11 10 700 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 Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddha Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John N. Miksic Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Periplus Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author John N. Miksic Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990 Place Singapore Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Periplus Title A name given to the resource Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddha Southeast Asia https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/f922292752e79d078ebe19de938e1369.pdf 4e1024ff4569424e1760c102dc03a31f PDF Text Text Bottom Trawling and the Damage to Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Destruction and Possible Steps Forward Charlotte Jarvis (The Ocean Foundation, Threats to Our Ocean Heritage Project Leader) ABSTRACT Trawling has long been regarded as a damaging practice and marine ecologists have lobbied for restrictions. The damage to Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH), however, has received less attention, though it is just as consequential. This paper looks at UCH damage case studies and the impacts of heritage loss and then suggests steps forward. The case studies in the paper will include the damage to UCH across the ocean and in the Mediterranean and Black seas. Shipwrecks are as much part of the marine landscape, and thus of importance to ecologists, as they are to the cultural, historical landscape. Yet nothing has been done to seriously limit trawling and protect the underwater cultural landscape and archaeological impacts and data are missing from biological reports on the process. No underwater policies based on cultural preservation have been formulated to manage offshore fishing. There is a preferred policy for in situ preservation in the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and some practical measures for site managers to address the threats from bottom trawling but if in situ preservation is to be supported, more needs to be done. Moorings can be added and shipwrecks, if left in place, can become artificial reefs and places for more artisanal, sustainable hook-and-line fishing. However, what is needed most is for states and international fishing organisations to ban bottom trawling at and around identified UCH sites, as has been done for some seamounts. This work is part of the Threats to Our Ocean Heritage project, a UN Decade for Ocean Science approved Action discussing this issue of Trawling, Deep Seabed Mining, and Potentially Polluting Wrecks. The expected results include ocean literacy that increases awareness of the issue to a wider range of stakeholders including international organisations, states, and institutions with the authority to effectuate change. Keywords: Underwater Cultural Heritage; Bottom Trawling; Maritime Archaeology List of abbreviations Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) National Research Council (NRC) Nautical Miles (nm) Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) List of figures Figure 1: A beam trawler and an otter trawler. Figure 2: A diver examining fishing debris on a shipwreck. Figure 3: The intensity of trawling around the globe, focused in coastal regions in tonnes per kilometres squared. Figure 4: Evidence of fishermen respecting prohibited zones in Southwest Turkey. INTRODUCTION Trawling has been recognised as a catastrophically damaging practice with lasting negative consequences on seabed ecology and marine life. Less well known though are the dramatic effects trawling has also had on maritime archaeology sites. Although legislation limiting trawling may help biological communities rebound, the archaeological material lost can never be recovered. Restrictions must be passed as soon as possible to prevent further material and heritage destruction. 1 �Bottom, or beam, trawling refers to the practice of pulling a net behind a boat to catch fish. Trawling grew from a need to keep up with declining fish stocks and developed further with technological changes and increased demands, though fishermen constantly complained about the problems in overfishing it created. All three trawling revolutions—invention, mechanisation, and later deep-water expansion—have been met with controversy and pushback from the public and conservationists alike (Roberts 2008, 133). Yet nothing has been done to seriously limit the practice and protect the submerged cultural landscape. Crucially, archaeological impacts and data are also missing from biological reports and published articles on the practice. Trawling developed from the practice of fishing with a net, but that older style was more controlled. Fishermen knew what they were going to pull up each time and rarely had surprises. With bottom trawling, nets are weighted to keep them low along the sea floor and a large beam on deck spread the nets wide to increase catch. This practice of dragging nets along the bottom of the sea, according to historian Jeffery Bolster (2012), redefined the fisherman’s relationship with the fish and it became an exploitative relationship. The practice has enabled humans to both exploit the sea and destroy their own history at the same time. There is no doubt that trawling has decimated fish stocks globally and brought hardship on fishing communities. Today’s boats must work an estimated 17 times harder than in the past because there are literally fewer fish in the sea (Roberts 2012, 44). With one pass by a trawler, boulders can be displaced, large epifaunal invertebrates removed and damaged, and sediment re-suspended (Freese et al. 1999, 119). Structural components of fish habitats are removed, and biodiversity is lost. The effects have been likened to clear cutting a forest, or strip mining. This paper serves as a call for action to address the threats to our ocean heritage from the long history of the destructive activities of bottom trawling. Calum Roberts (2012, 6) writes that the ‘impacts [of trawling] are discussed in isolation and different meetings and by different people who never quite see the picture’. He is referring to different people within the marine scientific fields such as those focused on fishery sciences or pollution. His point holds true, though, with a group of people many do not consider to be ocean heritage professionals: maritime archaeologists or underwater cultural heritage professionals. Although efforts to illustrate sustainability in seafood, such as the Marine Stewardship Council stamp, may attempt to show safe fishing practices, one can never be sure of the wider harm being done, especially to UCH. Some conservationists, including Roberts (2008, 348), argue that trawling should be limited to locations where it does not harm the ecological landscape. Maritime archaeologists and marine ecologists need to communicate and work together to lobby for moratoria on trawling. Shipwrecks are as much part of the marine landscape, and thus of importance to ecologists, as they are to the cultural and historical landscape. History of Trawling First Revolution As far back as 1376, the English parliament was already worried about the destructive nature of trawling to fish populations and habitats, noting that trawling ‘runs so heavily and hardly over the ground when fishing that it destroys the flowers of the land’ and takes so many fish ‘to the great damage of the commons and the destruction of the fisheries’ (Petition by the Commons to King Edward III, 1376 seen in Bolster 2012, 235). Trawling in Europe continued sporadically through the medieval and early modern periods until the early nineteenth century when the industrial revolution pushed trawling technology further. 2 �Second Revolution By 1840, fishermen, using sail power, were already noticing depleted stocks, so changes developed out of a necessity to compensate for a declining catch. Enter steam-powered vessels, which could gather four times more fish per catch than a sailing vessel (Bolster 2012, 237). These vessels were not limited by weather and had the strength to power nets with chain reinforcements on the seafloor. This, by the end of the nineteenth century, enabled the transition to the otter trawl, where two ‘doors’ are used to open the nets easily, accommodating larger nets (NRC 2002, 14). Figure 1: A beam trawl (top) and otter trawl (bottom). (Source: Ecomare, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International) Third Revolution Arguably the most detrimental technological advance came after World War II. Factory-sized, freezer-equipped trawlers appeared and changed fishing practices. These vessels had stern ramps to accommodate larger nets and brought quick-freeze facilities, storage, and fishmeal processing machines onboard. Trawling spread to the deep sea, spearheaded by the Soviet Union but quickly growing into a global industry. The 1950s and 1960s saw the rise of echo sounders and access to areas beyond the reach of shallow trawls. But these new fishing grounds often had rough seafloors that shredded the nets. In response, an innovation was born that significantly increased the destructive power of the trawls. ‘Rockhopper gears’, up to one metre in diametre and weighing hundreds of kilos, are massive steel rubber rollers and chains attached to trawl nets, enabling them to grate flat over the seafloor, destroying everything in their path (Atkinson 2012, 16) 3 �Commercial fishermen now had the technology to send their boats out for longer, fish further away, and fish faster with larger nets (NRC 2002, 12). Eastern European nations took this to a new level, creating ‘floating towns built for the sole purpose of processing marine life into food’ (Roberts 2008, 189). Biologically productive deep seamounts became the new targets and using sonar, vessels could trawl through a large group of fish taking in 50 to 60 tons in a few minutes (Roberts 2008, 291). Today, trawling has grown to previously unimaginable rates. The nets used cut paths through the seafloor at least 100 metres wide and four stories tall, pulling in fish at staggering and unsustainable rates. Many nets are made of synthetic materials which do not break easily when snagged, allowing for higher powered vessels (Brennan 2016, 158). These nets also make up the largest portion of marine debris and plastic pollution in the ocean. With improved gear and electronics, vessels can map the seafloor, fish very close to bottom features, drag nets over rougher seafloor than before (Dorsey 1998, 2), and decimate fish populations and UCH sites across the ocean. This destruction of natural heritage has been well documented and there are some promising studies in UCH damage from trawling that will be explored next. Figure 2: A diver examines debris left from fishing gear in the Stellwagen Bank Marine Sanctuary, a nationally protected area in the United States that allows trawling and fishing within its borders. Almost all wrecks in this protected area have been impacted by trawling (Marx 2010) (Image source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, https://stellwagen.noaa.gov/protect/shipwrecks.html). 4 �CASE STUDIES Coastal Trawling and the Continental Shelf Coastal seas are some of the most ecologically productive areas with delicate plants and marine life and complex ecological systems. A 2021 report found that trawling is the most intense in the territorial (12 nautical miles (nm) offshore) seas of coastal states (Steadman et al. 2021, 5; Pauly, Zeller, and Palomares 2020) and is illustrated in figure 3. Figure 3: The intensity of trawling around the globe, focused in coastal regions in tonnes per kilometre squared (Source: Pauly, Zeller, Palomares 2020, printed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License). Coastal trawling is also particularly destructive to UCH, since it is where most known wrecks are located (Atkinson 2012, 11). For example, of the more than 100 shipwrecks in Turkish waters, 16 were observed within trawling boundaries in the Aegean Sea to quantify damage. Researchers found these wrecks with trawl scars running across the site (Brennan et al. 2012). Off the coast of Northern Italy, the Mercure wreck was discovered after historic material was found in a trawl net, and further research showed that trawling nets had spread the vessel and is artefacts across an area of 100 meters (Atkinson 2012, 53). Many wrecks in the Asia Pacific region lie in areas of heavy trawling activity and the wreck timbers have already been damaged. For example, Sten Sjostrand identified 15th- and 16th-century wrecks off the coast of Malaysia, and both were damaged by the time he returned even though the 15th-century wreck once stood 1.8 metres off the seabed (Atkinson 2012, 49). Three kilometres west of Ko Si Chang, Thailand, the Chang I wreck was found when trawl nets stuck to it during a survey in 1981, and archaeological survey markers were left behind. By the time archaeologists revisited the site in 1983, the markers were missing, likely sheared off by trawl gear (Green et al. 1986, 108). Off the coast of New South Wales, Australia, many wrecks have been impacted by scallop dredgers including the City of Launceston, Euralba, Eleutheria, the Isis, and the Lady Darling (Atkinson 2012, 53). 5 �It is not just shipwrecks being destroyed, though. Rising sea levels have put many prehistoric landscapes under coastal waters today. Among the sites worst affected by trawlers is Doggerland, a 30,000-square-kilometre area inhabited during the Mesolithic period (8,000 years ago), which is now under the waters of the North Sea. Hundreds of stone tools have been dragged up over the centuries as it has been bulldozed by trawlers (Atkinson 2012, 68). This area is a valuable example of a site that is both a paleo seascape as well as a site of past human inhabitation. Also in the North Sea, near Brown Bank, Dutch fishermen found items dating to 7200-6000 BC and near Colijnsplaat, Netherlands, when Roman alter stones were dragged up. Even a Neanderthal skull fragment has been found in this area. Off the coast of England, a Saxon period longshore post was visible at low tide, with trawl damage obvious. There are many examples of this in North America too. As a result of deglaciation and isostatic uplift, many sites of the First Americans are now covered by water. Fishermen off the coast of New England have reported findings of tools from the Middle Archaic period and off Virginia a mastodon skull and a stone biface were discovered (Atkinson 2012, 55, 56, 64, 66). Submersible surveys have also discovered shipwrecks that have already been damaged by trawlers on the Continental Shelves (12nm to 200nm from the coast and >200 m deep). In the Bulgarian Black Sea, trawling methods reach down about 100 m on the shelf (limit of trawling depth here) to catch sea snails, clams, and other benthic species and have been a significant practice for decades, unregulated by the government (Prahov et al. 2021, 748 and 749). Since 2010, surveys have been conducted to monitor the damage to wrecks, but no adequate prevention measures have been taken (Prahov 2021, 749). The issue of heritage destruction by trawling is also important to the Asia-Pacific Region because traditionally, trawling studies with UCH have focused on European and North American waters, even though roughly 50 per cent (over the last decade of available data) of all bottom trawled fish come from the continental shelf/EEZs of Asian nations or the foreign fleets of Asian countries (Steadman et al. 2021, 5). Deep Sea Trawling and The High Seas As technology improved and moved further out to the seamounts in the deep sea, more UCH sites must be protected from trawling. The deep-water sites are further from anthropocentric damage and valuable resources due to their in-accessibility. Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) technology has allowed previously impossible deep-sea (more than 200 m deep) exploration and has revealed beautiful, complex habitats. Stunning corals and rich communities are now visible, yet most already showed trawl scars and broken fishing gear. Today’s trawls can reach depths of 2000 m and everywhere scientists look they see evidence of trawling destruction and no evidence of recovery (Victorero et al 2018, 2). There is also evidence of trawl damage on deep-water wrecks off the coast of Turkey along its Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Sea shores (Brennan et al 2016). Michael Brennan’s (et al 2012, 55) work in studying wrecks in Aegean Turkish waters below diving depth, showcases the damage trawling can do and the high stakes of what is being lost. The studied sites range in depth from 82410 m deep and cover centuries of history (Brennan et al 2012, 64). In the Black Sea, Ereğli E, one of the oldest deep-water wrecks yet discovered, could have been one of the most significant wrecks ever found in the area, but by the time it was found in 2011, it had already been nearly destroyed by trawling (Brennan et al 2016, 84). In the Pacific, though New Zealand is the only main participant of deep-water trawling over seamounts in the high seas of the South Pacific, there are a handful of active vessels in the North and the existing and potential future damage done must be discussed (Thomas 2022). There are hundreds of years of history preserved on the Pacific seafloor and immeasurable quantities of intangible cultural heritage that need to be protected. 6 �FRAMEWORK The case studies and research show how bottom trawling is not only a threat to our natural heritage but are clearly a major threat to UCH. The stories of our societies and our ancestors are wrapped in intangible connection with the ocean and captured on the seafloor as artefacts, shipwrecks, and remains of those lost or buried at sea. Marine global heritage has largely been based on natural heritage. However, UCH is also ocean heritage and must be respected in the same way. Cultural heritage and natural heritage are intertwined when it comes to the ocean. UCH can support ecological marine biodiversity and helps boost sea connectivity. Natali Pearson and Benjamin Thompson (2023, 3) argue that it is beneficial for sites with high UCH and high natural heritage to cooccur and be used strategically together. Over time, shipwrecks come into equilibrium with the marine environment around them and become part of the benthic topography (Brennan 2016, 172). Trawling rapidly destroys this equilibrium, which often has been balanced for centuries (Brennan et al. 2013, 99). Shipwrecks often function as artificial reefs providing habitats, shelter, and adding hard materials to an otherwise soft seafloor. Michael Brennan’s (2016, 172 ; Krumholz and Brennan 2015) research on the Knidos shipwrecks along the Aegean coast of Turkey indicates that lightly trawled ancient wrecks with structures on the seafloor still exhibit more fish population and biomass than heavily trawled wreck sites with little or no structure remaining. Through this process of ‘spill over’, protected shipwrecks can help increase the strength of surrounding fish stocks. Shipwrecks can be as indispensable to the seafloor ecology as a natural coral reef or seamount. Thus, shipwrecks should not be viewed solely in a cultural significance context; they are part of the natural ocean landscape as well as our cultural history. RESULTS The results of this paper are a suggestion of steps forward. Underwater policies formulated to manage offshore fishing based on cultural preservation are lacking. Some trawling restrictions were placed after backlash in the 1990s when ecologists and fisheries experts, well aware of the dangers of trawling, lobbied for more restrictions. This research and advocacy for regulation are a good start. There is a preferred policy for in situ preservation by archaeologists and historians codified in the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage but some practical measures for site managers to address the threats from bottom trawling are needed. If in situ preservation is to be supported, moorings should be added for shipwrecks that are destinations for ecocultural tourism. As artificial reefs they may be appropriate places for more artisanal, sustainable hook-and-line fishing. However, what is needed most is for states and international fishing organisations to ban bottom trawling at and around identified UCH sites, as has already been done for some seamounts. Most importantly, trawling damage should not be allowed as a justification for salvage. The author recognises that these results cannot be achieved without the voice and support of the fishing community. Wrecks, however, also present problems to fishermen. When nets snag, gear is lost or ruined and can be costly to replace. Shipwrecks can also endanger the lives of those onboard vessels. In Britain from 1976 to 2005 around 16 vessels capsized after gear was snagged on obstructions and many lives were lost (Atkinson 2012, 3). Although some shipwreck sites have only been found because of fishermen’s reports, there is no requirement for fishermen to do so. Collaboration and partnership between archaeologist and fisherman is needed and archaeologists must understand the context fishermen operate in to communicate effectively (Brennan et al. 2012, 62; see Figure 4). 7 �Figure 4: Evidence of fishermen respecting prohibited zones in Southwest Turkey: dark grey area shows a zone where trawling is prohibited, dots show visible trawl scars on the seabed (Source: Brennan et al. 2012, 62 reprinted with permission). What we do with trawling can pave the way for other important ocean exploitation. Climate change will continue to threaten our oceans (for example, sea-level-rise sinking previously terrestrial sites) and we know ecologically why it is important to protect the ocean. While there are many unknowns in deep sea biodiversity and ecosystem services, what we do know clearly points to vast and far-reaching damage. In other words, we know enough from existing trawling damage that tells us we should stop similar practices, like seabed mining. We cannot predict undiscovered historical significance. Trawling is a clear and present threat not only to fish populations and habitats, but also to submerged cultural landscapes. There should not be a choice between humans and the natural world. Restrictions such as the options above, must be passed as soon as possible to prevent further material and heritage destruction. Acknowledgements Thank you to The Ocean Foundation, The Lloyd’s Register Foundation Heritage and Education Centre, ICOMOS-ICUCH, and Ocean Decade Heritage Network for their support of this paper and the Threats to Our Ocean Heritage project. Thank you to Mark Spalding, Ole Varmer, Alexandra Refosco, Michael Brennan, Jim Delgado, Louise Sanger, and Ben Ferrari for their help developing the ideas that are reflected here. Thank you to Claire Zak and Sheri Kapahnke for hosting a session and a dynamic discussion on Coastal UCH sites at the EAA meeting in 2022 that sparked the idea to pursue this research. 8 �Bibliography Atkinson, Christopher Michael. “Impacts of Bottom Trawling on Underwater Cultural Heritage”. Master’s Thesis, Texas A&M University, (2012). Bolster, W. Jeffrey. The Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail. Cambridge, Mass. London: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2012. Brennan, Michael L., Robert D. Ballard, Chris Roman, Katherine L.C. Bell, Bridget Buxton, Dwight F. Coleman, Gabrielle Inglis, Orkan Köyağasıoğlu, and Tufan Turanlı. “Evaluation of the Modern Submarine Landscape off Southwestern Turkey through the Documentation of Ancient Shipwreck Sites.” Continental Shelf Research 43 (2012): 55–70. Brennan, Michael L., Dan Davis, Chris Roman, Ilya Buynevich, Alexis Catsambis, Meko Kofahl, Derya Ürkmez, J. Ian Vaughn, Maureen Merrigan, and Muhammet Duman. “Ocean Dynamics and Anthropogenic Impacts along the Southern Black Sea Shelf Examined through the Preservation of Pre-Modern Shipwrecks.” Continental Shelf Research 53 (2013): 89–101. Brennan, Michael L. “Quantifying Impacts of Trawling to Shipwrecks.” In Site Formation Processes of Submerged Shipwrecks, edited by Mathew E. Keith, 157-178. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2016. Brennan, Michael L., Dan Davis, Robert D. Ballard, Arthur C. Trembanis, J. Ian Vaughn, Jason S. Krumholz, James P. Delgado, et al. “Quantification of Bottom Trawl Fishing Damage to Ancient Shipwreck Sites.” Marine Geology 371 (2016): 82–88. Freese, Lincoln, Peter J. Auster, Johnathan Heifetz, and Bruce L. Wing. “Effects of Trawling on Seafloor Habitat and Associated Invertebrate Taxa in the Gulf of Alaska.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 182 (1999): 119–26. Green, Jeremy, Rosemary Harper, and Vidya Intakosi. “The Ko Si Chang One Shipwreck Excavation 1983-1985. A Progress Report.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 15, no. 2 (1986): 105–22. Krumholz, Jason S., and Michael L. Brennan. “Fishing for Common Ground: Investigations of the Impact of Trawling on Ancient Shipwreck Sites Uncovers a Potential for Management Synergy.” Marine Policy 61 (2015): 127–33. Marx, Deborah. “Fishing Threatens Historic Shipwrecks.” INA Quarterly 36(4) (2010): 8. National Research Council (U.S.) (NRC), ed. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 2002. Pauly, Daniel, Zeller, Dirk, Palomares, Deng. Editors. Sea Around Us Concepts, Design and Data, 2020. seaaroundus.org. Pearson, Natali, and Benjamin S. Thompson. “Saving Two Fish with One Wreck: Maximizing Synergies in Marine Biodiversity Conservation and Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection.” Marine Policy 152 (2023): 105613. Prahov, Nayden, Bogdan Prodanov, Kalin Dimitrov, and Kiril Velkovsky. “The Negative Impact of Human Activities on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Case Studies from the Bulgarian Black Sea Littoral.” (2021): 743-750. Roberts, Callum. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington: Island Press, 2008. Roberts, Callum. The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea. New York: Viking, 2012. Steadman, Daniel, John Thomas, Vanessa Villanueva, Forrest Lewis, Daniel Pauly, M.L. Palomares, Nicolas Bailly, et al. New Perspectives on an Old Fishing Practice: Scale, Context and Impacts of Bottom Trawling, 2021. Thomas, Karli. “New Zealand’s Bottom Trawling Isolation Continues in the South Pacific.” Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, September 29, 2022. https://savethehighseas.org/2022/09/29/new-zealands-bottom-trawling-isolationcontinues-in-the-south-pacific/. Victorero, Lissette, Les Watling, Maria L. Deng Palomares, and Claire Nouvian. “Out of Sight, But Within Reach: A Global History of Bottom-Trawled Deep-Sea Fisheries From >400 m Depth.” Frontiers in Marine Science 5 (2018). 9 � 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 2023 Session 13: Major Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage Subject The topic of the resource Papers presented at Session 13 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Description An account of the resource Session 13 papers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage 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 Bottom Trawling and the Damage to Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Destruction and Possible Steps Forward Description An account of the resource Trawling has long been regarded as a damaging practice and marine ecologists have lobbied for restrictions. The damage to Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH), however, has received less attention, though it is just as consequential. This paper looks at UCH damage case studies and the impacts of heritage loss and then suggests steps forward. The case studies in the paper will include the damage to UCH across the ocean and in the Mediterranean and Black seas. Shipwrecks are as much part of the marine landscape, and thus of importance to ecologists, as they are to the cultural, historical landscape. Yet nothing has been done to seriously limit trawling and protect the underwater cultural landscape and archaeological impacts and data are missing from biological reports on the process. No underwater policies based on cultural preservation have been formulated to manage offshore fishing. There is a preferred policy for in situ preservation in the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and some practical measures for site managers to address the threats from bottom trawling but if in situ preservation is to be supported, more needs to be done. Moorings can be added and shipwrecks, if left in place, can become artificial reefs and places for more artisanal, sustainable hook-and-line fishing. However, what is needed most is for states and international fishing organisations to ban bottom trawling at and around identified UCH sites, as has been done for some seamounts. This work is part of the Threats to Our Ocean Heritage project, a UN Decade for Ocean Science approved Action discussing this issue of Trawling, Deep Seabed Mining, and Potentially Polluting Wrecks. The expected results include ocean literacy that increases awareness of the issue to a wider range of stakeholders including international organizations, states, and institutions with the authority to effectuate change. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Charlotte Jarvis Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Language A language of the resource English Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Jarvis, Charlotte . 2023. “Bottom Trawling and the Damage to Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Destruction and Possible Steps Forward.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Ole Varmer. In Proceedings of Fifth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Gwangju, The Republic of Korea, November 13-18 2023. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology. URL: https://apconf.omeka.net/exhibits/show/apconfproceedings/item/1904 Asia-Pac Session 13 2023 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 Breaking Barriers: Travel and the State in Early Modern Japan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Constantine Nomikos Vaporis Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Harvard University Asia Center Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995-03-01 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Constantine Nomikos Vaporis Item Type Book ISBN 0674081072 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995-03-01 Library Catalog Amazon.com Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Harvard University Asia Center Short Title Breaking Barriers Title A name given to the resource Breaking Barriers: Travel and the State in Early Modern Japan Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/2f428ce172ad827bfcc08494294bc0a7.pdf 36e031a1f961d02d6732ae13bd4aafe6 PDF Text Text Bringing Asia to the World: Public Outreach via the Museum of Underwater Archaeology Michelle Damian Abstract The most fascinating explorations of underwater cultural heritage lose much of their value if the information gathered is not disseminated to a wide audience. While much of our public outreach has traditionally come from publications and conference talks, the Internet has become the fastest way to reach the greatest numbers of people. Though technology for website creation has become easier in recent years many archaeologists lack the time and expertise, not only to create web sites, but also to promote them in ways that will reach the widest possible audience. