allocate a little more time for having questions from theaudience.

84

• More discussion about next year's event might have been useful. It will be an interesting event next year.
• I would like to see civil defence personnel, emergency responders, engineers involved—as well as heritage experts—
to reflect the identified need to collaborate across sectors in order to achieve better heritage protection during
emergencies.
• Additional matter: Networking of experts/professionals and emergency assistance via networks in the Asia PacificRegion should also be discussed during the workshop. It might be during the panel discussion.
• The presentation time should be 20 minutes with 10 minutes for question-and-answer time.
• I felt it would be better to organise an on-site symposium, though it is not a problem to use an online system in parallelwith a physical venue.
3. Event Organisation
Support from the Staff

Preliminary Meeting

Satisfied,2,
18%

Neutral,3,27%

Very Satisfied,9,82%

Satisfied,2,18%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied,6,55%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

Zoom Webinar

Satisfied,4,36%
Very Satisfied,7,64%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

There were no major problems with the overall organisation of the conference. However, several people expressed theopinion that there should be clear instructions regarding the division of roles in the panel discussion, and for this reason,
the number of preliminary meetings should be increased.
4. Keynote Speeches and Case Studies on December 21–22, 2022
Fixed time for Keynote Speech:25min.

Fixed time for Case Study:15min.
Fair,1,
9%

Good,5,45%

Excellent,4,36%

Excellent,6,55%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Q&A Arrangement and Fixed Time: 5min.

Fair,2,18%

Excellent,2,
18%

Good,6,
55%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Fixed Time for Panel Discussion
Fair,1,
9%

Excellent,5,85

■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Q&A Arrangement and Fixed Time: 5min.

Fair,2,
18%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Panel Discussion: Topic and the Flow

Fair,4,36%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Fixed Time for Panel Discussion
Fair,1,
9%

Excellent,2,
18%

Good,7,64%

Good,6,55%

Good,5,45%

Excellent,5,
46%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

The Number of Panelists

Fair,2,18%
Excellent,6,55%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Good,1,
9%

Good,4,36%

Excellent,5,
46%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Venue Management(Simultaneous Interpretation Included)

Good,3,27%
Excellent,8,73%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

• I was astounded at the quality of the simultaneous translation; it was excellent.
• I felt the time allotment, and the number of panellists were appropriate.
• The management, including simultaneous interpretation in different languages, was excellent and well done.
• Perhaps a little more time needs to be given for questions to be raised, to allow for people to think of their questions.
It sometimes felt it a little repetitive when the organiser summarized the talk, and then the questions directed to the
speakers also requested them to summarize points already made. It would be good if the organisers could prepare andcirculate questions for the speakers in advance, and perhaps other speakers could also prepare questions for the otherspeakers in advance, so that respondents have time to prepare, and the issues/conflicts and themes are identified anddiscussed in depth at the preliminary meeting, and then could be looked at in more detail during the panel discussion.
• The number of panellists was a bit larger; however, it was excellent due to the expert moderator. But again, if it
could be improved, decreasing the number of panellists to having 4–5 panellists at once with twice the time for panel
discussion, divided according to the title and the theme as well.

86

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

1. Group Training Course
A. List of Participants
Bangladesh
Md. Mukhlesur Rahman Bhuyan
Custodian/Field Officer, Rabindra Kuthibari Museum, Department of Archaeology,
Ministry of Cultural Affairs

BhutanPema
Executive Engineer, Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites (DCHS),
Department of Culture, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs

Fiji
Ratu Leone Matanitobua
Tradesman Builder (Technical), Technical Administration & Facilities, Fiji Museum

India
Asha Theres
Architectural Conservation Consultant, Independent Researcher

India
Saumya Tripathi
Principal / Conservation Architect, Vernarch Design StudioIndonesia
Trisha Karina Lahu
Research Staff, Architectural Research,
Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur (PDA) Indonesia

Kiribati
Meere. Kenana
Museum Curator Officer, Museum Unit, Culture and Museum Division,
Ministry of Internal Affairs

Lao PDR
Thongsavanh Khammanichanh
Deputy Director, Plain of Jars World Heritage Office,
Heritage Department, Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism

88NepalGovinda Adhikari
Conservation Engineer, World Heritage Conservation,
Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Culture,Tourism and Civil Aviation

Papua New Guinea
Benjamin Leme
Tutor, Anthropology, Sociology and Archaeology,
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea

Philippines
Charmenne Diane V. Odan
Architect/Executive, Studio 117 Inc.

Philippines
Jeffrey D. CobillaArchitect, Head of Project Development and Management for Heritage Conservation
Project Development and Management for Heritage Conservation, Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation, Inc.

