1 10 4 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/87cbe8eb246c04ada634f17f3dd9bd76.mp4 ad6d50925a971a265c6819450cb71c83 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development <br /><br /><em>Editor&rsquo;s note: Although Dr. Jeffery refers to Session 2 in his interview it was later changed to Session 3. He also discusses Session 11.</em> Subject The topic of the resource A video interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery about Sessions 3 and 11. Description An account of the resource Description: Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bill Jeffery Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 6/12/2014 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development Subject The topic of the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 with links to the papers presented in Session 3. Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event. <a title="Link to paper." href="http://www.themua.org/collections/items/show/1585">Intangible Heritage Approach of Safeguarding Underwater Heritage: A Trans-disciplinary Perspective</a> by Montakarn Suvanatap<br /><br /><a title="Link to paper." href="http://www.themua.org/collections/items/show/1584">Seabee Junkyard: A Holistic and Locally Inclusive Approach to Site Management and Interpretation</a> by Kalle Applegate Palmer and Bill Jeffery<br /><br /><a title="Link to paper." href="http://www.themua.org/collections/items/show/1583">The Fiji Museum’s Efforts Towards the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites</a> in Fiji by Elia Nakoro Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: <br />• Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; <br />• Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. <br /><br /><br /><em>Editor’s note: </em><br /><br /><em>Although Dr. Jeffery refers to Session 2 in his interview that session was later changed to Session 3.</em> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Meretui Ratunabuabua Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 6/11/2014 Asia-Pac Session 3 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/99361f1d51fe7353d45bd169f8f4e481.pdf 04584b2117e43c41b2579bf5ecdbab4f PDF Text Text The Fiji Museum’s efforts towards the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites in Fiji Elia Nakoro History Archaeology Department, The Fiji Museum, Thurston Gardens, Suva Fiji Email: rocksfel@yahoo.com.au Abstract Fiji’s 300 isles are enclosed within a total sea area of about 1,260,000km2 of its Exclusive Economic Zone and to date very little work has been carried out on underwater and maritime archaeology. Resource materials documented by the Archaeology Department of the Fiji Museum have identified more than 500 shipwrecks, a great number of which were wrecked less than 50 years ago. The establishment of an Underwater Unit at the Fiji Museum is needed to safeguard the nation’s underwater historic sites and raise awareness towards understanding the untold sunken mysteries that connect Fiji to the world; however there are several issues that need to be addressed in order for this Unit to be established and run effectively. This paper discusses the need for further capacity building and training in Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) studies to successfully document, survey and protect Fiji’s underwater cultural sites. Furthermore, the area of developing policy papers, funding proposals and the documentation of findings will also require special attention to sustain UCH projects. Alike the other developing countries, the paper highlights the daunting challenges that face the Fiji Museum including the lack of human resources, equipment and above all insufficient funding to carry out this much needed work. Key words: Capacity building, Collaboration, Levuka Town, Sacred, Underwater Cultural Heritage, World Heritage Site Introduction The Fiji Islands The Republic of the Fiji Islands encompasses a group of over 300 volcanic island landmasses, of which over 100 islands are inhabited. Fiji is located in the tropics of the southern hemisphere and has a total land area of approximately 18,300km 2 that covers the region positioned between a latitude of 12N-21°S and longitude 176°E-178°W (Fig. 1). Fiji has two main islands namely, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu and approximately 80% of the population resides on these two islands the majority of which is located in rural areas and about 40% of the people dwelling in urban areas. 83% percent of land is owned by indigenous Fijians while nine percent is State owned and eight percent is 1 �Freehold land (Ministry of Information, Communications and Media Relations, 2006). The Fiji group is situated in tropical waters, surrounded by coral reefs and considerable variation in the physical island formations histories enclosed within a total sea area of about 1,260,000km2 of its Exclusive Economic Zone where more than 500 shipwrecks have been documented, a great number of which were wrecked less than 50 years ago. Fig. 1 Map of the Fiji Islands. (Nakoro, 2014) A Brief History Fiji has a colorful past of tradition and culture. The first settlements in Fiji were constructed by voyaging traders and settlers from the west about 3500 years ago. Voyaging and settlements in this period were associated with the manufacturing of Lapita ware of distinctive intricate dentate stamped motifs. Western influence of European traders began in 1800 as Oliver Slater, a survivor of the ship Argo, which was wrecked near Oneata, an island in the Lau group discovered sandalwood at Bua 2 �Bay on Vanua Levu. This was followed by sandalwood traders, beachcombers, whalers, beche-de-mer traders and missionaries (Williams, 1858). However, in the early seventeen and eighteenth century, European explorers began to discover the Fiji group of islands and other Pacific Islands in the exploration of the South Seas. Islands were charted from aboard ships with the fear of local hostility. During the sandalwood trade, beachcombers were welcomed by Fijian chiefs as they brought with them new ideas on life and knowledge of western technology including firearms. These were shipwrecked sailors, runaway convicts from New South Wales and ship deserters as they escape harsh conditions on board, low wages and severe punishments (Donnelly et al., 1994). In the early 19th century, exploration journals and missionary records described hostility and settlement fortifications (Donnelly et al., 1994). In the pre-history context there are no written records however there were social structures that defined roles in a community together with visual evidence and oral stories being passed down from one generation to another or through ceremonies and rituals. In order to preserve and hold such cultural wealth of the nation in trust for all generations, the Fiji Museum was established. The Fiji Museum The idea to have a museum was first mooted in 1904 where donations from the first colonial administrations made up the initial collection exhibited for public display. Today, over a century since its operations began, the institution showcases and stores treasured cultural artifacts and memories of the past and is responsible for the collection, documentation, exhibition, conservation and preservation of Fiji’s significant cultural artifacts and sites of local and national heritage. The Fiji Museum holds a remarkable collection, which includes archaeological material dating back to about 3,500 years ago and cultural objects representing Fiji’s indigenous inhabitants as well as other communities that have settled in the island group over the last century, items from its Pacific Island neighbors, and from around the world. The significance of the institution is in documenting historical events, conducting research, education, public outreach and keeping cultures and history alive. In addition to focusing on local cultural material - the institution also aims to strengthen a regional study and the collection of cultural materials of the South Pacific. 3 �Organizational Structure Governed by the Fiji Museum Act1 and the Preservation of Objects of Archaeological and Palaeontogical Interest Act2, the institution is a statutory body that comes under a Board of Trustees. The Fiji Museum has six professional departments namely the Conservation department, Education department, Collections department, Pre-history Archaeology department, Historical Archaeology department and Exhibitions department. These departments form the core functions in the maintenance and operations of the institution however these departments function with little funds. The Archaeology Department The Archaeology unit of the Fiji Museum was established in 1995 and consists of two sections: (1) Pre-history Archaeology Department and (2) the History Archaeology Department. The legislation that governs the work of the department was endorsed by cabinet in 1940. Fiji’s pre-history period was confirmed from results of an excavation in 2003 that was collaboratively undertaken by the Archaeology Department and the University of the South Pacific, Fiji to be approximately 3050 years BP/1100 BC to European contact within the group. The first Europeans to have engagements with native Fijians were European explorers where Abel Janzoon Tasman visited Fiji waters in 1643. However during the sandalwood trading around 1800 Europeans heavily interacted with the natives in the purchase of sandalwood. The findings of the earliest settlement southwest of Fiji predate most oral narratives known by Fijians today. The History Archaeology Department deals with all the events and history from the European contact period to the present day. The Department of History Archaeology's role in the museum is to identify sites, conduct research, and provide protection for historic sites, which also includes maritime sites. In this capacity, the department carries out legislative review, identification and recording of all historical sites, and cultural heritage management related activities. The department also assists in the enforcement of the legislation "the Preservation of Objects of Archaeological and Palaeontological Interest Act" around the Fiji Islands. The History Archaeology 4 �Department maintains a register of all historical sites. This is an ongoing project through which a comprehensive database of all known historical sites is being compiled. The department is interested in documenting as many heritage buildings in Fiji, especially in Suva, Levuka and the sugar producing towns where many colonial buildings are situated and also documenting significant cultural heritage sites not to mention the recording of all maritime and underwater cultural heritage sites. The Archaeology Department’s Legal Frame Work The Fiji Museum’s Archaeology Departments administers the legislation under the Laws of Fiji: Chapter 264, which is the Preservation of objects of Archaeological and Palaeontological Interest Act. Under the legislation it requires the Archaeology Department to promote and preserve all objects that include any erection (buildings), memorial (monuments), tumulus (burial mounds), cairn (pile of stones), place of interment (cemetery), pit-dwelling, trench (war ditches), fortification stone walls, irrigation works, mounds, excavation (for research purposes), caves, rock drawings, paintings, sculpture, inscription (carving of words on rocks etc), monolith (sacred rocks), or any remains thereof, fossil remains of man or animals or plants or any bed or beds containing such fossil remains thereof, or any object (or any remains thereof) which is or are of archaeological, anthropological, ethnological, prehistoric, or historic interest, and includes - (a) the site on which such object of archaeological or palaeontological interest was discovered or exists; (b) such portion of land adjoining the said site