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology (MUA)’s mission is to assist and promote the use of the Internet by ethical professional, student, and avocational underwater archaeologists. This paper will focus on the various methods the MUA uses to present different projects, with a special spotlight on our Asian sites. It will also highlight ways to connect what is on the screen to actual hands-on experiences through different classroom-based teaching resources developed by the museum. Introduction As archaeologists we are responsible for disseminating information about the projects we conduct. Unfortunately those ideas are often pushed aside in the excitement of digging a new site. The often-heard lament is that archaeologists like to be in the field, but are less inclined to publish their findings. The nonprofit Museum of Underwater Archaeology (MUA) was founded in 2004 in an effort to combat this problem (http://www.themua.org). Our mission statement is to assist and promote the use of the Internet by ethical professional, student, and avocational underwater archaeologists, encouraging archaeologists at all levels to circulate information about our craft. From the outset the MUA has tried not to focus on one particular nation or territory. Although it was founded in the United States it has sought to provide global coverage of underwater archaeology and to that end has made concerted efforts to introduce its audience to projects outside of the western hemisphere. We have an established audience: to date we have had over one hundred sixteen thousand views from over ninety countries on the main page, let alone all of the individual projects and subposts throughout the site. We do not charge any fees, but make our services available for free to all ethical archaeologists. The Asia-Pacific region is of particular importance to the MUA. The underwater cultural heritage of this area includes some of the most significant shipwrecks in human history and so requires due attention, preservation, and curation. The MUA seeks to assist underwater archaeologists working within this region with their public outreach efforts. This paper will discuss not only the publishing options available on the MUA website but also our past efforts within the AsiaPacific territories included in this conference. Our hope is to provide greater coverage and assistance to the conference attendees in the future. �There are numerous benefits to posting one’s research online. First and foremost is the need to publish our findings for the general public as well as our professional colleagues. The best discovery is meaningless if the information remains unavailable, locked away on a dusty shelf in a small office. A typical archaeological investigation publishes results through a journal article or two, or perhaps in a presentation at a conference. That results in a highly limited, specialized audience. Conversely, online publishing can reach a worldwide audience literally at the click of a button. Promoting this information helps draw greater numbers of viewers to our projects, in turn hopefully increasing interest in preserving our underwater cultural heritage. Posting project reports online for a general audience can also be helpful to the individual authors. I have posted my own research as a project journal on the MUA, and I as well as other authors have been fortunate enough to gather additional information from readers who contribute their own observations. While those comments can occasionally be somewhat off-topic, often readers will provide helpful information or suggestions for further research. The internet allows us to connect with others whom we may never have reached otherwise. On a very pragmatic level, particularly for students and young archaeologists, it also helps to increase name recognition. My own research as posted on the MUA has been seen by over seven thousand people, and in the “real world” I have encountered archaeologists working on projects as diverse as Confederate submarines or American government preservation projects who have read my Asia-related work on the MUA. It is highly unlikely that our paths would have crossed in any other way. MUA Presentation Styles The MUA’s presentation formats consist of three major categories as well as several experimental designs. The most in-depth category is museum exhibits, generally focusing on a detailed presentation of a single site or concept. Based on the idea of a brick-and-mortar museum, exhibits consist of several “galleries,” similar to walking into a room of a museum. Within each gallery are a number of clickable links, representing the “artifact cases” of a traditional museum exhibit. MUA exhibits most often consist of three galleries, usually focusing on the history, methodology, and findings of an archaeological investigation. Each gallery might have anywhere between five and twelve links, allowing the archaeologists to introduce numerous aspects of the site. While at present there are no exhibits focusing on an Australasian maritime site, the MUA is eager to develop one with a partner from the region. The exhibit format is not limited to site-specific topics, but is also used to explore more conceptual frameworks. The two best examples of this are the “Raising the Fleet” and the “Children’s Introduction to Underwater Archaeology” exhibits. The former highlights the synthesis of science with art. In the project director’s words, “the exhibit team used their artistic talents and scientific expertise to develop new and exciting methods of exploring the underwater frontiers of Lake George, New York, USA” (Zarzynski, et al. 2010). This not only �brought a new perspective into the archaeology of Lake George, but it also broadened the appeal of the site to artists and scientists as well. Similarly, the “Children’s Introduction” was designed to target the younger generation, teaching the basic steps of any underwater archaeological investigation. This exhibit incorporates interactive exercises encouraging the viewer to solve problems or explore the tools of maritime archaeology (Knoerl and Damian 2006). Neither exhibit is limited to a particular geographic locale, but encourages a topical approach to the concepts introduced. Project journals also highlight one site or project, but are less structured than the exhibit galleries. They are generally conducted in “real time,” following an individual or group throughout the course of a project in a bloglike format. This type of MUA submission is most often utilized in a field school or student project, though it is not restricted to those submissions. Through periodic updates for projects spanning anything from two weeks to several years, the audience follows along with the archaeologists on their investigations. We are fortunate to have several Asia-based project journals, including a survey by the USA-based company Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (SEARCH), of World War Two landing sites in Saipan. The SEARCH team worked in conjunction with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Historic Preservation Office in Partnership with the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, to identify and record magnetic anomalies along Saipan’s coastline. SEARCH also used their project journal to appeal to the general readership for additional information about the invasion as well as for insight into some of the artifacts found (Burns and Krivor 2008). Our most common form of project journal is conducted in conjunction with training projects. Particularly in teaching underwater archaeology, many instructors are likely to focus on mapping, research, and technologies used for a project. Dissemination of information often gets short shrift in the classroom. The project journal format offers a way to incorporate public outreach and publication into the field experience itself. Assigning students entries in a project journal reinforces the need to present the work to a variety of audiences. The success of the first university field school project journal, done by East Carolina University in 2006, prompted Flinders University in Australia to incorporate the same training for their students. Two consecutive field schools in 2007 and 2008 showcased students learning maritime archaeological techniques and crafting journal entries that described their daily activities in an entertaining and informative manner (Flinders University 2007). The UNESCO Project on Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Asia and the Pacific is another Asia-based example of the field school project journal. This enterprise, conducted in Sri Lanka, trained the future trainers of maritime archaeology. Fourteen maritime archaeologists and conservators participated in a two-week series of lectures and fieldwork for the long-term goal of protecting Sri Lankan maritime heritage. This journal highlights international cooperation as well, as instructors came from within Sri Lanka, India, Japan, and Australia (Khan, et al. 2008). The various perspectives from within Australasia are brought together in this type of collaborative field school project journal. �Figure 1. Sample page from the Sri Lanka field school project journal (Sanath 2008) A third variant of project journal focuses on student research, chronicling a single graduate student’s advanced research. This is exemplified in our final example of an Asian-based project journal, my own master’s program research at East Carolina University. My project focused on examining representations of Japanese wooden boats in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a topic that has gone almost entirely unstudied in Western scholarship. As such, resources were scarce, and I wanted both to cast a wide net to gather information and to promote this topic to an audience that was likely largely unfamiliar with Asian maritime history (Damian 2005). These types of projects are a fantastic chance for individual students to promote their own research as well as disseminate information about their studies. The versatility of this format is apparent, as fully half of all the MUA’s project journals are Australasian-based, and have been produced by students, professionals, non-profits, and instructors. The third major category of MUA presentation is the “In the Field.” These are brief entries, usually only a page or two of text with three or four illustrations. This type of entry is ideal for shorter projects or for those individuals or groups who want to introduce their work to a global audience via the MUA. We have several Australasian In the Fields that showcase a variety of topics. Warang Petch, a student at Silpakorn University, Thailand, wrote about overcoming the �challenges of obtaining underwater archaeology training in an area with no formal university program (Petch 2007). An Australian avocational group, the Pericles Research Group, described the history of the White Star Line’s SS Pericles and their work mapping its wreck (Pericles Research Group 2006). The chronicle of the General Harrison, written by James Delgado, is based in San Francisco and is at first glance not an Asian story. Through reading this post, however, we learn about the Chinese diaspora, as Delgado describes the evidence of Chinese workers in Gold Rush era California (Delgado 2010). An even more dramatic tale of Chinese emigration is evident in posts by Dione Chen on the Free China, an early 20th-century Chinese junk that crossed the Pacific and is desperately awaiting preservation in a California shipyard today (Chen 2009). These relatively brief posts are wonderful examples of different manifestations of Australasian maritime archaeological and historical issues. Figure 2. "In the Field" post calling for preservation of a Chinese junk (Chen 2009) The MUA is also exploring other presentation methods. Recent innovations include the periodic Guest Blogger, which invites leaders in the field to discuss key topics and concerns in maritime archaeology. This conference has been highlighted in the guest blog by Mark Staniforth, and in August 2011 another Pacific Rim country was featured for the first time as Peruvian �archaeologist Carlos E. Ausejo submitted a state of the field report. We also have begun creating online posters that incorporate a number of pictures into a zoomable poster-style presentation, allowing for a variety of images and videos to be visible on the same page. Flinders University’s most recent field school posting from 2010 is presented in this way (Flinders University 2010). We draw our contributors from all levels of archaeology, so long as those archaeologists subscribe to the Code of Ethics as put forth by the USA-based Society for Historical Archaeology. Each post undergoes minimal editing for grammatical clarity, and although the MUA reserves the right to edit content, we strive to maintain the integrity of the original authors’ words and formats. Additional Outreach A final step in the MUA’s outreach includes moving out of the online realm and into the classroom. At present there are over three hundred pages of content on the MUA, by over seventy archaeologists from six continents. This represents an invaluable collection of information about sites and projects from a myriad of perspectives worldwide. In the online world, however, people want new, updated content constantly, often relegating previous posts to obscurity. This does not negate the validity and importance of those earlier contributions, though. To maintain the current relevance of all of the posts online, we work to use that information in other ways as well. We feel that students especially can benefit from our contributors’ experiences, and have targeted younger students in some of our outreach efforts. Our flagship student outreach program includes the classroom kit, “Holding History in Your Hand,” based loosely on the framework outlined in the Children’s Introduction to Underwater Archaeology exhibit (MUA 2008). We have gathered materials for teachers to use in the schoolroom, including a written curriculum presenting the six steps of the archaeological process, replicas of artifacts for examination, videos, a sidescan sonar slideshow, and other activities for further exploration. The lesson plan familiarizes the teacher with the items and information in the kit, and allows them to teach their classroom about the basic steps of a maritime archaeology project. In order to make this kit as easily available as possible, we only charge a shipping and handling fee; no money is collected for the kit itself. To date it has been widely distributed throughout the world including numerous kits sent to western Australia and the Republic of Korea. The most critical step in the program is the artifact analysis, in which students are each given an “artifact” similar to one they might find on a shipwreck site – beads, buttons, plain and decorative ceramics, bone, glass, coins, brick, and more. Students are encouraged to examine their artifact for clues as to where it might have come from, what its function was, and whether it was manmade or natural. The teacher then posits several questions to encourage the students to think about the fictitious wreck site. Who might use a fancy pottery piece? What if there are a lot of plain ceramics and fewer fancy pieces? Where is the coin from? What might the marks on the bone mean? Through examining the �artifacts and questioning the relationship between them, students recognize that we are not only investigating the objects, but more importantly are learning about the people associated with the wreck site. Figure 3. Students examine a replica "artifact" as part of the classroom kit artifact exercise. Photo by author, 2005. This process also encourages students to recognize the importance of provenience and site preservation. When the students have thought through the ramifications of the presence of the various objects, we then suggest that they consider what happens in their absence. Perhaps they have decided that a site with a large amount of decorative ceramics may have been a trade ship, sunk on the way to deliver its wares. We then ask them to imagine the consequences of sport divers on a site, one by one each taking away a piece of those ceramics as a souvenir – and giving the archaeologist fewer clues to work from to understand the history of the ship and its people. Invariably the students, having just gone through the reasoning process themselves, are shocked and saddened to think that we may no longer have the tools to piece together the ship’s story. Instilling these ideas at a younger age will help the next generation be more concerned about preserving our maritime cultural heritage. As an additional follow-up to the classroom kit, we also provide online “learning paths” for students and teachers who may want to further explore particular topics or the MUA as a whole. The original MUA learning paths were divided by age group, with a designated page that asked additional ageappropriate questions and suggested links within the MUA that addressed the �answers. Students are encouraged to read the linked pages to draw their own conclusions. This again allows older content to remain fresh and in use, even if the posts themselves are several years old. We are excited to announce the first of our regional-based learning paths, highlighting thematic approaches to some of the issues discussed in the Asian projects on the MUA. Using posts from the Pacific and Indian Oceans, we encourage readers to consider topics ranging