Singapore
Panyaporn Trikasemmart
Consaltant (Architectural Conservation), Studio Lapis Conservation Pte Ltd

Uzbekistan
Tatyana Trudolyubova
Culture Programme Assistance, Culture Unit, UNESCO Tashkent Office

B. List of Lecturers and Resource Persons
Unit 1Gamini WijesuriyaSpecial Advisor, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and

NISHIYAMA Marcelo
Associate Director/Chief Curator, Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Unit 3
Alejandro MARTINEZINABA Nobuko

Assitant Professor, Kyoto Institute of Technology

Emeritus Professor, University of Tsukuba
Special Advisor, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and

KONDO Mitsuo

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Conservation Architect, Technical Advisor, The Japanese Association for

Unit 2INAGAKI Tomoya

UENO Kunikazu

Senior Cultural Properties Specialist
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of JapanKIYONAGA Yohei
Licensed Architect- 1st Class, Senior Specialist for Cultural Property incharge of architecture, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan

Conservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)

Professor Emeritus, Nara Women’s University

Unit 4
TANAKA Izumi
Conservation Architect, Chief Engineer
Todaiji Temple (World Heritage Site)

89

Unit 5WATANABE Yasushi

C. Interpreter

Specialist for Important Preservation Districts for Groups of Traditional

Freelance Interpreter

HATA Chiyako

Buildings, Shiojiri City Board of Education, Nagano Prefecture

SAIMOTO Kenji

D. Acknowledgements and cooperation

Class-1 Architect, Representative Director■Shiojiri City Board of Education, Cultural Property Section
NAKAMURA Kotoe

Saimoto Architectural Design OfficeDirector

SHIOBARA Masaki
NISHI Kazuhiko

Assistant Director

Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties

IMAFUKU Daisuke

Office for International Cooperation on Cultural Heritages, Agency for

Cultural Properties Officer

Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan

Rohit Jigyasu
Project Manager, Urban Heritage, Climate Change and Disaster Risk

■Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum
NISHIMURA Akira
Director

Management, ICCROM■Todai-ji Temple
HASHIMURA Kouei, Buddhist Priest

Coordinators

UENO Shushin, Buddhist Priest, Administrative Manager

KANAI KenHead, Resource and Systems Research Section
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (TNRICP)IKAWA Hirofumi

SAITO Takehito, Owner, Saito Lacquerware Shop; Office Representative,
Committee for Preservation of Narai Preservation District

SHINOHARA Masahiro, Owner, Café Izumiya, Narai
TAKAYAMA Kyohei, General Manager, Hotel BYAKU Narai

Projiect Manager, ICCROM

2. Thematic Training Course
A. List of participants
Nguyen Khanh Trung Kien
Vice Director, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

Le Hoang Phong
Researcher, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

Dang Ngọc Kính
Researcher, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

Nguyen Hoang Bach Linh
Researcher, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

90

Nguyen Nhut Phuong
Researcher, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

Nguyen Quang Khanh
Vice Director, Administration, Kien Giang Provincial Museum

Nguyen Quoc Manh
Vice Director, Centre for Archaeology, Southern Institute of Social Sciences (SISS)

Nguyen Viet Tuan
Deputy Head of Relic Management Division,
Relic Management Division, Lam Dong Provincial Museum

Tran Doan Minh Hoang
Researcher, Research Division, Hue Monuments Conservation Centre

Truong Tien Du
Staff, Material, Department of Collectiing Library, History Museum in Hochiminh City

B. List of Lecturers and Resource Persons

NAKAMURA Akiko
Independent Researcher(Coordinators)

YAMAGATA Mariko

C. Interpreters

Specially Appointed Professor

Nguyen Anh Phong

Graduate School of Arts, Rikkyo University

Freelance Interpreter

UENO Kunikazu

TASAKI Hirono

Professor Emeritus, Nara Women’s University

Freelance Interpreter(Lecturers)(Translator of materials)

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi

Nguyen Ngoc Linh

Researcher, Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Department

Freelance Translatorof Archaeological Operations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties

D. Acknowledgements for Cooperation
NISHIMURA Noriko

YAMAFUJI Masatoshi

Archaeologist

Senior Researcher, Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace
Sites Investigations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

91

SUZUKI Tomomi
Researcher, Curatorial Section, Planning and Curatorial Department
Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture
The Museum, Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture

3. Regional Workshop
A. Participants
Kalibek Assylbekov
Head, Department of Geomatics and Digital Archaeology, Margulan Institute of Archaeology

Aisha Kazizova
Junior Researcher, Department of Geomatics and Digital Archaeology, Margulan Institute of Archaeology

Saule Rakhimzhanova
Leading Researcher, Stone Age Department, Margulan Institute of Archaeology

Arailym Rakhimberdi
Scientific Secretary,Administrative and Managerial Unit,
Zhambyl Regional Local History Museum

Dana Dossayeva
Head, Conservation and Restoration Laboratory,
National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Elina Altynbekova
Designer-restorer, Scientific-Restoration Laboratory “Ostrov Krym” LLP

Abildin Askar
Researcher, Margulan Centre,
Pavlodar Pedagogical University

Talgat Ailybaev
Researcher, “Rouhani Zhangyru” Laboratory, Margulan Centre,
Pavlodar Pedagogical University

92

Alibek KabyldinovLaboratory Head, Archaeological Reconstruction Laboratory, Margulan Centre,
Pavlodar Pedagogical University