as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such object of archaeological or palaeontological interest; and (c) the means of access to and convenient inspection of such object of archaeological or palaeontological interest. Underwater Cultural Heritage in Fiji Some work has been accomplished in the last few years in an effort to establish the foundation of collating data on underwater cultural heritage focusing on shipwrecks and implement protection procedures on these sites. However, the importance of being aware of the existence of these heritage sites forms the basis of taking such a bold step. The Historical Archaeology Department to date has managed to compile a national shipwreck database (Fig. 2) that maps out a plan of action on work that needs to be undertaken to safeguard these valuable and historic heritages. This research has been 5 �carried out over several years by looking at archival literature records, archived newspapers and maritime records of the country. As a result, research showed that Fiji has a total of more than five hundred (500) documented shipwrecks on its territorial waters. These include both old and new shipwrecks within the last 10 years. As illustrated in the image above, the database is maintained using Microsoft Office Access and it will continue to be modified in the future to also capture images of the ship before and after it wrecked once a full-scale research has been conducted. Since Fiji is lacking legislative cover on underwater cultural heritage, the Fiji Government (Department of National Heritage, Culture and Arts under the Ministry of Education), is giving its full support and backing to oversee and assist in the process of producing legal documents. As we convene, there is a team responsible for drafting and reviewing the current legislation Chapter 264: Preservation of Objects of Archaeological and Paleontological Interest to include specifically the safeguarding of underwater and maritime cultural heritage. Fig. 2 A glimpse of Fiji's shipwreck database. (Fiji Museum, 2014) 6 �Underwater surveys A single underwater survey has been undertaken in Fiji to date by a diving team from the Australian National Maritime Museum (Fig. 3). The team comprised of Mr. Kieran Hosty, Mr. Paul Hundley and a staff member of the Archaeology Department of the Fiji Museum who conducted surveys of the harbor of Levuka Town for the nomination of the town as a World Heritage Site. The township of Levuka on the island of Ovalau is located on the east of the main island Viti Levu and is home to British colonial building structures. It is a living town and the only one in the Pacific. Several English merchant schooners are submerged in the harbor of Levuka. For this purpose, the underwater survey was carried out to assist in the nomination document, identifying the core zone for the town and the buffer boundary as a world heritage requirement and also provide protection on these sunken vessels. The Levuka World Heritage local committee was able to draft a new legislation that included the protection of shipwrecked vessels in the Levuka Bay. The Fiji Government has since completed the submission and the nomination of the township of Levuka to the World Heritage Committee and the town has been inscribed as a World Heritage cultural site, however the effort to include the shipwrecks as a component of the nomination was later withdrawn with legitimate reasons for management of the nominated properties. Types of Maritime Cultural Heritage sites in Fiji In addition to shipwrecks, there are other underwater and maritime cultural sites from myths and historical accounts to be considered such as the use of traditional canoes, sunken double hull canoes, sunken settlements, fish traps and sharpening stones that represent ideal potential projects in the exploration and preservation of underwater cultural heritage. The types of maritime cultural heritage sites in Fiji are summarized below: 1. Sacred Canoes or Waqa Tabu (Drua) In the 1800s, Europeans were amazed with the majestic naval fleet that the native Fijians were using. These boats known as the waqa drua (double hull) or waqa tabu (sacred) are said to be the biggest of all the types of canoes used in Fiji. It was also sacred as its construction was fitted for high chiefs. Generally acknowledged as the 7 �finest two-hulled sailing vessels, the largest of these required 50 men to navigate and in war might use up to 100 –but it could transport 300 or more warriors– and was claimed to have sailed faster with the wind than the European vessels that visited the Fiji Islands in those days. The canoe was structurally unlike other sea-going canoes, although it sailed by similar techniques, the hulls being made from fitted planks, not dugouts. Moreover the deck was a platform resting across the two canoes. To all who shared in the activities and the rituals of the construction and the launching this was indeed a sacred canoe. Every feature had its particular function and the craft were superbly handled by none better than the Bauan navy (Tippett, 1968). There is great traditional ceremonial sacrifice attached with the construction of a new drua, which begins from the initial process of tree felling which is associated with songs, chanting while hauling the fallen tree for the keel and feasting once hauling. It is said that it could take five to seven years for the drua construction. At the launching of the new drua, many lives were lost as the drua slid on the sea of blood of slaves who served as rollers under its massive hulls (Tippett, 1968). There are also claims that these majestic drua lay buried under one of the major river system of Fiji, the Rewa River or Wailevu. This river system was an active pathway during the reign of Ratu Seru Cakobau, the self proclaimed king of Fiji. Ratu Cakobau originally was from the island of Bau, a small island off the eastern coast of the main island and was constantly engaged in war in his effort to unify the islands under his authority. 2. Fish Traps (Impounding enclosures of stone-Moka) Fish traps are found in most parts of the islands and most field tours on Viti Levu have revealed the remains of these enclosures occur along the western coast and the islands off the mainland. This method of trapping fish is by means of low walls of boulders set out in horseshoe form between tide marks and is one of the most primitive methods of fishing, maybe the earliest of the efforts of early man to devise a mechanical arrangement for the automatic capture of fishes (Hornel, 1940). Very little has been documented about the construction and the use of these stonewalls however it has been generally described by early researchers. 3. Sunken Islands and Settlements 8 �Vuniivilevu and Burotu are two islands in Fiji that allegedly ‘vanished’ (Fig. 4). Vuniivilevu is located in the Lomaiviti group, east of Viti Levu and it was believed to have disappeared as a result of collapse of part of the Viti Levu insular shelf between 1200 and 1600 AD (Nunn et al., 2005). According to informants and oral narratives collected by Nunn et al., (2005) Vuniivilevu was inhabited and residents dispersed to neighboring islands and other parts of Fiji. The island was believed to have disappeared as punishment for the excessive cannibalism and disobedience to the Gods according to other accounts. While some parts of the province of Tailevu have close attachments and rituals connected to the sea area where Vuniivilevu used to be, the area is said to be sacred where most seafarers pay great respect when passing through. In 2012, Valentin Bayer, a German tourist on Caqalai Island discovered a piece of pottery while snorkeling northwest of Caqalai Island. The remnant pottery was the neck of a clay water container, depicted in (Fig. 5). The finding may provide evidence that Vuniivilevu was initially an inhabited island before submerging. Burotu is another example of a mythical island, which appears occasionally in the Lau group specifically near the island of Matuku. It is also sometimes referred to as Burotukula (kula is red) because of the reported redness of many things on the island. Villagers of Levukaidaku claim that at times they do come across burnt-out fishing torches of coconut fronds believed to have been used on the island of Burotukula the night before. There are also occasions where red feathers were washed ashore. There is also a myth that says the island is occupied by beautiful women. A number of oral traditions were collected firsthand from Matuku Island in December 2003. 9 �Fig. 4 Locations of sunken islands and settlement. (Nakoro, 2014) Fig. 5 A Chief’s Kitchen, “At Home in Fiji”. (Cumming, 1888) The key aspect of the story of Burotu that distinguishes it from many others involving vanished islands in the Pacific is that Burotu allegedly reappears and disappears periodically (Nunn et al., 2005). The last sighting of Burotu was reported by a school Head Teacher, Mr. Emitai Vakacegu in 2003 at 6 am. The school teacher and his 10 �students witnessed the 30 minutes glimpse of the island over the horizon of Levukaidaku village. Other sightings of Burotu were reported in 1933, 1948, 1953, 1980-83, 1993, and 1995 (Nunn et al., 2005). In 2011, villagers from a community in the Province of Tailevu recovered pottery sherds from Moon Reef five kilometers off the eastern coast of Viti Levu. Moon reef is crescent shaped where tourists go for snorkeling and to watch dolphins and villagers believe that Moon Reef used to be an island. Similarly, in the Lomaiviti (central Fiji) group, a former Fiji Museum Archaeology staff, Mr. Kolinio Moce describes a sunken settlement more than five kilometers on the reef off Nukuloa village on Gau Island. According to Mr. Moce the settlement contains pillars and several whole clay pots that have become overridden with corals and algae over the years. Limitations in the Fiji context Over the past years the museum has struggled in its efforts to safeguard and preserve Fijian cultural material. While the institute has huge potential for improvements, its endeavors are limited and hindered by a lack of funding. The frequent changes in Governments have impacted the operations of the Fiji Museum as grants received vary, often dwindling. The current regime provided the museum with an annual grant of $230,000 used mainly to cover the operational costs such as staff salaries. Additional costs- such as field expedition expenses -are covered through community sponsorship or via proceeds collected from visitors to the museum, which comprise an average of about 21,000 local visitors (school students being the majority) and between 9,00012,000 tourists annually. In recent times, the department has been overwhelmed with the great influx of local interests from traditional land owning units. The rate of development has accelerated recently and a number of sacred sites have been decimated as a result. The work required to run an effective Underwater Unit is hindered by a lack of skilled staff and the Fiji Museum is barely managing to achieve goals in the vocation to protect and monitor Fiji’s national tangible cultural heritage at present. While Fiji has been represented in two foundation courses that were organised by UNESCO Bangkok, the capacity and facilities required for training including storage, lab equipment and diving gears are lacking and unlikely to happen without financial support from outside donors. To date the existing database has been constructed using 11 �secondary information and reconnaissance surveys to confirm the existence of shipwrecks and pinpoint their exact locations have not been undertaken. A big threat to underwater cultural heritage are the booming scrap metal industries that pay good money for scrap metal that can be sourced from just about anywhere. Underwater treasures are accessible only to those who have the resources to obtain