 Since 1995, we have had three big earthquake. 1995 in Kobe, 2011, so Tohoku. And two years ago, Kumamoto earthquake caused heavy damage to cultural heritage, including the castle, temple, and shrines. It became affecting archaeological heritage management underground as happened previously in Kobe and Tohoku. And very unfortunately, yesterday, we had a big earthquake in Hokkaido. So you know, Hokkaido is a northern island. So we have had four big earthquakes last 25 years over the country. So it looks there's no safe place in Japan. And I'm wondering what will happen next. So besides earthquake, we have had typhoon last Wednesday, so two days ago. And it affected the Kansai Airport where I left just one day before. So I can't go back to this airport. So that's a very serious problem for me now. And it affects all the UNESCO World Heritage Site. So it is said that 20% of all earthquakes in the world occurred in Japan. And 70% of active volcano are concentrated here. Exposed to natural hazards, that column is quite high. And accordingly, its world risk index, 13.5, is several times as much as the European country, except Netherlands. Here in Spain, WRI 3.2 looks rather safe. Sometimes I feel this disaster prone environment might have fostered over many years Japanese characteristic sense of life and beauty, including transience, impermanence, and the perseverance. It was the Hanshin-Awaj earthquake in 1995 that Japanese archaeologists became personally strongly conscious of the theme, disaster, heritage, and archaeology. At that time, we are involved in a variety of activity to support archaeologists in the devastated area. In my talk, firstly, I will review what happened particularly for cultural heritage after the Great East Japan earthquake in 2011 and how it was rescued and researched. And then I will consider a model of disaster led by Kyōji in Japan. And finally, how Japanese are Kyōji can contribute to the study in the field. Let's go back to the 11th of March, 2011. The biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan occurred off the Sanri Pacific coast with a magnitude of 9.0. The earthquake hit the birth area covering parts of the Tohoku and Kanto region, stretching more than 500 kilometers from to the south, Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefecture suffered particularly severe damage. The following tsunami, a tidal wave, reached more than 30 meters in height in some areas and spread more than a few kilometers inland from the coast, destroying virtually everything, people, cars, and structure, primary schools along the way. Almost 20,000 people died or have been lost. To make things worse, the Fukushima number one nuclear power station was catastrophically damaged and had since been causing serious radiation contamination resulting in the evacuation of the residents. This will be presented and discussed by Yoshio Raita. Definitely, the damage caused by the disaster is worse since the World War II. Damage caused to the cultural heritage is also very serious and wide-ranging. It's far more severe than in 1995. Speaking only of devastated national culture properties, more than 700 such properties have been damaged, including five national treasures. The stone wall of many castles and fortresses were damaged and numerous stone monuments in temple and shrine cups. The total loss of damage to architecture heritage is the most severe in the tsunami-devastated area. For instance, in Iwanoma City, Miyagi Prefecture, the half of the city area was flooded and the temple and shrine along the coast were completely swept away. This is Rikuzen Takada Museum in Iwate Prefecture, which was completely destroyed. The disaster also took the lives of all six members of the museum staff. Next through, rescue activity was very active in many areas across the devastated region. In total, 7,000 people joined in the rescue efforts at 90 locations over two years. There were mainly two large rescue groups. One was organized by the government, the Ministry of Culture Affairs. The other was a voluntary network led by university teachers and museum curators. This network was initially established by the historical societies in the Kansai region in response to Kobe earthquake of 1995. And the network has now spread over at 25 prefecture through several disasters. It has taken a long time to complete the rescue of tangible cultural properties, but the phase was shifting from the initial cleanup to the relocation, reconstruction of village and town programs concerning the protection of underground cultural property were becoming increasingly acute and demanded urgent response. The reconstruction design inclined towards the location of the population of the devastated coastal area to the surrounding hill as they are free from future tsunami threats. However, it is no easy task as we remember that there were over 6,000 archaeological sites in Miyagi and 13,000 in Iwate prefecture, especially in the Sanriku region, more sites are located on the hill than coastal plain. And the presence of many undiscovered states is also expected. Some mass media reported on this issue, archaeological sites on hill would be an obstacle to relocation. In April 2012, the Agency of Cultural Affairs issued a notice regarding cultural properties management related to restoration and the destruction associated with the Great East Japan aspect as they did in 1995. It consists of four articles, but the point is encourage speedy excavation so as to not delay the construction works. And the active dissemination of research results to local people and the developers. As a practical mean to undertake the necessary excavation, Iwate Miyagi Fukushima prefecture Board of Education, as the Agency of Cultural Affairs asked other local governments for the archaeological labor force. And from April 2013, a total of 60 archaeologists were sent to engage in excavation prior to the reconstruction development of towns. I was one of them working for Fukushima in 2013. The Agency initially planned to continue this support system for three years, but extended it in order to meet the demand from local governments. Seven years have passed since the quick. And most of the