Yelena Tusheva
Laboratory Head, Laboratory of Experimental Archaeology, Margulan Centre,
Pavlodar Pedagogical University

Vladislav Golodenko
Laboratory Assistant, Margulan Centre,
Pavlodar Pedagogical University

Ergazy Tokenov
Laboratory Assistant, Center for Archaeological Research LLP

B. Instructors■Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP)YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
Senior Researcher, Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations

WAKIYA SoichiroHead, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations

YANAGIDA Akinobu
Researcher, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi
Researcher, Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Center for Archaeological Operations■Gunma Prefectural Museum of History
FUKASAWA Atsuhito
Chief Curator

NAKAMURA Akiko
Independent Researcher

C. Interpreters

Kobijaeva Mariya
Fleerance Interpreter

Rustemova Aktolkyn
Fleerance Interpreter

D. Acknowledgements for Cooperation■Margulan Institute of Archaeology
Akhan Onggaruly
General Director934. International Workshop
A. Participants■Moderator
JAPAN
KOHDZUMA Yohsei
Director, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage■Keynote Speakers
JAPAN
HIDAKA Shingo
Professor, National Museum of Ethnology

ICCROM (Rome, Italy)
Aparna Tandon
Senior Programme Leader
First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis, Sustaining Digital Heritage, Programmes Unit, ICCROM■Case Study Presenters
BHUTAN
Karma Tenzin
Executive Architect, Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites, Department of Culture, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs

CHINA
Shuang Hao
Engineer, World Heritage Center of China, China Academy of Cultural HeritageJAPAN
SAMPEI Hidefumi
Deputy Director (Curator) at Archive Museum of Tomioka; Assistant Head,
Lifelong Learning Section / Senior Staff, Lifelong Learning, Tomioka Board of Education, Fukushima Prefecture

NEPAL
Suresh Suras Shrestha
Joint Secretary/Head, Culture Division, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation

NEW ZEALAND
Amanda Ohs
Senior Heritage Advisor, Heritage Team, Planning and Consents, Christchurch City Council

Fiona Wykes
Area Manager, Southern Regional Office, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

94

PHILIPPINES
Michael Querido
Project Officer, Project Development and Management for Heritage Conservation,
Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation, Inc.

■Commentators
AUSTRALIA
Victoria Pearce
Director and Senior Conservator, Endangered Heritage Pty Ltd.

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

NEPAL
Shakya Lata
Associate Professor, Kinugasa Research Organization,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University

B. Acknowledgements for Cooperation■Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
OKUBO Takeyuki
Director, Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University

C. Coorganisers■National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
NAKASHIMA Shiho
Researcher■International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)
IKAWA Hirofumi
Project Manager, Programmes Unit

5. Acknowledgements
A. Support / Advices

Pilar House■International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)
IKAWA Hirofumi

Executive Assistant of Office of the Director-General

Project Manager, Programmes Unit

Unit Manager, Programmes

INABA Nobuko
Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM■Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(NNRICP)KATO Shinji

Gamini Wijesuriya

Director, Department of Planning and Coordination

Valerie Magar

Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM

95

KANEDA Akihiro

HATA Chiyako

Director, Center for Archaeological Operations

Freelance Interpreter

SHODA Shinya

Michael Joseph Owen

Head, International Cooperation Section, Department of Planning andEnglish Instructor / Proofreader

Coordination

SOMIYA Ayako
SATO Yuni

Freelance Interpreter

Specialist, International Cooperation Section, Department of Planning and
Coordination

Shaun Ian Mackey
Guest Researcher, International Cooperation Section, NNRICP■Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(TNRICP)Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation
TOMODA MasahikoDirector

Walter Edwards
Adjunct Researcher, NNRICP

C. Narration of materials
Shaun Ian Mackey

KANAI Ken

Guest Researcher, International Cooperation Section, NNRICP

Head, Resource and Systems Research Section■Kyoto National Museum
KURIHARA Yuji
Deputy Director

D. Overall Cooperation
Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage(JCIC-Heritage)
National Commission for UNESCO in the Asia-Pacific countries
Nara Prefectural Government

B. Translation and proofreading of materials
OTANI Yasuko

Nara City Government
Tenri City Government

Freelance Interpreter

6. Staff Members of ACCU Nara
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex,
Restorations and Exhibition Wing 2F; 437-3, Somanouchicho, Tenri, 632-0032, Japan■Programme Operation Department
WAKIYA Kayoko

TEL: +81-743-69-5010

Division Director

FAX: +81-743-69-5021

International Cooperation Division

Vice Director of Programme Operation Department

Tamar MELADZE

URL: https://www3.pref.nara.jp/bunkamura/Email: nara@accu.or.jp

HIRAYAMA Naoto
Staff

MORIMOTO Susumu

International Cooperation Division

Director

YOSHIDA Machi
YATOMI Naoki

Staff

Vice Director

International Cooperation Division■Planning Management Department
HORIKAWA Kazuko

AOKI Aya

Division Director of General Affairs

International Cooperation Division

Planning and Coordination Division

IEDA Akiko
Staff

96

Project Staff