it- from fishermen to sports/leisure divers and as there are no records to begin with and Fiji’s legal framework does not have specific provisions for the preservation of maritime sites and underwater shipwrecks – potential cultural sites are at great risk of being lost. The Way Forward Fiji has ratified two UNESCO Conventions on culture and heritage and is currently in the process of preparing the ratification of the Convention of the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The Fiji government is also concerned with the state and protection of Fiji’s underwater cultural heritage sites and is also supporting the need to deliberate on the 2001 Convention as soon as possible, with discussions earmarked for 2015. Networking and the involvement of key stakeholders at the local, regional and international level is necessary for this undertaking. For example, the Applied Geosciences and Technology Division (SOPAC) conducts marine geophysics surveys within the Pacific region and the Historical Archaeology Department has begun networking through dialogue to promote future collaboration once the underwater unit is successfully established. There is also a need for assistance in the form of awareness and capacity building at local and regional levels. Relevant experts from UNESCO and within the realm of the UCH fraternity are needed to provide guidance through the provisions in the convention and all local stakeholders are required to be a part of this process. Workshops need to be developed for policy makers to design the legal framework that will best capture the preservation of UCH in Fiji without neglecting the management aspect of the whole process. It is also vital to have awareness workshops taken to grass root levels. The communities will play a vital role in the success of preserving the nation’s cultural heritage therefore needs to be properly informed and be aware of the importance of preserving our heritage, whether it is underwater or on land. 12 �Conclusion Maritime sites are important to communities in that they are sacred and tied closely to cultural identities. These undocumented sites in Fiji waters hold vast amounts of information and offer enormous potential in the field of maritime and underwater cultural heritage research. Not only would this provide greater understanding of the great tales of adventure behind shipwrecks, the callous ceremonial rituals attached with the construction of a sacred canoe or the events that took place before an island or settlement vanished, it also provides the basis for safeguarding the remains of the past that now underwater. Safeguarding and preserving underwater cultural heritage is vital to maintaining connectivity between Fiji and the Pacific and the world. It is important that, in order to achieve measurable and positive outcomes in safeguarding these valuable assets, Fiji has all its policies and legislation structures grounded on a solid platform. The nomination of Levuka Town as a World Heritage Site for example took more than a decade of work and research before it was eventually listed in 2014. This process, however lengthy, has provided valuable lessons on the various procedures to follow when the time comes for Fiji to ratify the 2001 convention. Essential components such as community awareness, informing government agencies and non-government stakeholders will all be part and parcel of the process of formulating and implementing appropriate legislation, establishing an underwater unit that will work towards preserving these untold and forgotten treasures. Acknowledgements The author is thankful to the Fiji Museum management and to the Department of National Heritage, Culture and Arts for their continued support in recognizing the need to protect Fiji’s underwater and maritime cultural heritage sites. Endnote 1Fiji Museum Act (Laws of Fiji, Chapter 263). 2Preservation of Objects of Paleontological Interest Act: (Laws of Fiji, Chapter 264). References Cumming, G., 1888. At Home in Fiji. Sixth Edition, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, London. Donnelly, T., 1994. A History and Geography of Fiji, Fiji in the Pacific. Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd, Australia: 11-19. 13 �Hornell, J., 1940. Report on the Fisheries of Fiji. F. W. Smith, Government Printer, Suva, Fiji: 63-64. Hosty, K., and Hundley, P., 2001. Maritime Archaeological Investigation off the Port of Levuka, Island of Ovalau, Fiji. Australian National Maritime Museum, Sydney NSW Australia. Kleinschmidt, T., 1877. Theodor Kleinschmidt’s Notes on the Hill Tribes of Viti Levu, 1877-1878. Domodomo, Fiji Museum, Suva, Fiji. Kumar, R., 2005. Geology, climate and landscape of the PABITRA Wet-Zone Transect, Viti LevuIsland, Fiji. Pacific Science, Vol. 59: 141-157. Preservation of Objects of Archaeological and Palaeontological Interest in Laws of Fiji. Chapter 264, Government of Fiji, 1940. Government Printery, Suva, Fiji Islands: 2. 2006. Fiji Today 2004/2005. Ministry of Information, Communications and Media Relations. Fiji Embassy, Washington DC. Nunn, P., Geraghty, P., Nakoro, E., Nasila, A., and Tukidia, S., 2005. Vuniivilevu and Burotu: The Geography, Ethnography, and Hazard Implications of Vanished Islands in Fiji. People and Culture in Oceania, Vol. 21: 88-102. Nuttall P., Ledua, K., Newell, A., Vunaki, P., and Philips, C., 2012. The Drua Files: a Report on the Collection and Recording of Cultural knowledge of Drua and Associated Culture. University of the South Pacific and the Fiji Islands Voyaging Society, Suva, Fiji. Seeman, B., 1973 Viti: An Account of a Government Mission to the Vitian or Fijian Islands 1860-1861. Dawsons of Pall Mall, Folkestone and London. Tippett, R. A., 1968. Fijian Material Culture: A Study of Cultural Context, Function and Change. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 232, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Williams, T., 1858. Fiji and the Fijians: The Islands and their Inhabitants. Vol. 1, George Stringer Rowe, William Nichols, London. Biography Elia Nakoro is the Head of the History Archaeology Department at the Fiji Museum responsible for identifying, surveying, mapping, researching and providing for the protection of the maritime and historic sites of Fiji. Having worked at the Fiji Museum and on cultural heritage projects for close to a decade, Elia has vast experience in 14 �conducting desktop overviews, archaeological field assessments, archaeological monitoring programs, and salvaging excavations for the identification and protection of terrestrial cultural heritage sites as a national pre-development process and as part of a biodiversity surveys for conserving Fiji’s forests. In the foreseeable future, Mr. Nakoro hopes to be involved in establishing an Underwater Cultural Heritage Unit for Fiji towards identifying and safeguarding Fiji’s underwater and maritime sites. 15 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development Subject The topic of the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 with links to the papers presented in Session 3. Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Fiji Museum's efforts towards the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites in Fiji Description An account of the resource Fiji’s 300 isles are enclosed within a total sea area of about 1,260,000km2 of its Exclusive Economic Zone and to date very little work has been carried out on underwater and maritime archaeology. Resource materials documented by the Archaeology Department of the Fiji Museum have identified more than 500 shipwrecks, a great number of which were wrecked less than 50 years ago. The establishment of an Underwater Unit at the Fiji Museum is needed to safeguard the nation’s underwater historic sites and raise awareness towards understanding the untold sunken mysteries that connect Fiji to the world; however there are several issues that need to be addressed in order for this Unit to be established and run effectively. This paper discusses the need for further capacity building and training in Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) studies to successfully document, survey and protect Fiji’s underwater cultural sites. Furthermore, the area of developing policy papers, funding proposals and the documentation of findings will also require special attention to sustain UCH projects. Alike the other developing countries, the paper highlights the daunting challenges that face the Fiji Museum including the lack of human resources, equipment and above all insufficient funding to carry out this much needed work. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elia Nakoro, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 3 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/037e9dc1dc71edc16c2a7236b1eb78c2.pdf 93470beb85bb48c855b9ebe16eb43edc PDF Text Text Intangible Heritage Approach of Safeguarding Underwater Heritage: A Trans-disciplinary Perspective Montakarn Suvanatap 38 Navatanee, Serithai Road, Kannayao, Bangkok, Thailand Email: m.suvanatap@dunelm.org.uk Abstract This paper presents the advantages of incorporating Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) disciplines in the protection of underwater sites. The integrated safeguarding approaches can enhance professional capacity and can lead to a knowledge pool that involves more peoples and gives greater meanings to underwater heritage. The paper critically investigates contemporary policies that redefine “cultural heritage” and raises examples of local and international initiatives that link traditional knowledge to the conservation of heritage sites. Good case studies exist not only in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, but also in the continents. These successful examples imply that intangible aspects of heritage can provide more profound interpretations of value and integrity of tangible heritage, including maritime sites. Despite that, there have been very few works directly addressing intangible heritage among UCH professionals. Main works on underwater heritage protection today are still archaeology-heavy and technology-heavy, as the concern has been to keep pace with looters, environmental change and industrial threats. Managerial professionals have overlooked that understanding the existing community’s cultures can gain them stronger supports for conservation against exploitation. It is time that underwater heritage professionals explore more seriously cross-disciplinary efforts to upscale safeguarding capacity by involving bigger, grassroots communities of heritage stakeholders. Key words: Interdisciplinary approach, Intangible cultural heritage, Underwater Cultural Heritage, Community participation, Public awareness Introduction Public negligence has been determined as one of the main factors to the very real threat of deterioration of heritage sites worldwide. Working with communities is an essential praxis included in capacity-building trainings for underwater archaeologists. There is no doubt of its importance; however, it has not been prioritised in practice. Site conservation that lacks the community involvement can become inefficient and problematic. In the developing world, with the scarcity of public funds for site maintenance, and grassroots communities being prone to commercial exploitation, it is 1 �vital to ensure that public understanding of archaeological works will lead to the better protection of non-renewable cultural resources. It is incumbent on the heritage workers to not only protect the findings, but also to make their intellectual value accessible to average locals. This is indeed easier said than done. It has been perceived that maritime archaeology is a distant realm of the academia only, with little benefit filtering down to the public sector (UNESCO Bangkok, 2009). Information of archaeological projects has been limitedly shared to the public, in