from maritime archaeological training, to Asian ship construction, problems in interpreting evidence, remnants of war, and the Asian diaspora. We hope to continue to add to these learning paths with additional contributions to the MUA. Finally, we have also created a pdf compilation of the first year of guest blogger posts, containing contributions from eminent archaeologists such as James Delgado, Joe Flatman, Felipe Castro and more. Taken together these essays become an excellent introduction to the state of the field and would be a useful learning tool particularly in an undergraduate class on maritime archaeology. Conclusion We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the MUA at this first Asia-Pacific conference on maritime cultural heritage, and hope to be able to increase our service here in Asia and the Pacific. We strongly encourage anyone interested in promoting their work on the MUA to contact us. We also welcome additional volunteers who may be willing to help us expand our offerings. Please do not hesitate to contact us with additional questions, suggestions, or potential posts. We look forward to continuing to work to make information about our global maritime cultural heritage available at the click of a button to archaeologists, the general public, and students throughout the world. Bibliography (NOTE: All the Websites listed here are hosted on the Museum of Underwater Archaeology webpage address) Burns, J., and Krivor M., 2008 Chen, D., 2009 Damian, M., 2005 Delgado, J., 2010 Flinders University Underwater Archaeology Invasion Beaches Survey 2008: Plane Wrecks, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/saipan/saipan_55.shtml A Junk At Risk, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/in_the_field/junk.shtml Japanese Wooden Boats in Woodblock Prints: A Research Project Journal, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/aj/aj_intro.shtml A Long Forgotten Buried Ship, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/in_the_field/jd2.shtml Flinders University Field School in Underwater Archaeology, Viewed 12 October 2011. �2007 and 2008 Flinders University 2010 Khan, A. et al. 2008 Knoerl, T. K., ed. 2010 Knoerl, T. K., and Damian, M., 2006 The Museum of Underwater Archaeology 2008 Pericles Research Group 2006 Petch, W., 2007 Sanath, W. K. Zarzynski, J., Bowser, S., and Mossop, E., 2010 http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/flinders/flinders_intro .shtml Flinders University’s Streaky Bay and Sceale Bay: Field School February 2010, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/posters/flinders2010.html UNESCO Training Project Journal, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/un/un_intro.shtml. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Guest Blogger Anthology. Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/documents/MUA_Guest_Blogger_An thology.pdf A Children’s Introduction to Underwater Archaeology, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/HTMLTEST/childrens.htm. Teaching Resource, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/teaching.html Initial Investigation of the SS Pericles, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/pericles.html Underwater Archaeology Training Project: Hin Bush Shipwreck Site, Rayong, Thailand, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/in_the_field/thai.html End of the Earl, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/un/un4-5.shtml Raising the Fleet: An Art/Science Initiative, Viewed 12 October 2011. http://www.themua.org/raisingthefleet/index.php �� 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 Bringing Asia to the World: Public Outreach via the Museum of Underwater Archaeology Subject The topic of the resource Session 10 Technology and Underwater Cultural Heritage Description An account of the resource The most fascinating explorations of underwater cultural heritage lose much of their value if the information gathered is not disseminated to a wide audience. While much of our public outreach has traditionally come from publications and conference talks, the Internet has become the fastest way to reach the greatest numbers of people. Though technology for website creation has become easier in recent years many archaeologists lack the time and expertise, not only to create web sites, but also to promote them in ways that will reach the widest possible audience. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology (MUA)’s mission is to assist and promote the use of the Internet by ethical professional, student, and avocational underwater archaeologists. This paper will focus on the various methods the MUA uses to present different projects, with a special spotlight on our Asian sites. It will also highlight ways to connect what is on the screen to actual hands-on experiences through different classroom-based teaching resources developed by the museum. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michelle Damian Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 10 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 Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tansen Sen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawai'i Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Tansen Sen Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 Place Honolulu Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawai'i Press Title A name given to the resource Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 China India https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c10727548255ef684893c8b5fb14df5e.pdf f8bbc7114ce6f4f7c858cd4eff06ebe4 PDF Text Text Building Capacity in the South West Pacific – The Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association Andrew Viduka PhD Student University of New England akudiv@gmail.com Abstract: The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy administers the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 and the National Historic Shipwrecks Program. This Program enables the Department to work with the States, the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island to protect historic shipwrecks. With the wealth of maritime history on Norfolk Island and the strong associations with Pitcairn Island, the potential for involving the broader community in documenting and protecting Norfolk Island's wonderful maritime heritage is significant. In 2010, at the request of the Norfolk Island Delegate, the first in a series of community focussed capacity building activities in maritime archaeology was conducted on the island. These activities resulted in the creation of the Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association (NIMAA), Australia's newest maritime archaeology association. This paper briefly outlines the history of maritime archaeological associations in Australia and their engagement with management agencies. As a case study for other small island communities, the paper highlights some of the activities of NIMAA since its creation, issues faced for participants and the management agency and the potential for NIMAA into the future. Key words: NIMAA, Norfolk Island, maritime archaeology associations, public archaeology, community engagement, historic shipwrecks Introduction The management of shipwrecks in Australia balances protecting historic shipwrecks with maintaining public access for recreational, scientific and �educational purposes. Objectives of the 1983 Historic Shipwrecks Program (HSP), the vehicle to coordinate the national collaborative administration of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (the Act), include: the support of an informed public for historic shipwrecks as a cultural resource; undertaking fieldwork including shipwreck survey, excavation and monitoring; and community engagement (Viduka, 2012). This provision has been echoed in Article 20 of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Of Australia’s approximately 7500 - 8000 protected Historic Shipwrecks, 23 lie within protected or no-entry zones without permit (Historic Shipwrecks Protected Zones 2017). The remaining sites can be dived without permit if that activity does not cause damage, disturbance or removal of material from the site. Divers are encouraged and can use wreck sites for recreational purposes but the physical fabric of the wreck must not be disturbed and relics must not be removed from the site without a permit (Viduka, 2015). Due to the small number of professional maritime archaeologists and the vast amount of coastal waters around Australia, it has always been obvious that little can be done by the professional maritime archaeological community alone to: locate; document; assess the significance of; monitor; protect; stabilise and research this large distributed assemblage. A core reality of underwater cultural heritage management in Australia is that community support and community participation in the monitoring or discovery of vessels is critical to achieving the objectives of discovering and protecting underwater cultural heritage. To support such an outcome, strong community based programmes that improve the public’s access to, knowledge and enjoyment of their underwater heritage is vital (Hosty, 1987; McCarthy and Garrett, 1998; Nutley, 1998; Smith, 2006; Styne, 2010; Viduka and Raupp, 2008). �Management agencies around Australia have developed a range of different communication and engagement strategies to facilitate public access and inform the public of their heritage. These strategies include: online databases (with detail on the history, location and diving conditions of each site) (NSW Maritime Heritage Database, 2017; WA Shipwrecks Database, 2017; Vic Heritage Database, 2017; SA Shipwrecks Database, 2017; Australian Government Shipwrecks Database, 2017); websites, brochures, posters and books (Nash, 2007; Henderson, 1986 and 2016); accurate historical and site data provided to commercial dive charter industries; community based interactive programs (NSW Wreckspotters, 2015; Queensland Survey, 2015; Viduka and Raupp, 2008); and the development of dive trails (Philippou and Staniforth, 2003). A fundamental element in the strategy of promoting community participation is the development and support for vocational maritime archaeology groups. Maritime Archaeological Associations in Australia Australian management agencies initially put significant time and resources into fostering the establishment of local maritime archaeological associations. The 1994 Australian Government Guidelines for the Management of Australia’s Historic Shipwrecks includes details on how to foster and support the development of archaeological associations. The 1996 Australian Government Public Access Guidelines, specifically state that community groups can undertake disturbance activities subject to meeting specific criteria in training in maritime archaeology. This extended to private and public groups and institutions including local historical and archaeological societies, regional community museums and affiliated groups under the direction of a person qualified in maritime archaeology (Australian Government, 1996). �Given the strong contemporary policy framework in Australia limiting the granting of permits for the recovery of relics by private individuals or groups without conservation and collection management resources, many community groups, often known as Maritime Archaeological Associations, focused their activities into locating shipwrecks and or survey of known resources. Many of these groups were instrumental in a jurisdiction being able to undertake more extensive fieldwork activities, such as excavation, but under the direction of a qualified maritime archaeologist. Over time, many of these associations not only planned and undertook their own research, but also became the backbone of their jurisdiction’s fieldwork program, supplying divers with: practical, historical and nautical knowledge; a vast depth of diving experience; boat handling skills; medical and safety skills; and training in archaeological methodology. Notable amongst these groups is the Maritime Archaeological Association of Victoria (MAAV, 2017) and the Maritime Archaeological Association of Western Australia (MAAWA, 2017). The relationship between management agency and community group was so symbiotic, that at times, the strength of a jurisdiction’s management was indicated by the activity of the local community group. Other maritime archaeological associations existed in: South Australia (Society for Underwater Historical Research) (SUHR) which was renamed the South Australian Archaeology Society in 2012; Tasmania (Maritime Archaeological Association of Tasmania) (MAAT) (Lester, 1983a, 1983b); and Queensland (Maritime Archaeological Association of Queensland) (MAAQ, 2015) however these are no longer active. A common thread amongst all these groups was some level of active involvement or support by the relevant State Historic Shipwrecks Practitioner. �A feature of the last decade or so is that new groups have appeared on their own volition, with a specific area of research interest. Southern Ocean Exploration (SOE, 2017) and the Sydney Project (Sydney Project, 2017) are notable examples of groups who like both technical diving and discovering shipwrecks. Other groups such as Wreck Check Incorporated are interested in searching for, locating and documenting underwater cultural heritage related to or shared with Australia (Wreck Check, 2017; Fortuyn Project, 2017). Unlike other Australian jurisdictions Norfolk Island has never had the permanent support of a local professional maritime archaeologist. The Delegate for the Historic Shipwrecks Act, who is located within the Norfolk Island Museum, has relied on external organisations or individuals to assist them in undertaking their delegated responsibilities to sites and associated recovered artefacts. Recognising a need for a local capacity to assist in the delivery of day to day delegated responsibilities, the Norfolk Island Delegate supported the idea of building maritime archaeological capacity within the local community. The value of such an approach was immediately recognised as delivering positive outcomes on three principle levels: community engagement, management and museological. Harking back to the earliest model of fostering a community maritime archaeological association to support a jurisdiction’s management goals, in 2012 Australia’s most recent Maritime Archaeological Association was formed, called the Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association (NIMAA). Norfolk Island – a maritime landscape Norfolk Island is located in the Southwest Pacific approximately 1700 kilometres northeast of Sydney, at 167°57'E, 29°02'S. The island has an approximate area of 37 km2 and a population estimated between �2000 to 3000 individuals. To the south of Norfolk Island are two smaller islands, Nepean and Phillip (Fig. 1). All the islands are formed from horizontal sheets of basalt with Mount Bates on Norfolk Island as the highest point, rising to 319 metres above sea level (Geosciences Australia, 2017). Fig. 1 (left): Map of Norfolk Island. (naming bays and locations mentioned in text) (Australian Government) Norfolk Island has several phases of occupation. Excavations around Emily Bay, on the south-central coast, identified occupation of the island by people of Polynesian ancestry circa the 13th/14th through to the 15th century AD (Anderson and White, 2001). The island was located by Captain James Cook in 1774 and was identified for its strategic value and economic potential in timber and flax. In the 19th century a British penal settlement was established near Emily Bay now known as the UNESCO World Heritage listed Kingston and Arthur's Vale Historic Area. After the �closure of the penal settlement in 1855 the island was subsequently occupied in 1856 by people relocated from the Pitcairn Islands. With the arrival of the Pitcairners, many with Tahitian ancestry, Norfolk Island again became a community thread in the tapestry of Pacific Island cultures. Today, many Norfolk Islanders are intrinsically a part of the Pacific with strong cultural and familial links. The mid to late 19th and early 20th century Norfolk Island population comprised of subsistence farmers, whose only hope of deriving an income was through exporting agricultural products predominantly to either