excavation project have finished except in Fukushima. During that period, more than 500 archaeologists in total were sent to the affected area. It was said that excavation area in Tohoku region after the Great East Japan was expected to be 10 times bigger than that in 1995. For instance, the Iwate Prefecture Center for Archaeological Heritage excavated 170 square meters in total prior to reconstruction at 30 sites, only in 2013. This is one of the largest excavation before the relocation project, the Nidadate medieval fortified village site. Minami Sanriku town, Miyagi prefecture. The tsunami washed away the entire village as a foot of the hill. And despite the immediate issue faced by archaeologists, archaeology investigation was surprisingly carried out in almost the same way as they had before the earthquake, thanks to the reinforced archaeology management and efforts by the stakeholders. Numerous discovery had greatly altered the understanding of the local history and the public, are often invited to open days. However, despite the large amount of efforts, much still remain to be done in respect to the publication of excavation reports and the utilization of finds. I want to turn my talk from heritage issue to archaeology. Since the quick Japanese archaeologists, particularly in the Tohoku region, have worked hard on research and re-examination to find traces of past earthquakes and tsunami and have tried to utilize such information for public disaster prevention as a duty of the profession. Behind the scene, they worried about whether or not they properly disseminated information about past tsunamis. Let me give an example from the Kutsukata site in Sendai city. The site is located 4.3 kilometer from the present shoreline. They found 2000 BP party field and a layer of white and covering the field. They carried out a number of drilling to confirm the horizontal distribution of the sand and the continuity of deposit from the inland limit to the paleo shoreline of 2000 years ago. Through the thorough research of the deposit, including grain size analysis, they finally determined that the white sand was definitely tsunami deposit and then conducted further research to compare the scale of the 2000 BP tsunami with the 2011 tsunami by measuring deposit in adduation distance from the then shoreline. Finally, the research clarified that the same scale 2011 tsunami also occurred 2000 years ago. They also found three historical well-known tsunami altogether at the Takase site, 200 kilometers west of Kutsukata. I remember that in 1996, one year after the Great Hanshi-Awaji earthquake, we aided earthquake traces announced with the cooperation of 150 archaeologists from all over Japan. It covers all the traces of the past earthquake excavated nearly 400 sites. However, as time passes, the attention and interest directed to earthquake has fizzled out and the message we managed to bring through the mediation of archaeology have been forgotten. However, in April 2014, the National Research Institute for Cultural Property decided to create a database of all the traces of natural disaster across the country from excavation reports and set up a network of experts while developing research methods and the technology over the following five years. I really hope it will go to the next step in establishing a system where any discovery of disasters is recorded and automatically reported to the National Storehouse for the sake of disaster prevention and risk management. Then archaeology will be accepted as a discipline more relevant to contemporary society. For this goal, gearcheological training that is ability how to accurately read the path from the stroller should be emphasized more in Japanese archaeology, I believe. So let me show you another recent activity associated with disaster reduction. Last December, the National Museum of Anthology, Osaka, created and opened a database of tsunami monuments which warn of past tsunamis and often stand where they were originally elected. The purpose was to warn people not to leave lower than the location of the monument. The earliest one date back to the early 80th century, one characteristic of this database is that anyone can add new data so as to encourage the public to contribute to the project. The data now includes 358 entries from 12 prefectures. The final issue concerning archaeology and heritage after the quake is the preservation of memorial building or structure to commemorate the disaster. Who can or should decide on the preservation memorial structure after the great disaster? Does the decision right with local residents, the local government, or even the central government? The people concerned with managing heritage should observe how new heritage is being created as once we did for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. I would like to conclude my presentation. I mentioned four topics, rescuing heritage and rescuing underground heritage and researching plus disaster and creating new heritage. They are examined and studied separately when back in now offices, but actually closely associated with each other and were dealt with together occasionally successfully at other times consecutively in the field. I was wondering what we should concisely call this package but nothing has said before, so nothing create a new term, disaster red archaeology after the better known notion of developer red archaeology. I know what I discuss here cannot be confined to the field of archaeology but I feel the term describe the good role that archaeologists can take after the great disaster. From the investigation of true power and the mechanism recent earthquake, a number of seismologists and the greatest geologists argue that Japanese archipelago has entered the phase of increased seismic activity. Disaster red archaeology would be a fatalistic subject and should be considered as a kind of public archaeology for archaeologists living in disaster prone country like Japan. This is very challenging but it would be an opportunity to promote a number of aspects of contemporary archaeology. We call for the cooperation, collaboration of archaeologists across the world. Let's get together. Muchas gracias.