fear that they would be “incapable of understanding archaeological principles” (UNESCO, 2013). Low public awareness seems to lie simply within a lack of interest in benefits of conservation. For instance, while experts agree that in situ preservation is the first option to protect underwater sites for future investigations, the public view this as a loss of opportunities to enjoy the site’s legacy. Among various stakeholders concerned, local communities are affected firsthand by activities directed at heritage sites, yet rarely profited from protection schemes. On many occasions, the protection of heritage sites is considered more effective if local inhabitants are involved from the beginning of the project (UNESCO, 2013). Sites are often discovered by fishermen or offshore operators, who may also view authorities and professionals as obstacles to their benefits. By enabling these local communities to be an active part of the site’s protection, they could help monitor risks to the site, which eases the demand of professional human resource. Involving community’s local customs and culture in the communication of heritage value can relay a strong sense of stewardship to the site. This is where Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) principles come into the picture, as a tool to approach and empower communities, whilst expanding the potential to advance heritage protection. This paper explores an approach that may change the perspective of heritage professionals and managers, and enhance their capacity to work with communities. Such approach should not only contribute to better site conservation, but is also in line with the ever-expanding concept of heritage. Paradigm Shifts: From Preservation to Safeguarding, from Teaching to Exchanging Intangible Cultural Heritage encompasses oral traditions, performing arts, norms, rituals, festivals, craftsmanship and beliefs. It is what community group or, in some cases, individual, recognises as a part of their culture. In other words, these activities give them 2 �a sense of identity and continuity, thus have been transmitted for generations, continuously recreated in response to the changing socio-cultural environment (UNESCO, 2003). Seen as ‘living heritage’, ICH forms a closer relationship with the community, more so than other types of heritage. Indeed, the community can also be referred to as a landscape, in which ICH holds an important place within every individual’s life, instilling in their daily routines and influencing their rites of passage. Therefore, it is believed that by valorising the role of local knowledge holders to represent communication, the heritage professionals stand more chance to convince the community to be more open to foreign ideas (Rai, 2013). This also means local people’s perception of heritage must first be recognised. A case study in American Samoa posts an interesting question of whether “cultural properties” by the definition of indigenous people – which extends to some animal species and natural locations associated to local myths – be included in the inventory of their Underwater Cultural Heritage (Van Tilburg, 2011). Presenting animals and places as integral components that constitute and maintain cultural heritage is not a new idea. The mountainous range of Ifugao in the Philippines is seen as a cultural landscape not only for the fact that it cradles the Rice Terraces of the Cordilleras World Heritage site, but also because it keeps alive the episodic Hudhud chants of Ifugao farmers. Falconry has been inscribed as a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage element, in which a falconer’s way of life and the raptor species have been given high status in society. In protecting cultural places and animals, we can perpetuate valuable arts and traditions, and vice versa. Since the start of the millennium, international discourses have been moving towards a direction that expands the scope of heritage. This was substantiated in forums that resulted in regionally-specific procedural documents. At the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium titled “Place - Memory - Meaning: Preserving Intangible Values in Monuments and Sites”, in Zimbabwe, 2003, Mounir Bouchenaki, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture at the time, said that traditional legal frameworks and administrative measures for heritage protection were no longer appropriate to safeguard the heritage in the contemporary context. Many countries had long realised this, and revised related laws to recognise the intangible heritage. The fact that there are separate UNESCO Conventions to deal with tangible and intangible 3 �heritage may give an outward impression that heritage is divided into clear-cut subcategories with self-ruling principles to protect them. However, through fieldwork there has been a proven and consistent reflection that the archaeological conservation principles alone cannot ensure the protection of all aspects of human’s culture. Integrity and authenticity, in the context of World Heritage, do not guarantee the survival of cultural expressions that always change. Likewise, the procedures of intangible heritage usually require the preservation of instruments and places of activities in order to conduct the practices in their original socio-cultural contexts. Despite criticism that the Conventions’ impacts are heavily State-centric (Cheng, 2010), these international mechanisms at least validate that the heritage is not an evidence of a past civilisation, but a civilisation itself. Heritage protection cannot simply end with preservation of physical state of objects or places; it must involve the provision of a conducive environment for people to continue their cultural activities, despite the change of time (Lenzerini, 2011). This process has been coined “safeguarding”, as different from “preservation”. It also means that present works on heritage involve not only specialists in social and human sciences, but also the actual cultural bearers and practitioners. Bringing these stakeholders together, Shanghai Charter, convened at ICOM’s 7th AsiaPacific Regional Assembly in 2002, emboldens “interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches that incorporate movable and immovable, tangible and intangible, natural and cultural heritage” (Bouchenaki, 2003). The Charter called for the activities that support transmission of traditional knowledge, as well as the translation of ICH elements into referential forms, such as records, inventories, museums, to maintain safeguarding capacity. This implies that the human resource lies within the community. Cultural practitioners, not scholars and professionals, are to determine how the heritage should be perceived, valued and used. This changes the role of the local people from the ignorant to the experts whose experiences are lifelong. Public archaeology has become much more than simply exposing the public to products of archaeological research. The management, communication and decisions should respect and benefit the locals. The core safeguarding approach is to present community-based value of cultural properties. It promotes a rights-based approach, encouraging the documentation of cultural 4 �elements from “multidimensional perspectives” (O’Brien and Marakas, 2009) of varying groups of peoples concerned. A relevant example is the use of narratives from witnesses of historical events, or possessors of traditional skills. Until 2001, exhibitions by the New Jersey Historical Society presented native dances, jargons, jokes, culinary practices, folklores, songs and memories along with artefacts to a wide range of crowds. They altered conventional presentation of history, diversified the audiences, as well as changed collection and staffing structures. More importantly, this method helped create an “identity repository” that does not simply inform distinctiveness of an ethnic group, but also fits the individuality of the New Jerseyan to the United States’ collective history (Yerkovich, 2006). Narratives and demonstration of cultural activities and skills have become effective ways to learning, and have been applied substantially by many museums. It underscores the credence that peoples do not need permission from authorities to speak about their heritage; they fundamentally have the right and expertise to do so. The inclusion of related intangible components of a heritage increases the capacity for peoples to exercise this right. Nara Document on Authenticity (2007) addresses the need for a broader understanding of community’s role. It advances that custodianship of heritage sites should, so far as possible, stay in the hands of the community who has generated it, and whom should be empowered to carry out conservation. The document underscores the importance of respect for other cultures, other values, and tangible and intangible dimensions that form the heritage. There are, as a result, no fixed criteria to judge value and authenticity of a cultural property; rather it must be evaluated within the cultural context(s) to which it belongs. Developed at the regional workshops in Australia and French Polynesia (200809), Pacific World Heritage Action Plan (2005-15) affirms that the interconnection of tangible and intangible heritage must be realised to achieve true heritage protection. The schemes for protection “must be based on respect, understanding and maintenance of the traditional cultural practices, indigenous knowledge and systems of land and sea tenure”(UNESCO, 2009). Before the start of their permanent settlements, for example, Pacific migrants survived long inter-island journey by canoes and navigating sagacity. The pride and knowledge have been transmitted to young native 5 �generations who share ambition of their ancestors in sailing the world with simple canoes (Gardner, 1999; UNESCO, 2004; Genzand Finney, 2006). The action plan also points out a common attribute of the Pacific sub-region that their marine biodiversity and cultural heritage wealth have been managed with traditional practices. It illustrates that there is an inseparable relationship between communities, cultures and environment that underpins sustainable livelihood in these islands. Bearing in mind the community’s original capacity and mechanism to safeguard their heritage, UNESCO developed the community-based inventorying workshop that aims to bring local people into the working group to create national ICH inventories. Local people, together with governmental staffs, are trained to use recording technology, to be knowledgeable of the viability and significance of ICH in different areas and to gain consents from cultural custodians. The workshop’s focus is not simply to teach how to document cultures, but essentially to establish a platform for people of different backgrounds to exchange their experiences and devise locally appropriate approaches to assist in the identification of cultural elements to the inventory. Enforcing this working environment at the national stage will ensure that the ICH elements safeguarded and promoted by international instruments will always reflect the priorities of a civilization. This workshop has also been implemented since 2012 in various countries, in both mainlands and islands, where the issue is discussed under notion of cultural diversity. UCH beyond a Site: Adding Value through Cultural Revitalisation On many occasions, archaeologists are faced with the problem of possessing limited relevant information about a site. The criteria used for determining significance, such as physical conditions, types of found artefacts and their social or historical importance, usually remains partial, hence the reason why most professionals choose to keep it preserved in situ. Meanwhile, many archaeologists turn their attention to the relationship between cultural properties and local traditions