mainland Australia or New Zealand. Intermittent services by shipping companies, further exacerbated by the First World War, often resulted in total spoilage and loss of products. Other than agriculture the only major industry on the island was shore based whaling which occurred between 1858 and the early 1950’s. In 1942 at the height of World War II in the southwest Pacific, the island became a strategic airbase and was occupied by New Zealand troops. A radar station was located on Mount Bates. Prior to the airbase’s construction shipping was the only transport to and from the island. Fishing from rocks and boats remains a very popular activity both for food and recreation. The underwater cultural heritage resource and community engagement In 2009, recognising the operational limitations on the Historic Shipwrecks Delegate, the Department engaged Cosmos Archaeology to undertake a desktop review of shipwrecks around Norfolk Island for updating records in the Australian National Shipwrecks Database (ANSDB) (Luckman and Viduka, 2013). Prior to this desktop survey, most maritime archaeological activity had focussed on the National Heritage listed site of HMS Sirius (1790), unofficial flagship to Australia’s First Fleet, and its associated �artefacts on display at the Norfolk Island Museum (Henderson and Stanbury, 1986; Stanbury, 2002 and 2007). Through the desktop project new information, media and archival material was collated for several sites. The ANSDB now includes approximately twenty-six sites around Norfolk Island which are recorded as sinking from 1790 – 1960’s (Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Map indicating the distribution of the known shipwreck resource around Norfolk Island and their approximate locations. (Australian Government) To help build an informed and supportive community group who could assist the Delegate, an Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology modified Nautical Archaeology Society (AIMA/NAS) training course part 1 (Nautical Archaeology Society, 2013; Philippou and Staniforth 2003) was delivered to 25 participants. The AIMA/NAS course was presented in 2010 by Cassandra Philippou, Sarah Ward and myself (Fig. 3) (Norfolk Island Museum, 2017; AIMA, 2017; AIMA NAS, 2017). This course was very successful in bringing many individuals of the community together on a subject of shared interest. The enthusiasm of the individuals involved led directly to their creation of NIMAA. This paper looks at NIMAA and the �challenges for that group as a case study for other small island communities. Fig. 3 (left): AIMA/NAS training 2D survey. (Andrew Viduka) A shaky start Following the creation of NIMAA, economic downturn on the island drove many diving members to the Australian mainland or elsewhere for work opportunities. At the request of the Delegate, who recognised that the group’s existence was immediately imperiled, from 22 February to 1 March 2013, a small team of maritime archaeologists were engaged to work with NIMAA members and undertake a maritime archaeological survey of Ball Bay and other coastal sites around Norfolk Island. The maritime archaeology team comprised Dr Brad Duncan (State Maritime Archaeologist, New South Wales), Mr Amer Khan (Maritime Heritage Officer South Australia) and myself (Australian Government). 2013 NIMAA Ball Bay Survey Due to the limited anchorage or landing options at Norfolk Island, Ball Bay is constantly being considered for future development by Norfolk �Islanders. To assist development consideration and for science based heritage management decision making an understanding of the potential for underwater cultural material in Ball Bay was required to be made. To that end a physical and remote sensing survey of the bay was planned. The intent of this collaboration with NIMAA was fourfold:  to help inform discussion and decision making on Norfolk Island regarding this site so the Delegate could be well placed to protect the maritime heritage of the island if present;  provide further practical archaeological training for NIMAA in underwater and terrestrial archaeological field techniques;  empower NIMAA to continue archaeological surveys around the island and lead in the recording of previously undocumented heritage sites; and  to galvanize activity in NIMAA. Historically known activities in Ball Bay include a shore-based whaling station from 1935-39. Remains of the processing plant are still in situ. However, the bay has a longer history of use, starting circa 1788/9 when Captain Philip Gidley King, then lieutenant-governor of Norfolk Island, attempted to build a pier. Anecdotal accounts suggest even an earlier use of the bay by Polynesians. The Director of the Norfolk Island Museum reported anecdotal accounts of the recovery of some Polynesian cultural material, possibly dating to the pre-history settlement period (Pers com Lisa Richards 17 May 2012). Due to bad weather, only two days of underwater surveys could be completed in Ball Bay though some in water survey training was conducted in the calm of Emily Bay and an inspection snorkel over the site of HMS Sirius was achieved with NIMAA members (Fig. 4). Activity �switched to teaching and doing oral history recordings with locals. Selected individuals who were described by Dr Duncan as having ‘deep familial and direct knowledge of sites’ and other island maritime industries on boat building, defence, whaling and transport were interviewed (Duncan 2012) (Fig. 5). Further, several sites were surveyed and recorded including: the Mt Bates Military Radar Defence Station; an incised marking on stone associated with HMS Calliope’s visit in 1888; and a World War II bunker in Anson Bay overlooking the landing point of the 1902 telegraph cable that connected Canada and Australia. Fig. 4: HMS Sirius (1790) last anchor on site relocated and inspected by NIMAA members. (Andrew Viduka) �Fig. 5: Oral history interview on Norfolk Island whaling heritage in Ball Bay. (Andrew Viduka) 2013 NIMAA Cascade Bay In the perennial search for improved lightering or anchorage conditions on Norfolk Island, in May 2013, at the request of the administration of Norfolk Island who were considering possible improvements to Cascade Pier, NIMAA undertook an underwater survey for cultural material in the proposed development and associated works footprint. Cascade Pier is located on the northern coast of Norfolk Island in an unsheltered bay. Due to the rugged coastal conditions, all produce and supplies must be lightered to and from vessels anchored off shore. Cascade Bay is one of two contemporary locations used on Norfolk Island, the other being Sydney Bay/Slaughter Bay. Both are subject to weather. NIMAA planned, coordinated and carried out the survey with available diving members. The survey was conducted on Sunday 19 May 2013. Based on a brief supplied by Alan McNeil, Manager, Land Use & Environment, Administration of Norfolk Island, the area to be surveyed �was identified using Global Positioning equipment and marked with ropes and buoys which were used as reference points. While no artefacts were found in the area surveyed, NIMAA divers on SCUBA methodically searched the designated sea floor (Fig 6) (Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeology Association 2013). NIMAA’s work contributed directly to a positive community outcome and the Pier upgrade commenced in 2016 (Norfolk Island News, 2017). Fig. 6: NIMAA members first sweep swimming north on the eastern side of survey area 40 M off the pier. (Courtesy of NIMAA) Since 2013 NIMAA members have been involved in other terrestrial projects than those mentioned in this paper including a remote sensing archaeological survey project led by Dr Duncan and Dr Martin Gibbs (University of New England). However, outside of externally generated projects or terrestrial and museological activity little has been reported that suggests NIMAA remains an active underwater group driven by internal initiative. Potential for NIMAA into the future �As with many other small island communities, the remoteness of the island has been the primary cause of much joy and difficulty for Norfolk Islanders and it is this thread that may be best exploited to deliver an exciting project for NIMAA that will engage the broader community. Certainly, the success or not of NIMAA resides with its members, their individual enthusiasm and the support they receive from the Historic Shipwrecks Delegate and, in general, the Australian Government’s Historic Shipwrecks Program. As outlined above, volunteer associations are vulnerable to change and will cease to operate. In the case of the MAAQ, which ceased to operate in 2016, changing demographics of the group, few new members, the ability of existing members to volunteer time and insurance issues restricting fieldwork all combined to make the group inoperable (Pers Com Paddy Waterson 6 June 2017). It is worth highlighting that Queensland is Australia’s 3rd most populous state and most popular dive tourism location for domestic and inbound tourism. Yet, even in this setting, a maritime archaeology volunteer association withered and collapsed. On Norfolk Island, NIMAA has many keen and capable members. The entire island is a maritime landscape and everyone is intrinsically a part of that story. However, it is not yet certain if their individual enthusiasm will result in a coordinated community approach to projects of shared interest. The greatest hope for the longevity of NIMAA is with the strong and ongoing support of the Norfolk Island Museum, which has undergone recent organisational change and restructuring, and the Norfolk Island Historic Shipwrecks Delegate. Separate to the activities that NIMAA members themselves may pursue in regards to whaling and military heritage, other opportunities do exist to engage participants in their underwater heritage. �Collaboration with other researchers Collaboration with other maritime archaeological groups or seeking opportunities to join projects in other jurisdictions is open to NIMAA members. One example of this is a project proposed by Wreck Check Inc, chaired by Graeme Henderson. Wreck Check will collaborate with NIMAA in 2017/2018. This project proposes to reassess why was the Sirius wrecked? Arguably the infant Australian colony’s most threatening single incident. NIMAA members will be doing photogrammetry of the Sirius ballast mound for calculation of the residual weight (Fulton et al 2016) and approximate determination of stowage area in the vessel. This data will be used to consider the potential impact of insufficient ballasting as a contributing factor to the vessel’s loss. Other future project – Resolution? As briefly described earlier, to break their isolation from external markets and remedy the lack of reliable shipping services to Norfolk Island, circa 1917 the Norfolk Island Shipping Company purchased the ketch Warrigal (ANSDB Shipwreck ID 7958). After one successful voyage, the vessel was lost with all hands in a cyclone. This vessel has not been relocated. Still faced with the same isolation and lack of reliable shipping issues, in 1923 the Norfolk Island Farmers and Growers Association resolved to build their own ship which they named Resolution. The Norfolk Island Museum describes the construction of the vessels: “It was difficult to source the resources needed to build a boat. Men searched the valleys for timbers with natural bends to make the stern and ribs. A Norfolk Island Pine was selected for the keel, providing a 20-metre log that was dragged to the building site at Emily Bay. There it was pit-sawn, adzed to shape and squared up. Norfolk Pine was also used for the keel and planking, while the framing was of island grown olive and ironwood. She was built as �a stout auxiliary schooner of about 60 tons and more than 18 metres in length.” (Norfolk Island Museum, 2017) Sadly, for the Norfolk Islanders the Resolution, which was launched in December 1925 and subsequently fitted with a diesel motor, was sold in 1927 to Burns Philp (South Seas) due to their financial inability to operate the vessel. For the next 20 years, the Resolution worked on the Tonga, Fiji and New Hebrides (now Vanuatu) trades. In March 1948, the vessel was disabled by a cyclone and in 1949 Resolution sank at moorings in the harbour at Port Villa in 36 meters. While the site has been actively and continuously pillaged by recreational divers, this site is one of many shared heritage sites between Norfolk Island/Australia more broadly and Vanuatu that could form the basis of a collaborative maritime archaeological project between NIMAA members and the people of Vanuatu to the benefits for both island communities. Conclusion and observations It is an established truism that community engagement in heritage is vital for better heritage management outcomes. Certainly the creation of NIMAA by interested individuals on Norfolk Island has stimulated activity and greater knowledge in the community. While it is dangerous to extrapolate too much from this singular example, certain observations warrant consideration for their potential value to others who are considering developing a community based underwater cultural heritage capacity in a small island community. Threats All volunteer groups face a common threat, competing activities for the attention of members. While this is not unique to small island communities, a complication for individuals on small islands, in particular, �is that they are often involved in multiple concurrent positions to derive an income/subsistence. Financial support Financial support will assist any group to continue to operate. Without some form of financial support being available, any group’s personal resources may not be able to sustain activity over the long term. In a small island community where individuals may have less income, external funding is vital. For NIMAA members, they are fortunate in that they have two options for funding assistance, via the Delegate or through competitive grants offered to small community museums through the Australian National Maritime Museum. Without the opportunity to obtain external funding, the long term viability of NIMAA would be in serious doubt. A local champion/s Two types of champions were required to create and sustain NIMAA. In the first instance it was the support of the Delegate who championed the creation of NIMAA. The Delegate recognised the need to have an engaged and empowered community on Norfolk Island to participate in underwater cultural heritage. Once NIMAA was created it was important that individuals within NIMAA took a leadership role and championed activities within the group. Based on observations with NIMAA, it is important to recognise that the role of the Delegate who initially championed the creation of NIMAA does not cease. Their active and ongoing support is required to sustain an individual’s enthusiasm and or the group’s effectiveness. Further, the leadership role within a group should be shared otherwise this becomes a constraining factor to the groups effectiveness. �Links to a cultural institution/management agency At least initially, the group would benefit from being linked to an appropriate institution so that their activities have some oversight and official support. This not only helps build trust between individuals responsible for the protection of underwater cultural heritage but ensures the group’s ethical development. It advantageously also assists the group to seek funding support for their activities. Research potential – an active program A critical element to maintaining activity is to have projects that are initiated by the group, achievable and interesting to the individuals in the group. While Norfolk Island has enormous research potential, it is yet to be ascertained if NIMAA members will develop their own research program. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the wonderful Norfolk Islanders who I have met over the years. Particular thanks to Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeology Association Members - Dean Burrell, Steve and Sandy Nutley, Doug and Eve Creek, Rick and Kally Peay, Don and Sue Brian, Rossco Quintal, Brad O’Hare, Bob Tofts - Norfolk Whaling Author, Herbert (Wiggy) Knapton – (exwhaler), Jimmy Christian (ex- whaler), the late Byron Burrell and Ralph Weslake (WWII Defence). Lisa Richards – previously Norfolk Island Museum Director. Janelle Blucher and Jeanine Snell – Heritage Management, Norfolk Island Regional Council. Cassandra Philippou and Sarah Ward who participated in delivering AIMA/NAS training. Lastly, thanks Brad Duncan and Amer Khan. References �Anderson, A., and White, P., 2001. Prehistoric Settlement on Norfolk Island and its Oceanic Context. Records of the Australian Museum (Supplement 27): 135–141 https://australianmuseum.net.au/uploads/journals/17923/1348_complete .pdf accessed 11 June 2017. Australian Government, 1994. Guidelines for the Management of Australia’s Historic Shipwrecks. Australian Government, 1996. Public Access Guidelines. Duncan, B., 2013. Norfolk Island Fieldwork 2012, in Newsletter of the Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, June 2013 Vol. 43 (2): 2021. http://www.asha.org.au/pdf/newsletters/ASHANewsletter432_2013.pdf Fulton, C., Viduka, A., Hutchison, A., Hollick, J., Woods, A., Sewell, D., and Manning, S., 2016. Use of photogrammetry for non-disturbance underwater survey: an analysis of in situ stone anchors detailed archaeological analysis of finds and cultural heritage management purposes, in Advances in Archaeological Practice, Vol: 4 (1): 17-30. Henderson, G., 1986. Maritime Archaeology in Australia, University of Western Australia Press, pp 33-66. Henderson, G., and Stanbury, M., 1987. Australian Bicentennial Authority Project 1987 Expedition Report on the Wreck of HMS Sirius (1790), The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Sydney, NSW. Henderson, G., 2016. Swallowed by the Sea – The story of Australia’s Shipwrecks, National Library of Australia. Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Commonwealth) Hosty, K., 1987. Historic shipwreck legislation and the Australian diver. Past, present and future. The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol: 11.1: 21-25. Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeology Association (NIMAA) 2013, Cascade Pier Underwater Survey Report (Unpublished Report). �Luckman, G., and Viduka, A., 2013. The Australian National Shipwreck Database, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 37: 76-86. McCarthy, M and Garratt, D., 1998. Western Australian Maritime Museum wreck access and outreach program, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 22: 127-132. Nautical Archaeology Society, 2013. What is the NAS training programme? Nash, M. (ed.), 2007. Shipwreck Archaeology in Australia. University of Western Australia Press. Nedlands, WA. Nutley, D., 1998. Ten years of shipwreck access and management practices in NSW, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 22:115-118. Smith, T., 2006. Deep wreck technical diving: the new management frontier, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 30: 14-24. Stanbury, M., 2002. HMS Sirius 2002 Expedition Report, Report – Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, No. 167, July 2002. Stanbury, M. 2007. Sirius 1790 relic of the First Fleet, in Nash, M. (ed.), Shipwreck Archaeology in Australia (pp. 25 – 38). University of Western Australia Press. Nedlands, WA. Steyne, H., 2010. Managing invisible sites: Developing a management approach or inaccessible shipwreck sites, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 34: 50-56. Philippou, C., & Staniforth, M., 2003. Maritime heritage trails in Australia: An overview and critique of the interpretive programs. In J. Spirek, D, & D. Scott-Ireton, A., (Eds.), Submerged cultural resource management: �Preserving and interpreting our maritime heritage, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: 135-149. UNESCO, 2001. UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. Viduka, A., and Raupp, J., 2008. Research, heritage tourism and diver education – The Undersea Explorer Expedition 2007. Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 32: 20-26. Viduka, A., 2012. 1976 and beyond – managing Australia’s underwater cultural heritage, presented at IKUWA4 Managing the Underwater Cultural Heritage, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia from 29 September to 2 October 2011, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Ed. Jeremy Green and Myra Stanbury, Vol: 37: 1-9. Viduka, A., 2015. The Preservation and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Australia, in papers from The Preservation and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage-Theories, Methods and Practices, Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Republic of China (Taiwan), October 4th to 6th 2015, Taichung City, Taiwan: 14 – 41. Websites AIMA 2017, Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology Homepage, accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.aima-underwater.org.au AIMA NAS 2017, AIMA/NAS Training, accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.aima-underwater.org.au/parts-i-iv/ Australian Government Shipwrecks Database 2017, Australian National Shipwrecks Database, accessed 10 May 2017, https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/historic-shipwrecks/australiannational-shipwreck-database ANSDB Shipwreck ID 7958, accessed 10 May 2017, https://dmzapp17p.ris.environment.gov.au/shipwreck/public/wreck/wreck .do?key=7958 �Fortuyn Project 2017, Accessed 11 June 2017, http://wreckcheckinc.org Geosciences Australia, Accessed 9 June http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-locationinformation/dimensions/remote-offshore-territories/norfolk-island 2017, Historic Shipwrecks Protected Zones 2017, Australian Government, Australia, accessed 7 March 2017, http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage/historicshipwrecks/historic-shipwreck-protected-zones MAAV 2017, Maritime Archaeological Association of Victoria, accessed 11 June 2017, http://home.vicnet.net.au/~maav/ MAAWA 2017, Maritime Archaeological Association of Western Australia, homepage accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.maawa.net MAAQ 2015, Maritime Archaeological Association of Queensland, homepage, accessed 6 August 2015, http://www.maaq.org.au/ Norfolk Island Museum 2017, Report on the Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association, accessed 11 June 2017, http://norfolkislandmuseum.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/maritimearchaeology-on-norfolk-island.html Norfolk Island News, accessed 5 June 2017, http://www.norfolkonlinenews.com/non-lead-stories/cascade-pierupgrade-has-begun-by-betty-matthews NSW Wreckspotters 2017, New South Wales government web pages for Wrecks potters program, accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/MaritimeHeritage/whatsnew/wrecks potters.htm NSW Maritime Heritage Database 2017; accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/maritimeheritageapp/WebsiteSearc h.aspx Queensland Survey 2015, Report an historic underwater wreck or artefact/Queensland Historic Shipwreck Survey, accessed 7 October �2015, https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/heritage/archaeology/shipwrec ks/ SA Shipwrecks Database 2017, NatureMaps, accessed 10 May 2017, http://spatialwebapps.environment.sa.gov.au/naturemaps/?locale=enus&viewer=naturemaps&runWorkflow=ZoomToFullExtentShipwreck SOE 2017, Southern Ocean Exploration Homepage, accessed 11 June 2017, http://www.southernoceanexploration.com Sydney Project 2017, http://www.sydneyproject.com/ accessed 11 Jun e2017, Vic Heritage Database 2017, Victoria’s significant heritage places and objects, accessed 10 May 2017, http://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/ WA Shipwrecks Database 2017, Wrecks, accessed 10 May 2017, http://museum.wa.gov.au/maritime-archaeology-db/wrecks Wreck Check 2017, accessed 10 May 2017, http://wreckcheckinc.org/ Biography Andrew Viduka is a maritime archaeologist and conservator employed by the Australian Government as the Assistant Director Maritime Heritage. In this role he leads Australia’s consideration of ratification of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Andrew is actively involved in maritime archaeological projects and or capacity building training in Australia, the Pacific and the Mediterranean Regions. Andrew’s research currently focuses on linking community outcomes with the discovery and protection of Australia’s underwater cultural heritage, shared heritage management and international capacity building �projects. He is a foundation member of the research group Wreck Check Inc. �� 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 2017 Session 1: Underwater and Maritime Archaeology and Capacity Building in the Pacific Islands Description An account of the resource The Pacific Ocean contains a wealth of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) spanning human history from the Stone Age to the atomic age. Since the first Pacific UCH Workshop held in Solomon Islands in 2009, the Pacific island nations have been progressing in the implementation of the Pacific UCH Programme by awareness raising, research and capacity building activities through inter-disciplinary cooperation and promoting synergy with the Pacific World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Programmes. Notable progresses include, among others, the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Outcome Document of the 3rd UN International Cooperation on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (Samoa, 2014) that contains references to the importance of UCH for sustainable development of SIDS and SIDS ratification of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), as well as the enhanced cooperation between universities in the Pacific islands and professional training institutions through UNESCO University Twinning and Networking Programme (UNITWIN) for Underwater Archaeology. With this as its background, the session “Underwater and maritime archaeology and capacity building in the Pacific Islands” will be held with the aims to: i) share information on recent progress in awareness raising, research and capacity building activities in underwater and maritime archaeology in the Pacific Islands, ii) identify priority actions, iii) foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. The session especially welcomes presentations focusing on the protection and management of UCH belonging to indigenous community shared UCH in the Pacific, addressing challenges and opportunities facing Pacific SIDS in the implementation of the Pacific UCH Programme and the promotion of the UCH Convention, presenting good practice in ensuring the effective engagement of Pacific island countries and community in UCH management for their sustainable development, and proposing collaborative projects in this area. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akatsuki Takahashi UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Samoa Andrew Viduka, Maritime and Commonwealth Heritage, Australian Government, Nicolas Bigourdan, Western Australian Museum 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 Building Capacity in the South West Pacific - The Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association Description An account of the resource The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy administers the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 and the National Historic Shipwrecks Program. This Program enables the Department to work with the States, the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island to protect historic shipwrecks. With the wealth of maritime history on Norfolk Island and the strong associations with Pitcairn Island, the potential for involving the broader community in documenting and protecting Norfolk Island's wonderful maritime heritage is significant. In 2010, at the request of the Norfolk Island Delegate, the first in a series of community focussed capacity building activities in maritime archaeology was conducted on the island. These activities resulted in the creation of the Norfolk Island Maritime Archaeological Association (NIMAA), Australia's newest maritime archaeology association. This paper briefly outlines the history of maritime archaeological associations in Australia and their engagement with management agencies. As a case study for other small island communities, the paper highlights some of the activities of NIMAA since its creation, issues faced for participants and the management agency and the potential for NIMAA into the future. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Viduka Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Andrew Viduka Asia-Pac Session 1 2017 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 Building the Reed-boat Prototype: Problems, Solutions, and Implications for the Organization and Structure of Third-Millennium Shipbuilding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tom Vosmer Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Zotero Author Tom Vosmer Item Type Journal Article Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Pages 235-39 Publication Title Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Title A name given to the resource Building the Reed-boat Prototype: Problems, Solutions, and Implications for the Organization and Structure of Third-Millennium Shipbuilding Volume 31 India https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/106a403852134c0d3828659ef8ab9c09.pdf b60170b018329ef80a2951e70ae1096e PDF Text Text Can tourism exploitation of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) be incompatible with the UNESCO 2001 Convention? Abhirada Komoot1 Abstract Tourism is a major factor of economic growth in many countries especially in developing countries. In 2010, tourism accounted for about 6% of Thailand’s GDP. In a way tourism is commercial exploitation. But is it against Annex Rule 2 of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001 Convention)? In the Annex, only active commercial exploitation –trading, selling, buying and bartering– of cultural material is obviously forbidden. Yet, there might be other passive commercial exploitations like tourism which are not stated. Can tourism be an alternative source of funds that can be utilised for UCH site protection and management? Because of the country’s commercial benefits gained from promoting tourism, it can be argued that tourism exploitation is one of the commercial exploitations implied in Annex Rule 2. Additionally, for tourism, the sites have to be opened for public which may cause the tension to in situ preservation and physical protection of sites. Also, it could create direct effects, such as damage to the sites by divers souvenir hunting and treasure hunting, etc. On the other hand, tourism can be a successful tool to get people involved and raise awareness which is essential in safeguarding UCH. Furthermore, under Rule 7 of the Annex, it allows knowledge sharing with the public but only when it is not incompatible with the proper protection and management of the sites. In other words, public approach could possibly be applicable only in appropriate ways. However, it does not expressly mention exploitation through tourism. Tourism can bring good fortune to countries as well as many advantages for UCH. Therefore, the prohibition may lead to absurd and even contradictory results. Countries may find it difficult to find financial subsidy and raise pubic awareness for sustainable protection of UCH. Simultaneously, the public is unable to enjoy leisure activities and gain knowledge from the conserved sites. The commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods—Annex Rule 2, UNESCO 2001 Convention. 