of immediate communities, when assessing intrinsic significance, and considering the site’s interpretative value against the present cultures. The Annexes of the 2001 Convention do not specify how to integrate living cultures to underwater heritage protection. The Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia, written a few years later, does mention this particular point, suggesting a possible interconnection between approaches under ICH disciplines 6 �and the attempt to extend safeguarding ability for underwater sites. Adopted in 2005 at the ICOMOS General Assembly as an Asia-Oceania regional guideline for public, the protocol pinpoints that artifacts from underwater sites often have significant intangible aspects which should be taken into account in the conservation and interpretation. Cultural and historical values, especially in sites associated with important events, can add layers of meaning to these physical objects, and may also convey a sense of identity or continuity with current seafaring and maritime practices. Studying in situ sites that are connected to a community’s living culture or records of cultural practices can also give strong cultural interpretation and presentation of the heritage, and in doing so, can reduce the need for excavation (Engelhardt and Rogers, 2009). In other words, ICH can add dimensions to the understanding of material culture. By studying living traditions with ethnographic data collection, researchers can better understand boats and artifacts, and reveal unfamiliar aspects of the community under study (Wylie, 1985; Pham, 2012). For thousands of years, the ancient art of manufacturing traditional Iranian vessel, called Lenj, has remained relatively unchanged in terms of techniques. The wooden Lenjes were once known as the fastest ships to sail the seas, and even now can still compete with contemporary rivals. Historically used by Iranian sailors, the vessels are used today in the northern coasts of the Persian Gulf for trading, fishing and pearl diving. The sailing knowledge has traditionally been passed on from father to son. Before the arrivals of compasses, Iranian helmsmen could locate ships according to water depth and positions of the sun, the moon and the stars, using special formulae to figure latitudes and longitudes. Winds, tones of water and heights of waves could forecast weather. Music, rhythms, games and seaside New Year festival are inseparable to the Lenj sailors’ communities. However, these wisdoms and rituals are unfortunately dying away with the disappearance of the Lenjes and their builders. Due to the downtrend of long distance travelling, the need for fast, big ships is a declining truth. Moreover, the wooden materials are continually being replaced by fiberglass substitutes, proving to be cheaper and faster to work with. This has resulted in a mass reduction of wooden Lenj workshops, which can only be found on the island of Qeshm. Few skilled wooden Lenj builders mainly consist of elderly people. 7 �In 2011, the skills of Lenj building and sailing was inscribed in UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. To fulfill the requirements to be an inscribed element, a national-level safeguarding plan was developed. Financial supports from multinational sources were secured to assist in sustaining all the contributors to the ingenuity of the tradition, including the continuation of the shipcrafting community, the protection of surviving Lenjes and profound documentation of related knowledge. The safeguarding of the Iranian Lenj craft is an example of the positive State’s commitment to international ministration guarantees. But in the wider reality, what must be achieved to gain the recognition of the State and other nations to realize the heritage’s importance? An even more complicated case study presents an attempt that aims to save both the rebuilding of ancient boats and the religious worship that destroyed them. In the coastal town of Komiža, on the Croatian island of Vis, the craft skills and incineration rituals of the ancient wooden sailboats were once under threat of extinction. Komiža people have a long-standing tradition of burning dilapidated traditional boats as an annual offering to St. Nicholas, the protector of seamen. After the burning, the boat owners build new boats to replace the old ones. Nevertheless, when development came to Komiža, the demand for commercially viable boats increased. Modern-designed plastic boats have become a new replacement of the ones burnt in the ceremony, and due to their material, they cannot be practically burnt. It took a long time for people to realize that a Croatian cultural heritage was being sacrificed in vain, confirmed by the cease of new wooden boats (Božanić and Buljubašić, 2012). Soon after Cicibela, the last falkuša boat, was sunk in 1986, local enthusiasts set up a non-profit foundation called ArsHalieutica, dedicated to multidisciplinary research of Croatian boats. The foundation also raised awareness to local people, showing that protecting the old traditions could contribute to the community’s economics. The young Cicibela wreck was excavated for study. Different types of Komiža’s fishing and trading boats were recorded. Historians, ethnographers and linguists were brought in to enhance various aspects of the tradition, including the ancient fishing culture; the relation of Komiža’s incineration ritual to those of Ancient Egypt, Vikings and Portugal; and the interpretative value of the anthropomorphic life 8 �cycle of boats to the social identity of the fisherman. 10 years later, a sacrificial falkušawas set on fire at the Expo in Lisbon on St. Nicholas’ Day. It was called the success of ArsHalieutica in reviving both the material and nonmaterial aspects of this heritage. These examples prove that folk traditions, which are not by meaning the underwater heritage, should nonetheless be included in the safeguarding plan. This approach can reduce dependence on scientific investigations and lower the strain on financial and human resources. It enables the locals to share their experience with the professionals, and possibly result in the revitalization of practices that sustain the heritage in long term. Conclusion When registering the concept of interconnection between tangible and intangible heritage safeguarding principles in the context of underwater heritage, let us think outside the box of the Conventions and their Operational Guidelines. In actual practice, especially when a line separating science from culture is lacking, there is no limitation to indicate that the link between a cultural expression and a site is only physical. A site can bear social and spiritual influence to the deep-rooted worldview of a society, while sunk a thousand miles from its origin. A site may not exist in its original state at all, but instead a precise remake that possesses the emotional, spiritual or intellectual value of its predecessor. The effort in Croatia to safeguard both historical boat-building and the town’s quintessential ritual and livelihood is an obvious example. One may ask why these approaches have not been recognised well enough to form a discipline. Were the results of past undertakings not worth future investments? Or, has it simply been the lack of organisational awareness to create inter-sectoral programmes? The salutation of being included in the UNESCO Lists happens after the safeguarding has already been achieved, or once it has been under the politics-induced attention of the concerned governments. Thus, the actual start point is that the locals and the professionals agree in what is important to their society and take actions. Underwater cultural sites, from island settlers’ canoes to submerged settlements were born from the needs – religious or utilitarian – of the founding peoples. Thus, they bear socio-cultural values before they became historical or archaeological. Archaeological investigation, therefore, should not end at revealing its past functions or filling the gap in history, but should show how its 9 �presence today still answers to the current community’s needs. While we can celebrate discoveries of large imperial vessels that hold expensive masterpieces, we should not forget that there are still ‘treasures’ that exist yet have been neglected – treasures of bigger group of peoples, which can earn one not only a knowledge of the past but also how we can progress our world sustainably. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Dr Tim Curtis and Mr Ricardo Favis who inspired this research, Dr Martijn Manders and Dr Hans Van Tilburg for opportunities to publish my works. My forever gratefulness to my family and my friends for their unceasing supports. References Božanić, J., and Buljubašić, E., 2012. The Ritual of Boat Incineration in the Island of Vis, Croatia: an Interpretation. International Journal for Intangible Heritage, Vol. 7: 15-30. Bouchenaki, M., 2003. The Interdependency of the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. In The 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium ‘Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites’, 27-31 Oct 2003, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. ICOMOS, Paris: 3-7. Cheng, A. C., 2010. All in the Same Boat? Indigenous Property Rights in Underwater Cultural Heritage. Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 32 (3): 695-732. Engelhardt, R. A., and Rogers, P. R., (Eds.), 2009. Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional Guidelines for Assuring and Preserving the Authenticity of Heritage Sites in the Context of the Cultures of Asia. UNESCO, Bangkok. Gardner, D. F., 1999. Conversations with Papa Tom, Pa TuterangiAriki, Sir Thomas Davis, KBE, MD. The Construction and Voyages of the Two Replica (Pahi, Pai) Canoes of the Southern Cook Islands, Rarotonga: The Takitumu and the Te Au o Tonga (MA thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland. Genz, J. H., and Finney, B. R., 2006. Preservation and Revitalization of Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Perspective from Cultural Anthropological Research on Indigenous Navigation in the Republic of the Marshal Islands. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 5 (1-2): 306-313. 10 �Lenzerini, F., 2011. Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples. Oxford Journal, Vol. 22 (1): 101-120. Manders, M. R., 2012. Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage. In M. R. Manders, and C. J. Underwood (Eds.), Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, Bangkok: 64-82. O’Brien, J. A., and Marakas, G. M., 2009. Management information systems (9th edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston. Pham, C. M. L., 2012. Asian Shipbuilding Technology. In M. R. Manders and C. J. Underwood (Eds.), Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, Bangkok: 349-400. Rai, G. S., 2013. Community Empowerment: Heritage Conservation for All. In UNESCO, Asia Conserved II: Lessons Learnt from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation. iGroup Publisher, Seoul: 66-70. UNESCO, 1972. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2001. The Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2003. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2004. The Canoe is the People. [Compact Disc]. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2012. Traditional skills of building and sailing Iranian Lenj boats in the Persian Gulf. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2013. UNESCO Manual for activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2009. Pacific World Heritage Action Plan 2010-2015. UNESCO, Apia. UNESCO Bangkok and EIIHCAP, 2008. Safeguarding Intangible Heritage and Sustainable Cultural Tourism: Opportunities and Challenges. UNESCO, Bangkok. Van Tilburg, H., 2011. A Place to Learn: the Underwater Cultural Heritage in American Samoa. The MUA Collection. 11 �World Heritage Committee, 2007. Nara Document on Authenticity. UNESCO, Paris. Wylie, A., 1985. The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8: 63-111. Biography Montakarn Suvanatap is a communication and programme assistant for Culture Unit, UNESCO Bangkok. She has been involving in capacity-building projects for Underwater Cultural Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Her works also include planning and promoting UNESCO’s visibility at regional level. Montakarn was awarded a three-year scholarship to research on Asian arts and cultures while completing a Bachelor Degree in English Literature at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. She received a Master Degree in Museum and Artifact Studies from Durham University, UK, in 2011. Her research concerns intangible heritage, ethnographic museology and community based media designing. 12 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development Subject The topic of the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 with links to the papers presented in Session 3. Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Intangible Heritage Approach of Safeguarding Underwater Heritage: A Trans-disciplinary Perspective Description An account of the resource This paper presents the advantages of incorporating Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) disciplines in the protection of underwater sites. The integrated safeguarding approaches can enhance professional capacity and can lead to a knowledge pool that involves more peoples and gives greater meanings to underwater heritage. The paper critically investigates contemporary policies that redefine “cultural heritage” and raises examples of local and international initiatives that link traditional knowledge to the conservation of heritage sites. Good case studies exist not only in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, but also in the continents. These successful examples imply that intangible aspects of heritage can provide more profound interpretations of value and integrity of tangible heritage, including maritime sites. Despite that, there have been very few works directly addressing intangible heritage among UCH professionals. Main works on underwater heritage protection today are still archaeology-heavy and technology-heavy, as the concern has been to keep pace with looters, environmental change and industrial threats. Managerial professionals have overlooked that understanding the existing community’s cultures can gain them stronger supports for conservation against exploitation. It is time that underwater heritage professionals explore more seriously cross-disciplinary efforts to upscale safeguarding capacity by involving bigger, grassroots communities of heritage stakeholders. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Montakarn Suvanatap, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 3 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/71370ad13bac87073e6e6674f0b09da8.pdf c7baa8179255d64d143c47cb35c86169 PDF Text Text Seabee Junkyard: A holistic and locally inclusive approach to site management and interpretation Kalle Applegate Palmer University of Guam, University of Guam Marine Lab, Mangilao, Guam 96923 Email: kalleerin@gmail.com Bill Jeffery Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, South Australia Email: billjeffery@gmail.com Abstract The United States of America (U.S.) Navy’s Construction Battalion called ‘Seabees’ were born in January 1942 from the demand for a unique set of both engineering and combat skills: “We Build, We Fight”. The Seabees were instrumental in the Pacific theater, and played a significant role in rebuilding Guam. Known as the Seabee Junkyard due to the dumping of Seabee materials and equipment after the war, the site located within Apra Harbor, Guam is a popular dive site amongst local and visiting divers. Research on the significance of the site has revealed that it also represented the rapid demobilization of U.S. Navy after World War II (WW II). In July 2012, the University of Guam conducted a Nautical Archaeology Society maritime archaeology training course funded by the Guam Preservation Trust, which resulted in the material identification and surveying of the site. Further site investigations have taken a holistic and locally inclusive approach to the management and interpretation of the site. This includes non-disturbance wreck diving and underwater cultural heritage education in association with developing site preservation strategies, and compilation of a nomination to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Additional activities in promoting the site and educating the diving public will include underwater dive guides, development of a comprehensive site plan and an underwater cultural heritage trail. Engagement with various government agencies and community groups are being implemented to gauge their various levels of interest and assistance in managing and interpreting the site. Baseline environmental assessment surveys are to be conducted to determine the differences in natural communities with significant man-made substrates and those without. Further outreach proposals are being investigated to see if it can fulfill a role as an Educational and Interpretive Park. Key words: Seabees, Apra Harbor, Guam, Marianas archipelago, Micronesia Introduction Guam is the largest and most populated island of the Marianas archipelago. Exposed to European contact since the 1500’s and administered by the U.S. since 1898, the island has been heavily influenced by its colonizers. During WW II, Guam came under the 1 �possession of Japan from 1941 until 1944, at which time the U.S. rapidly developed its military facilities on the island including Advanced Base Guam. Largely responsible for this build-up were the U.S. Navy Construction Battalions, popularly known as the Seabees. With the Seabees came vast amounts of equipment required to conduct such a massive and rapid build-up. At the end of the war, equipment was arriving on island in its largest quantities (Hammer, 1947). When the war ended, men on the front and families at home demanded their immediate return. Large amounts of equipment were dumped in the jungles and oceans of Guam. One dump site known as the Seabee Junkyard contains a large and dense area of submerged equipment in seemingly good condition. The site is positioned at the end of the Glass Breakwater of Apra Harbor; of which the building was one of the highest priority projects undertaken by the Seabees upon repossession in 1944. Little is known about the specifics of when and how the equipment was dumped. Much of the material was unidentified until a July 2012 site survey. The large quantity of man-made substrate provides an opportunity to describe and monitor the natural environment in contrast to other sites lacking the unnatural substrates but with otherwise comparable environmental conditions. The site provides a unique opportunity for a first of its kind holistic management and interpretative project on Guam as it is regularly accessed by recreational divers and exposed to commercial and military activities. Sites on Guam are protected from looters and salvagers today through recent legislation, but they have been plagued by them since the end of WW II. The state of such sites is of concern on the island but difficult to manage because of the ease of access to them and lack of on-site regulatory management. The holistic management and interpretative approach would be inclusive of educational outreach, a U.S. National Register of Historic Places nomination pending the confirmation of its historical significance, as well as the establishment of environmental and site baseline monitoring. Historical Overview The Marianas archipelago is a chain of 15 islands in the Pacific which includes Rota, Saipan and Tinian. Anthropological and archaeological evidences support the biological and cultural diversity of pre-contact Micronesia from around 3,500 BCE, which includes the Chamorro group of people (Dixon et al., 2013). Ferdinand Magellan’s arrival in 1521 2 �marked the beginning of Guam’s European contact and colonization. Spain officially claimed Guam in 1565 and occupied the island until the U.S. took possession in 1898 following the Spanish, American War (Rogers, 2011). A seaplane base was established in Apra Harbor, in 1921, where the most suitable anchorage was located (Hammer, 1947) (Fig. 1). In 1938, the Hepburn report recommended Guam as a location for an advanced base, a fortified base with airfields and naval facilities that could be used to keep combatant forces on the move during future wars (Bureau of Yards and Docks, 1947). The development of Apra Harbor was prioritized, including building a breakwater along the northwest side of the harbor to protect it from exposure to the natural environment and potential attacks (Hammer, 1947). A mile of the breakwater had been completed when the Japanese bombed Guam on December 8, 1941. The attack resulted in the Japanese occupation. Advanced base work was halted (Bureau of Yards and Docks, 1947) and pre-existing U.S. documents on the island were destroyed by the Japanese (R. Glass, personal communication, 2013). Fig. 1 Apra Harbor including the location of Seabee Junkyard and Sumay Village. (Sean Newsome, 2012) 3 �Guam was liberated on July 21, 1944 and occupational a Japanese presence on the island ended officially on August 10. The liberation of Guam marked the beginning of the end for Japanese forces. Arriving with the Marines and Army Corp of Engineers were conceived to the Seabees, support combat Fig. 2 Seabees at work on Guam in the 1940‘s. (Bill Jeffery, forces while building advanced 2013) bases in military-active areas (Hammer, 1947). Seabees were organized in ‘Lions’ which provided all support needed to build an advanced base, including multiple battalions and great quantities of equipment. Lion Six, the Lion responsible for work in Guam, began movement on May 1, 1944 (Hammer, 1947). Liberation marked the beginning of a rebuilding period for Guam that resulted in the largest base west of Pearl Harbor and the second largest base in the world (Hammer, 1947). Possession of Apra Harbor was among the invasion objectives. The harbor developments resulted in the 17,000 linealfoot breakwater, 7,500,000 cubic feet of inner harbor dredging and 26,000 lineal-foot quay wall (Fig. 2). The Seabees can be credited with 75 percent of the total construction on Guam with 37,000 construction troops used in the completion of the Advanced Base Guam (U.S.N., 1946). Much of the Seabee’s work did not appear to be the product of any pre-planning and consequently was completed regardless of property lines particularly with the production of Marine Corp Drive (one of Guam’s main and longest roads) (Rogers, 2011). Much of the land used by the military was private land and was not properly rented or paid for by the military. Previous occupants of Sumay village actually remained in refugee camps during this time (Rogers, 2011). The ’Magic Carpet’ operations to get troops home began shortly after the end of the war due to demand and public outcry that forces were not needed any longer (Hammer, 1947). The result was a rapid pace and scale 4 �demobilization resulting in disorganization, misconceptions and infighting. The Truman administration sought post war foreign policy aimed at establishing economic not military power. Truman avoided the increase in deficits and military expenditures, prioritizing the balancing of the budget and ’dismantling the military machine’ (Pollard, 1985). At the time of the end of the war, Seabee equipment was being shipped out to the Pacific in its highest quantities and could not be sent back without contributing to the chaos (Hammer, 1947). As they demobilized on Guam, the Seabees dealt with their equipment by dumping tractors in the jungle and tearing roofs off storage sheds, exposing it to the elements and hastening deterioration (Hammer, 1947). Seabees ruined their material for two reasons. The first was that it was too expensive to ship home; many of the Seabee locations during WWII were very far from the U.S. mainland. The second was that not returning it home created the demand for continued production in the domestic market; returning tractors and dozers that could be re-purposed after their use in the war effort did not stimulate the economy (J. Sprengle, Personal Communication, 2013). The Seabees were among those severely reduced in the post war period. By 1946, more than half of the men on Guam had been sent home and the Naval Operating Base was falling apart (Hammer, 1947). At least thirty-one known locations of submerged material are in Apra Harbor. Among them are two Nationally Registered Historic Places (NRHP) and Guam Register of Historic Places (GRHP), Tokai Maru, a Japanese passenger-cargo freighter struck down by a U.S. submarine in 1943 and SMS Cormoran, a German ship destroyed in 1917 (Dixon, personal communication, 2013). A number of sites in the area qualify as NRHP and or GRHP but have not yet been nominated. Natural Environment Guam is 32 miles long and varies from 4 to 8 miles wide. It differs in its natural environment with a higher Fig. 3 Unidentified material at the Seabee Junkyard in 2012. (Bill Jeffery, 2012) 5 �limestone plateau occupying the northern half and red clay volcanic soil in the southern half which is vulnerable during the regular heavy rains. The island is surrounded by a reef system (Bureau of Yards and Docks, 1947). Changes in the natural environment have occurred since WW II. Apra Harbor has been predominantly used by the U.S. Navy for the naval station and naval supply depot but is also accessed commercially and recreationally. Commercial uses include the Port Authority, the Cabras power plant and recreational uses include diving, snorkeling, fishing, and jet skiing. Recreational, military and commercial activity in the area can be considered a human disturbance that may affect coral reef health. Currently, 27% of the world’s coral reefs are at high risk and 31% at moderate risk due to human disturbance (World Resources Institute, 2013). Confirmed disturbances that are factors at the Seabee Junkyard include coastal development, port installation, recreational activities, tourist facilities, and nuclear activity (Chabanet et al., 2005). The Seabee Junkyard is located at a depth of eight meters, 200 meters inside of Apra Harbor along the Glass Breakwater (Fig. 1). The site covers an estimated two acres of benthic surface area which includes four tractors, an amtrac, ten pontoon outboard motors, cranes, vehicle remains and hundreds of meters of one steel piping (Figs. 3-5). Fish found at the site can include Porcupinefish, Diodon nicthemerus; Moorish idols, Zanclus cornutus; Blue chromis, Chromis cyanea; and Yellow tangs, Zebrasoma flavescens. Invertebrates at the site may include Day octopi, Octopus cyanea; blue Linckia, Linckia laevigata; and Cnidarians including jellyfish and corals. The coral community at the site appears to differ in diversity, quantity and size from those at similar sites without material but this has not yet been confirmed quantitatively. Existing Underwater Archaeological work Since 2002, the National Park Service gave WW II sites a threatened status as a result of the ’significant deterioration, vandalism and looting’. WW II sites on Guam comprise about 20 percent of the islands submerged cultural heritage sites (Jeffery, 2013). Natural and cultural processes at submerged sites ’intermingle’ with each other and may be interpreted and managed simultaneously. Environmental processes which affect a site are specific to the environment they are located in and are inclusive of regional 6 �biology, water movement and quality (Keith, 2004). Multidisciplinary studies surrounding mid-20th century underwater cultural resource sites and the hazards to the environment are emerging. A study on the USS Arizona which was sunk during the battle of Pearl Fig. 4 One of four dozers at the Seabee Junkyard in 2012. (Bill Jeffery, 2012) Fig. 5 Unidentified material at the Seabee Junkyard in 2012. (Bill Jeffery, 2012) Harbor in 1941 was geared towards monitoring the rate of oil release into the ocean as well understanding the nature of and rate of deterioration of the vessel (NPS, 2013). Baseline monitoring was designed and completed to quantifiably assess the changes 7 �over time. Diverse disciplines of research were investigated simultaneously; each related directly or indirectly to overall project objects (Russell et al., 2004). Similarly, an Earthwatch Project in 2006-2008 was completed in Chuuk comparing reef communities, coral and fish diversity, at natural sites with shipwrecks (Jeffery, 2012). Guidelines for monitoring the natural and cultural attributes of submerged historic sites were for the National Historic Preservation Office (HPO) Federated States of Micronesia, Pohnpei (Jeffery et al., 2007). They were intended for use throughout Micronesia and aimed to promote education and training so that additional culturally significant sites could be studied using the same guidelines. Guidelines encompass maritime archaeology, marine biology, corrosion surveying, site conservation and conservation components and stress regular, locally based monitoring for the best management. The development of a database with files on each submerged site was also among the recommendations from the report (Jeffery et al., 2007). There is no existing comprehensive framework for assessing risk and managing polluting wrecks although a series of regional frameworks exist according to Landquist (2013) which sought to analyze risk assessment methods and suggest a framework for risk assessment. Factors in coral reef and resource decline include complications inhibiting abandoned vessel removal as well as vessel impact resulting from contact with reefs according to a 2003 National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration Damage Assessment Center by Smith et al., 2003. The study promotes the need for a data collection identifying abandoned vessels linked to a Geographic Information System. Risks from WW II wreck pollution exist and continue to increase. Thirteen million tons of vessels are reflected in the Pacific WW II information database that consists of 3,800 shipwrecks. Pollution results from leaking oil, fuel, chemicals and unexploded ordinance. Many of these sites are rapidly deteriorating. The Pacific Ocean Pollution Prevention Program of the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) developed a regional strategy to investigate ways of minimizing environmental damage resulting from these sites while also preserving site sanctity (Monfils et al., 2006). Creating artificial reefs by sinking de-fouled ships or other materials has been increasingly popular. The Victorian Artificial Reef Society in Australia scuttled the ex HMAS Canberra in 2005 to develop an artificial reef dive site. A biological assessment 8 �of the site conducted in 2006 established that the wreck may still be less diverse than the natural reef in the area nearby although home to multiple fish and invertebrate species. The study was intended as a baseline study for which future assessments could be compared (Schlacher-Hoenlinger et al., 2006). Project Focus In July 2012, the Seabee Junkyard was mapped and surveyed by a Nautical Archaeology Field School at the University of Guam funded by Guam Preservation Trust. The field school recommended the distribution of the site plan (Fig. 6) as well as community outreach, and further historical research to improve site interpretation and management. The site survey resulted Fig. 6 Seabee Junkyard Site Map. (Bill Jeffery, 2013) in the positive identification of WW II Seabee material at the site. Funded by Guam Preservation Trust, an intensive program of community and stakeholder engagement was conducted in July 2013. The program collected feedback on potentially renaming the site as well as further developing it as an underwater educational and interpretive park. This project is being conducted in conjunction with the program. Outcomes from stakeholder engagement included the production of educational and recreational tools for divers, tourists and community members. This project will take a holistic approach to in situ interpretation and management that incorporates the site history, site value, and environmental baseline studies of sites. This will promote protection of both the history and the environment with nondisturbance diving techniques promoted throughout the region. The easy accessibility of the site and diversity of substrates, both man-made and natural as well as its exposure to human disturbances in a relatively protected natural environment provides a unique opportunity for research, monitoring and education. Gaining a better understanding of the natural environment at the site can give insight as to the impacts of the WWII 9 �material on the environment. Studying the secondary depositional process of the salvage of a site after wreckage, predominantly by looters, which alters the archaeological record left since the primary depositional process of the actual wreckage of the material can complement interpretation of the site (Keith, 2004; Muckelroy, 1978). At the site, there is little to no material that may be lifted by hand with much of it removed by local and visiting looters (M. Beggs, Personal Communication, 2013). Local management of these sites has not been effective in preventing the extensive looting from cultural sites and damage to both natural and cultural heritage. In contrast, in Chuuk, dive guides generally help in curbing looting and there for the protection of these submerged cultural heritage sites (Jeffery, 2012). There is some legal protection in place; permits administered by Guam Historic Preservation Office are required to recover material under Title 21 (Real Property) Chapter 76 (Historical Objects and Sites). The U.S. protects the sovereignty of sunken government vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. Recovery of such craft is not allowed without permission (Federal Register, 2004). The U.S. Navy does not allow recovery or disturbance of the material nor alteration of the site which is on land managed both by either the U.S. Navy or the Guam Historic Preservation Office. Studies carried out on the Seabee Junkyard have to be approved by both entities. Methods Establishing and conducting the environmental baseline assessment requires preliminary surveys of the water column and the benthic community will be conducted. The assessment for all categories will record down to the lowest taxon possible. The water column study will be conducted using the Stationary Point Count (SPC) method which is optimal for monitoring large and mobile species. Three cylindrical areas in the research site and the control site will be assigned and fish, mobile invertebrates, and mega fauna will be tallied in the area. The cylindrical area will be five meters in diameter and data collected will reflect all fish in the entire water column with only those penetrating the area recorded for species. Surveying will start with five minutes of observation and species listing before counting for five minutes (Ayotte et al., 2011). Data collected will also include bottom current, visibility, transect depth and 10 �slope. Rugosity measurements will be made dissecting the SPC monitoring zones along a 10 m transect tape. The benthic community survey data will be collected using quadrats and line-intersect transects. Data collected will be in two parts: the substrate type, and what is on the substrate. Categories for substrate type are man-made or natural. Man-made substrates include wood, metal, plastic. Natural substrates include pavement, dead coral, sand patches, rubble, and rock. Growth on substrate may be categorized as live hard coral, soft coral, coraline algae, macroalgae, other, recently killed/dead coral, rubble, pavement, and sand. Benthic community data will be statistically analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and a Cluster Analysis, hierarchically grouping data by similarity, will be applied for the results of the SPC survey. This preliminary analysis is a question driven monitoring framework which will assist in determining the survey design (Houk and van Woesik, 2013). Conclusion In order to meet the project objective of holistically interpreting and managing the site in situ, the following outputs are being developed: U.S. National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Environmental Baseline Assessment, and development of public outreach and education including a dive map, presentations to schools and tourism operators. Research to produce a NRHP nomination for Seabee Junkyard is being conducted to ascertain the site’s historical significance. Interpreting and nominating the site promotes awareness about the lasting effects of WWII dumping, moving undesirable goods out of sight and out of mind at the likely expense of the natural environment. Revealing the site’s history helps to understand the site’s value, which may be utilized as an educational and tourism oriented asset for present day Guamanians. The baseline environmental assessment will provide a snapshot (Chabanet et al., 2005) of the site by describing the benthic community, invertebrate populations, and fish populations. Findings from the site will be compared to that of another site without material but similar conditions, depth and proximity along the Glass Breakwater. Information obtained from the assessment includes fish community descriptors, coral morphological diversity, and the ratio of dead and live standing coral on man-made as 11 �opposed to natural substrates. This comparison which is yet to be undertaken will help to understand the impact of the manmade material on the environment as well the impact of the environment on the material. Questions to be investigated also include the quantity and diversity of species at the site as well as the settlement success of coral on the man-made material. The assessment is intended to establish a method for surveillance monitoring (Houk and van Woesik, 2013) of the site that can be conducted with its continued management. This assessment would be the first of its kind conducted on submerged cultural heritage sites on Guam and can act as a model for future monitoring design on other sites on island and in the region. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge my graduate advisor, Dr. Laurie Raymundo with the University of Guam Marine Lab and graduate committee member, Dr. John Peterson, Director of the University of Guam Micronesian Area Research Center. Additional thanks to the Guam Preservation Office for funding the July 2012 underwater archaeology course resulting in the detailed survey of the Seabee Junkyard. References Ayotte, P., McCoy, K., Williams, I., and Zamzow, J., 2011. Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Standard Operating Procedures: Data Collection for Rapid Ecological Assessment Fish Surveys. Pacific Island Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-11-08, 24, accessed online 17 October 2013, <http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/admin/PIFSC_Admin_Rep_11-08.pdf> Chabanet, P., Adjeroud, M., Andrefouet, S., Bozec, Y., Ferraris, J., Garcia-Charton, J., and Schrimm, M., 2005. Human-induced physical disturbances and their indicators on coral reef habitats: A multi-scale approach. Aquatic Living Resources, Vol. 18: 215-230. Department of the Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks. 1947. Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps, 1940-46, accessed online <http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Building_Bases/index.html> 28 February 2013. 12 �Department of State, 2004. Federal Register 69-24, 5 February 2004. Federal Register online via the Government Printing Office, accessed online <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-02-05/html/04-2488.htm> 1 September 2013. Dixon, B., Gilda, L., and Mangieri, T., 2013. Archaeological Identification of Stone Fishweirs Mentioned to Freycinet in 1819 on the Island of Guam. The Journal of Pacific History, Vol. 48 (4): 349-368, DOI: 10.1080/00223344.2013.856666. Hammer, D, H., 1947. Lion Six. United States Naval Institute. Menasha, Wisconsin. Houk, P., and van Woesik., 2013. Progress and Perspectives on Question-Driven CoralReef Monitoring. BioScience, Vol. 63 (4): 297-303. Jeffery, B., Beger, M., MacLeod, I., Richards, V., Hengeveld, M., and Carpenter, J., 2007. Guidelines in Recording and Monitoring the Natural and Cultural Attributes of Submerged Historic Sites in the Federal States of Micronesia. National Historic Preservation Office Federated States of Micronesia Pohnpei, September 2007. Jeffery, B., 2012. The future of Chuuk Lagoon’s submerged WWII sites. Bulletin of the Australiasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 36: 15-30. Jeffery, B., 2013. Concept Plan, Seabee Underwater Heritage Park. Unpublished Report for Guam Preservation Trust, Hagatna, Guam. Keith, M., 2004. A Model for Studying Wolrd War Ii-era Lcms in the Archaeological Record. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 3240, accessed online <http:diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd> 12 Dec 2013. Landquist, H., 2013. Environmental risk assessment of shipwrecks: A fault-tree model for assessing the probability of containment release. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 9-3: 537-538. Monfils, R., Gilbert, T., and Nawadra, S., 2006. Sunken WWII shipwrecks of the Pacific and East Asia: The need for regional collaboration to address the potential marine pollution threat. Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 49: 779-788. Muckelroy, K., 1978. Maritime archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. National Park Service. 8 September 2013. World War II Valor in the Pacific Frequently Asked Questions, accessed online <http://www.nps.gov/valr/faqs.htm> 30 September 2013. 13 �Pollard, R, A., 1985. Economic Security and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1950. Columbia University Press, New York: 20-23, accessed online <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm> 12 September 2013. Rogers, R. F., 2011. Destiny’s Landfall: A history of Guam. University of Hawaii Press, (First edition 1995), Guam. Russell, M. A., Murphy, L. E., Johnson, D. L., Foecke, T. J., Morris, P. J., and Mitchell, R. 2004. Science for Stewardship: Multidisciplinary Research on USS Arizona. Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 38 (3): 54-63. Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M. A., Walker, S. J., Johnson, S. T.A., and Hooper, J. N. A., 2006. Final Report on Biological baseline survey of the ex-HMAS Brisbane artificial reef. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 110. Smith, A., Helton, D., and Zelo, I., 2003. Developing a Database to Support and Prioritize the Removal of Abandoned Vessels Impacting Coral Resources. International Oil Spill Conference: Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration- Perspectives for a Cleaner Environment, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, American Petroleum Institute publication No. I 4730 B: 575-578. World Resources Institute. 2013. Status of the world’s coral reefs. Washington, DC, accessed online <www.wri.org/publication/content/8354> 30 September 2013. Biography Kalle Applegate Palmer is a Master of Science student in the University of Guam Environmental Science Management Program completing her work through the Marine Laboratory. She completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning in 2006 majoring in Community, Environment and Planning and minoring in History and Finnish Language. Kalle received a certificate in Aquarium Science from Oregon Coast Community College in 2010 and has worked at Oregon Coast Aquarium, Birch Aquarium and Underwater World Guam. She is a PADI Open Water SCUBA instructor, American Academy of Underwater Sciences Certified Diver and currently working on her Level Three Nautical Archaeology Certification. Bill Jeffery has been working as a maritime archaeologist for over 30 years. Bill formulated and coordinated a maritime heritage program for a state government agency, Heritage South Australia from 1981-2001. He went onto working with the Federated States of Micronesia National Historic Preservation Office and completing a PhD in maritime archaeology at James Cook University. He is a consulting maritime archaeologist to ERM Hong Kong, the CIE-Centre for International Heritage Activities 14 �and the Hong Kong Maritime Museum and has implemented various types of archaeological and heritage management programs in Australia, the Pacific Islands, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka and various countries in Africa. He has conducted maritime archaeology field schools with the Flinders University, University of Guam and James Cook University in addition to teaching Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) training programs in nine different countries. 15 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development Subject The topic of the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 with links to the papers presented in Session 3. Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Seabee Junkyard: A holistic and locally inclusive approach to site management and interpretation Description An account of the resource The United States of America (U.S.) Navy’s Construction Battalion called ‘Seabees’ were born in January 1942 from the demand for a unique set of both engineering and combat skills: “We Build, We Fight”. The Seabees were instrumental in the Pacific theater, and played a significant role in rebuilding Guam. Known as the Seabee Junkyard due to the dumping of Seabee materials and equipment after the war, the site located within Apra Harbor, Guam is a popular dive site amongst local and visiting divers. Research on the significance of the site has revealed that it also represented the rapid demobilization of U.S. Navy after World War II (WW II). In July 2012, the University of Guam conducted a Nautical Archaeology Society maritime archaeology training course funded by the Guam Preservation Trust, which resulted in the material identification and surveying of the site. Further site investigations have taken a holistic and locally inclusive approach to the management and interpretation of the site. This includes non-disturbance wreck diving and underwater cultural heritage education in association with developing site preservation strategies, and compilation of a nomination to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Additional activities in promoting the site and educating the diving public will include underwater dive guides, development of a comprehensive site plan and an underwater cultural heritage trail. Engagement with various government agencies and community groups are being implemented to gauge their various levels of interest and assistance in managing and interpreting the site. Baseline environmental assessment surveys are to be conducted to determine the differences in natural communities with significant man-made substrates and those without. Further outreach proposals are being investigated to see if it can fulfill a role as an Educational and Interpretive Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kalle Applegate Palmer Bill Jeffery, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 3 2014