1 Ms. Abhirada Komoot is an undergraduate student. She has obtained two bachelor degrees one from the Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University and another one from the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University. She aims to combine her two specialties as a cultural heritage manager with legal background in order to perform her management task more effectively in legal scheme and make legal issues more understandable among other stakeholders. And she has a strong passion for UCH. She has gained her experience on UCH by working as administrative assistant to the UNESCO foundation courses on UCH in Thailand. Now she is accepted by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University in the Netherlands for the course starting in February 2012. �UCH in Concern Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) was, a long time ago, a cargo or passenger vessel, village, primitive fish trap, dike or any other human trace. Many of them were faced tragic moments like sinking, inundation, and ultimately destruction. Until, they were swallowed by water and lying undisturbed in some cases for centuries. All of them contain some cultural, historical or archaeological values of human existences. In the case of the ship, it was sailing between continents on a sea route. Then, it was hit by an unavoidable disaster like heavy storms, or sometimes overweight cargo made the ship lose its balance so that it was capsized. After the chaotic moment of trying to survive, no one could ever see it again. It had been sleeping on the sea-floor calmly and undisturbed since then. A century later2, it becomes a significant evidence of human history. It is full of the story of the past. For example, what was the purpose of the finds? How was it built? Why did people have to make the journey? What was the cause of the wreck? Generally, there are some precious objects left behind. These sites attract those who are hunting for treasure among the remains. Classically, the salvage companies encourage individuals from all over the world to invest in the venture promising high financial returns. Although the careless salvage activity can be dangerous and expensive, it is still often worthwhile to do so. The treasure hunters traditionally only expose the site for its pricey items and lack of concern for human history. Their actions result in an irretrievable loss of knowledge. This is not what we, as heritage protectors use to define the value of cultural objects by the price. They are priceless! This legacy reflects the traces of human link with on-land heritage. Therefore, these priceless inheritances should be preserved as and for the benefits of mankind and the completion of human history. Besides, an unavoidable natural disaster, there is also, undeniably human impacts on UCH. Even though the heritage, located under water, is more difficult to access than a land site; it does not mean it is impossible to do so. By the wisdom of mankind, more sophisticated diving equipment has been developed, so that, they can widen the possibility of accessibility to the UCH. In other words, it is easier to get to the site and be able to stay longer under water with modern diving gear. Therefore, it is no longer possible for the site to remain undisturbed but it is now easier to be interfered with. More people are able to reach the sites, not only the treasure hunters, but also recreational divers, researchers, archaeologists, scientists and so on. So the intrusive activities are slightly growing. Among recreational divers, they can create two kinds of impacts on UCH sites; those who care for and are respectful to where and what they are visiting and understand the value of the heritage and those who pay less attention to how fragile and important the site is, only taking a snapshot and collecting some meaningful items from the site as souvenirs to prove they once visited there (Stanley 2006:2-4). 2 Based on the UNESCO 2001 convention, the historical objects is at least 100 years (See Article 1 of the convention). In some countries it cane be determined differently. �Additionally, some accidental damage occurs because of the lack of diver’s ability to control buoyancy, usually novice and newly qualified divers. Indirectly, another human threat is air pockets, especially on the metal materials. In the case of a penetration dive, it can cause two kinds of corrosion to the sites: loss of concretion through mechanical damage and the build up of oxygen concentration inside a shipwreck’s confined spaces (Viduka 2006:61-63). With the carelessness and lack of awareness of numerous dive tourists and operators, our UCH is suffering from these human habits. Even experienced and skilful underwater archaeologists, can also disturb the site by careless excavation, lack of documentation and leaving the site behind without taking any measures to protect it. Due to the increase of the common threats to UCH and the raising of awareness of this heritage within the international community, the UNESCO 2001 Convention was elaborately constituted to mainly protect this heritage from those stresses. One of the core principles of the UNESCO 2001 Convention is the prohibition of commercial exploitation of UCH that is in Article 2 paragraph 7, Article 4 and the Annex. In particular, Rule 2 of the Annex, the integral part of the Convention, states clearly about the kinds of the active commercial exploitation of the finds which are trading, selling, buying and bartering. These activities are obviously banned by the Convention and its Annex. However, in my view the UCH nowadays is in the spotlight, it is becoming more interesting among people, not only to the scientists or archaeologists, but also the public. In some countries they have gained a great deal of benefits not only from the forbidden activities but also from passive ways. The passive commercial exploitation can also be received from other activities like ‘tourism’. Nevertheless, it is not included in the Convention. We still have to put more concern on this issue as tourism is a double-edge sword. It can be tools of potential awareness raising or greedy exploitation. The mitigation between the dirt safeguarding and the dollar earning should be brought to the international stage in order to develop the best methods of managing tourism related to our heritage. Terminology and Tourism The term ‘tourism’, in general, has various meaning. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the definition of tourism can be indicated as follows: (1) Tourism is about displacement from usual environment. (2) The purpose of the tourism can be anything, like leisure or business or both, other than being remunerated from the visited place. (3) The maximum of duration is not more than a consecutive year. So, tourist is a person who does such activity. Since the beginning of the human history, people had travelled around to neighbouring places for many purposes, for instance, food, shelter, war, etc. They started to make a journey mostly for basic needs. Then, as the improvement of the technology, the transportation had been developed. It was easier for them to make a distant trip. And the purpose of the travel had also been changed according to the endless curiosity and needs of recreational activities. At the time of the Roman Republic, the Romans were ecstatic persons. We can see through works of art. They thought they should, once in a lifetime, �visit the great wonder place of the history and myths like the ruin of Troy, Acropolis, Alexandria and some places in Asia Minor. Heritage is still the reason for people to travel today. They want to see the exotic ruins of empires and the glory of the past. Then, in the seventeenth and eighteenth century the ‘Grand Tour’ had been developed. It was more or less like the journey in Roman period. The wealthy European would traditionally travel to the ruins of the ancient Roman Empire to appreciate the cultural legacy of the Classic antiquity and Renaissance, including the great structures and works of art such as delicate marble sculptures and masterpiece paintings. It served as an rite of passage (Wokloer 2007:205-222). After the Industrial Revolution, transportation had immensely and rapidly improved. Then, the traditional journey extended to the middleclass since they became concerned about the importance of holiday. This allowed bourgeoisies to travel for leisure purpose on their free time. Thus far, people are still keen to see new things. They need to enjoy the benefits of the relaxing time and gain knowledge. There have been numerous emergences of niche or specialty tourism including cultural tourism, nautical tourism, medical tourism, etc. Therefore, tourism had become the popular activity for most people since then. And as the population rapidly grew, the need for relaxation has also increased dramatically. Tourism has had a huge impact on the world’s economic sector. Dirt or Dollars The traces of human existence, lying under water for a long time, acts like a time machine. It is often well preserved by nature as if time stood still from when it was swallowed by the water. It can keep people close to the past. But WHY do we have to get close to the past? What is the value in caring for the dirt? If it can make a cent of dollar to feed the starving lives, maybe this is the reason. Tourism is an attractive activity to most countries in the world as it can generate a great deal of money to improve the standard of living. In the world economy, tourism has played a vital role in economic growth. It became one of the rapidest growing sectors over decades. According to UNWTO’s information, in 2010, international tourism generated US$ 919 billion (€ 693 billion) in export earnings. Similarly, Thailand has also gained a valuable benefit from tourism. The overall economic growth of the country is 8% of GDP or THB 905 trillion (US$ 584 billion) in 2010. Tourism is one of the main industries making Thailand’s economy in progress, growing by 6% of GDP, after automobiles and automotive parts (11%), financial services (9%) and electric appliances and components (8%). To exploit in the form of tourism can bring many benefits to the economic sector. On the website of Coastlearn organization it explained that tourism can be used as a nation’s economic improvement tool including foreign exchange earnings, contribution to government revenues, employment generation, stimulation of infrastructure investment and contribution to local economies. Likewise, it happens the same way to Thailand. As informed by Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), Thailand welcomes over 550,000 dive tourists and is home to over 80,000 certified divers of its own. And the number of recreational divers is growing since 1985 according to the report from Department of Marine and Coastal Resources. �Under the Thai sea, it can provide tourists not only the natural resources but also cultural heritage. Consequently, UCH can be a good source of tourism as well. From the figure, it shows that if the promotion of tourism is applied to UCH sites, the possibility to widen the divers’ interest on the heritage resources will be bigger. Precisely, UCH is a kind of product sold for foreigners who are seeking unusual experiences. More tourists is a money generator. In a way, tourism can make a lot of money to the host countries and has human’s effects; it can create both direct and indirect damage to this heritage as well. It can cause harmful impacts to the site such as village expansion, constructions, anchoring, looting, treasure hunting, salvaging, etc. So, is tourism exploitation included in the term of ‘commercial exploitation’ in Annex Rule 2 of the UNESCO 2001 Convention? However, tourism, the way to exploit it for wealth and prosperity for the countries and their people is not the bad thing to do. Unromantically, who can live without financial support? “No profit, end of dreams! Even non-profitable organizations survive on donations from other people’s earning and revenues, which are generated by the profit” (Stanley 2006:2-4). In addition to an alternative source of funds, tourism can make a great amount of money from diving enterprises, tourists, shops and other business sectors, involving the UCH. This financial benefit can effectively contribute to heritage management projects and local sector. For example, when locals learn that they can maximize benefits by providing a boat trip to visitors who wish to experience the shipwreck, then, they will care more about the site as it now becomes their tools of earning and improving their quality of life. They will be more concerned about the site. And all the benefits gained can encourage local people and governments to care more about the legacy. The awareness and good policy for sustainable UCH will be raised. Without dirt, there will be no more dollars. So, dirt and dollars on UCH’s aspect is something that relies on each other. It cannot survive alone. And it is difficult to choose only one of them. But the possible way is to find a middle point. Only be careful of overexploitation and unawareness of mass tourism. Education Not Prohibition Indeed, in the term of the sustainable and successful management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, what we need is an education, not prohibition. The site will become more interesting for the public only when they know something about it like how important the site is. Nevertheless, no legal scheme mentions about how tourism will work on UCH. In Rule 7 of the Annex in UNESCO 2001 Convention states about the public access. It can be implied that the promotion of knowledge sharing of the heritage shall be promoted in the parallel way with the proper site management. Moreover, in Article 20, it is a state’s obligation to raise public awareness by any practical ways. However, it is still not clear enough to apply that tourism is permitted by this Convention. Only case studies will be able to bring it to light. In many waterfront countries, tourism is also a possible tool to raise public awareness and provide education about UCH to extent public interests. To educate and encourage people about the importance of UCH is the greater positive benefits for all mankind. Because when we can build the inner �passion of people, they will eager to learn how to protect and safeguard this precious patrimony by themselves. Importantly, it is the right way to build a good cooperation between stakeholders; government, local community, archaeologist, tour operator and so on. In Thailand the popularity of wreck diving is becoming famous among recreational divers but most of sites are decommissioned warships, intentionally sunk for growing marine life, or new sunken ships. SW, Bangkok, 5 August 2011, he is the professional dive instructor, operating in Pattaya.3 He said, according to his experience, most of divers who visiting the wreck around Pattaya waters only enjoy their diving with corals and marine creatures. Their knowledge on wreck sites is very limited or none. The similar result is received from a professional underwater archaeologist, EV, Bangkok, 20 august 2011. He said that there is a small group of wreck divers who are enthusiastically interested in UCH diving. They are also researchers. They visit the sites not only for leisure activities but they are also keen to learn. They are monitoring the deterioration of the sites and do some publication. Even they are in the private sector, they can be watchdogs of UCH. Still, the visitation to UCH sites is limited compared to the number of amateur divers coming to Thailand each year and the number of UCH publications. The group of interested divers is still small but qualified. They have a strong interest and conduct on-going research on the wreck. After they distribute their publication, then, here is becoming well-known among advanced divers. The example is ‘Hardeep’ or ‘Suthathip’, the most famous Thailand’s shipwreck, and it is UCH. It is put in the diving route. The gradually increasing of tourism and educated divers on the sample site is a positive sign for an appropriate growing of tourism on UCH in Thailand. Unfortunately, there is no official record. In other cases, the application of tourism has given a good result in knowledge distribution to many other countries in the form of tourism. For example, the SS Maori in South Africa, Florida’s Maritime Heritage Trail in USA, and Maritime Heritage Trail in Cayman Islands. Freedom of Movement Freedom of movement is the fundamental right of humanity which is respected in the constitution of many countries. For example, it is stated in the section 34 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. It includes the liberty to travel. A person shall enjoy the liberty of travelling. However, a person shall enjoy their freedom and liberty within the respect of the rights of others. In the term of tourism, it is also a way to promote respect of human rights. To be able to move freely does not encompass the rights to enter another country. But in the UCH perspective, it so means the rights to access the site. Tourists, in order to appreciate the heritage and gain knowledge, shall not be prohibited to approach the site. At the same time, they have obligations to venerate the rights of others as well. They shall not do any harm to the site and keep in their mind that the UCH is the heritage of mankind not 3 Pattaya is the well-known diving spot and tourist attraction in Thailand and located in Chonburi province. �the personal belongings. They shall do no harm to the site including but not limit to looting, souvenir collecting, or even treasure hunting. Rights always come with obligations. This legacy is a shared heritage, so it is our duty to safeguard it in every way we move. Therefore, a person who enthusiastically admires the UCH shall enjoy his/her freedom and liberty of movement and travelling to the UCH site under the limitation of other’s rights and liberty. World without Tourism Most of the UCH sites are lying in the open area, under the sea or river. It is impossible to lock up all the sites and apply strict rules. If we choose to keep the site secret and forbid public access, there will be the secret access as well. This can be more problematic because the intention might go wrong. In general, people travel for many purposes including leisure and learning. Without tourism there will be no real knowledge of the ancient wisdom gained at first hand. Only an unreal source of education such as books, television and Internet can be accessible but no physical appreciation. In other words, Tourism is a joyful way to develop public understanding and raise their attention, which are the key part to promote the sustainability of the UCH safeguarding. Conclusion In many ways, tourism is a potential tool to help increasing the public awareness and financial source, the core instruments of sustainable development of UCH. Restrictive accessibility to the UCH is the way to keep the site intact but it cannot educate people particularly locals. Without awareness, the blanket legislative protection cannot be enforced effectively. And without profit, all the dream projects become useless. Additionally, it becomes a human rights’ violation instead of respect. Even tourism can create some negative impacts, pros and cons are needed to be weighed. As the idea of the traces of humanity, the issue needs to be brought to the international phase in order to find a chance of hope for sustainable and effective management of tourism on UCH. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the help of people who contribute to this work. I am grateful to Dr. Mr. R. Rujaya Abhakorn, the Director of SPAFA, for giving me a great opportunity and support. And this would not have been possible without the assistance of my friends, Mr. Erbprem Vatcharangkul, Mr. Chris Underwood, Mr. Martijn Manders, Mr. Andrew Viduka, Mr. Takahiko Makino, Mr. Saiklang Jindasu, Mr. Siwat Worachananan, and Ms. Pimolpan Wong A-ram. Bibliography Bureau of Committee 3, The Secretariat of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550 (2007), Bureau of Printing Services, Bangkok. �House of Representatives, 2007 Coastlearn, Benefits Of Sustainable Coastal Tourism, CoastLearn, viewed 23 August 2011, <http://www.coastlearn.org/tourism/why_economicbenefi ts .html>. Manders, M. R., Managing Cultural Heritage Underwater. Publication no. Oosting, R. and 3, Educom BV, The Netherlands. Brouwers, W., (eds) 2009 Ministry of Foreign Tourism, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, viewed 12 Affairs, October2011, <http://www.mfa.go.th/web/20.php> 2011 Stanley, R., “It's All about 'P'”, in Heritage @ Risk 2006 - Special 2006 Edition: Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, pp. 2-4 International Council on Monuments and Sites / Conseil International Des Monuments Et Des Sites, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2006/index.htm l>. Sorabella, J., "The Grand Tour", in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, 2000 New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–, viewed 12 October 2011, <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grtr/hd_grtr.htm>. Towner, J., and "History and Tourism." Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. Wall, G., 18, pp. 71-84. 1991 Tourism Authority Tourism Authority of Thailand News Room, Tourism of Thailand, Authority of Thailand, viewed 22 August 2011, <http://www.tatnews.org/latest_update/detail.asp?id=526 4>. UNESCO, Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural 2001 Heritage, downloaded November 2009, <unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001260/126065e.pdf UNESCO, "Underwater Cultural Heritage." in Museum International 2008 LX, No.4/240. pdf. UNESCO, Underwater Cultural Heritage in Oceania. Print, Paris. 2010 UNWTO, Why Tourism?, UNWTO, viewed 4 August 2011, <http:www2.unwto.org/en/content/why-tourism>. Viduka, A., “Managing Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage 2006 Sites: The Yongala as a Case Study”, in Heritage @ Risk 2006 - Special Edition: Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, pp. 61-63, International Council on Monuments and Sites / Conseil International Des Monuments Et Des Sites, viewed 18 August 2011, �Walker, P., 2005 Wokler, R., 2007 <http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2006/index.htm Hardeep Wreck, Thailand Wreck Diving, Thai Technical Diving and Dive Software, Thai Shipwrecks, viewed 4 August 2011, <http://www.thaiwreckdiver.com/hardeep_wreck.htm>. ‘Rite of passage and the grand tour, discovering, imaging and investing European civilization in the Age of Enlightenment’, in Anthony Molho and Diego Ramada Curto (eds.), Finding Europe: discourses on margins communities, images, Berghahn Books, USA, pp. 20522. � 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 Can tourism exploitation of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) be incompatible with the UNESCO 2001 Convention? Subject The topic of the resource Session 12 Some Challenges and Issues in Underwater Cultural Heritage in Southeast Asia Description An account of the resource Tourism is a major factor of economic growth in many countries especially in developing countries. In 2010, tourism accounted for about 6% of Thailand’s GDP. In a way tourism is commercial exploitation. But is it against Annex Rule 2 of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001 Convention)? In the Annex, only active commercial exploitation –trading, selling, buying and bartering– of cultural material is obviously forbidden. Yet, there might be other passive commercial exploitations like tourism which are not stated. Can tourism be an alternative source of funds that can be utilised for UCH site protection and management? Because of the country’s commercial benefits gained from promoting tourism, it can be argued that tourism exploitation is one of the commercial exploitations implied in Annex Rule 2. Additionally, for tourism, the sites have to be opened for public which may cause the tension to in situ preservation and physical protection of sites. Also, it could create direct effects, such as damage to the sites by divers souvenir hunting and treasure hunting, etc. On the other hand, tourism can be a successful tool to get people involved and raise awareness which is essential in safeguarding UCH. Furthermore, under Rule 7 of the Annex, it allows knowledge sharing with the public but only when it is not incompatible with the proper protection and management of the sites. In other words, public approach could possibly be applicable only in appropriate ways. However, it does not expressly mention exploitation through tourism. Tourism can bring good fortune to countries as well as many advantages for UCH. Therefore, the prohibition may lead to absurd and even contradictory results. Countries may find it difficult to find financial subsidy and raise pubic awareness for sustainable protection of UCH. Simultaneously, the public is unable to enjoy leisure activities and gain knowledge from the conserved sites. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Abhirada Komoot Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 12 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/738da1a7dd3550fbe8c9a4ab52684822.pdf 03523ae1fc652b55b239e7ce856e0f27 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 2021 Session 8: Underwater and Maritime Archaeology in South East Asia Subject The topic of the resource Session 8 papers Description An account of the resource Abstract South East Asia is an Asian Sub Region with 11 countries with an area of 8.94 million square kilometres, and its water areas covering the China Sea, the Java Sea, the Sulu Sea, the Philippine Waters, the Celebes Sea, the Banda Sea, the Flores Sea, the Arafura Sea, the Timor Sea, and the Andaman Sea. With a total area of 2.5 % of the surface of all oceans in the world, South East Asia is a large sub region in the world which its waters and coastal areas are very rich in underwater and maritime cultural heritage. Underwater heritage in South East Asia are diverse and come from various times, namely from ancient Southeast Asian kingdoms, the European colonialism period, to World War II, which consisted of traditional ships of the South East Asian countries, Chinese junks China, Spanish Galleons and Naos, ships from the Middle East, VOC and EIC vessels; historic ships, planes, submarines during World War II; and also the remains of human settlements in the past or submerged landscape. The session will explore the richness of maritime history and the legacy of underwater and maritime cultural heritage in the countries of South East Asia. This South East Asian Session also seeks papers to be presented on the current development of underwater and maritime archaeology in South East Asia including the latest results of researches, studies, and projects of protection, preservation, sustainable use of underwater heritage, and the development of innovation and technology applying in the fields of underwater and maritime archaeology in various institutions in South East Asian countries. Moreover, the challenges, current threats, and any shortcomings that are currently being hot issues facing by South East Asian countries regionally, such as massive plundering of historic wrecks, destructive activities on shipwreck sites, natural disasters affecting underwater and maritime heritage, lack of long-term site monitoring and inappropriate management of underwater heritage will also be the focus of discussion in this session. This South East Asian Session also encourages the presentation of studies or projects on community engagement and opening access for the public in managing a sustainable underwater heritage in South East Asian countries, where the role of the local community is significant and can assist in determining the sustainability or the destruction of underwater and maritime heritage sites. Session Organiser: Nia Naelul Hasanah Ridwan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage 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 Canthik: A Figurehead on Javanese Maritime Culture Description An account of the resource Canthik, the Javanese figurehead, is one of maritime’s archaeological data that is seldom discussed. Less than five of them have been recorded in the archaeological record, and all are kept in the museums. One of these is currently stored in Museum Sonobudoyo, Yogyakarta. To date, the description of the object is limited to a decorated object that is placed on the stern of a boat. The canthik can, arguably, be removed from one boat’s extremity to the other, depends on which one serves as the bow. It has a form of a mythological creature and is believed to bring protection to navigation. This paper aims to discuss the function of the figurehead, as well as the symbol it represents since Canthik has always been regarded as a sacred object in the Javanese community. This paper will further discuss what type of boat the figurehead is associated with and the kind of activities that these boats participated in. A comparison to figureheads from other regions, such as Europe, China, and Polynesia will be presented to explore possible answers to the aforementioned questions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ashar Murdihastomo Ayu Dipta Kirana Shinatria Adhityatama Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Murdihastomo, Ashar, Ayu Dipta Kirana, and Shinatria Adhityatama. 2021. “Canthik: A Figurehead on Javanese Maritime Culture.” Edited by Brian Fahy, Hans Van Tilburg, Bill Jeffery, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Riley Smith. In Proceedings of Fourth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Keelung,Taiwan, and Virtual, November 1-5, 2021. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology URL: https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/exhibits/show/apconf-muchproceedings/item/686 Asia-Pac Session 8 2021 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/0d935f7fc006c58551f50567cd2269a7.pdf ce91a690bcf6dd87950e1c9c0ab7501f PDF Text Text CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE TIME OF COVID: THE CASE OF HMAS PERTH (I) Dr Natali Pearson (The University of Sydney, Curriculum Coordinator) ABSTRACT The topic of this abstract best fits within Session 4, ‘Underwater Cultural Heritage of World War II in the AsiaPacific Region: Discoveries, Opportunities & Challenges’ because of the latter’s focus on World War II heritage in the Asia-Pacific. The case study under consideration in this paper is that of HMAS Perth (I), an Australian warship sunk in Indonesian waters in 1942. The focus of this paper is Australia’s maritime capacity building initiative for the wreck of Perth (I), and the challenges and opportunities of advancing this project in the time of COVID-19. While some projects lent themselves to being conducted online, many others were forced to reevaluate their feasibility entirely. This paper considers the changes wrought by COVID-19 on conventional heritage capacity building and management models, and the extent to which these models still apply. As it proposes, the limitations posed by the pandemic on capacity building projects created space for more inclusive and enduring knowledge building approaches, which elevated local stakeholders and, arguably, contributed to more sustainable outcomes in the long-term. At the same time, however, broader questions remain about the uses of digital heritage in a connected world. * A detailed publication on this topic is available. Pearson, Natali. “Too Little, Too Late? Redefining the Legacy of HMAS Perth (I), an Australian Warship Sunk in Indonesian Waters.” Historical Archaeology (2023). KEYWORDS World War II, naval shipwrecks, capacity building, heritage post-COVID INTRODUCTION International capacity building projects were seriously affected by the combination of travel restrictions, reduced budgets, and health considerations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. While some projects lent themselves to being conducted online, many others were forced to reevaluate their feasibility entirely. For Australia and Indonesia, the limitations imposed by COVID–19 prompted a re-evaluation of what constitutes capacity building, and the extent to which maritime heritage collaboration and cooperation can be advanced in the absence of face-to-face engagement. Australia and Indonesia share one of the longest maritime boundaries in the world and have expressed their commitment to working together to build and strengthen cooperation in the area of maritime cultural heritage. This commitment is articulated in the Plan of Action for the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (2020–2024), which places a priority on intensified maritime cooperation and posits cooperation as critical to both country’s shared strategic interests (Australian Government, 2018). In recent years, bilateral maritime heritage cooperation has centred around HMAS Perth (I), an Australian warship that sunk in Indonesian territorial waters. As the final resting place for hundreds of sailors, Perth represents both a complex and sensitive example of the challenges of protecting and preserving shared maritime heritage. In many ways, COVID exacerbated these challenges. At the same time, however, and as this paper argues, the limitations imposed by COVID have presented unexpected opportunities to imagine a more sustainable model for future maritime engagement between the two countries. 1 �CASE STUDY: HMAS PERTH (I) HMAS Perth (I) was a modified Leander class cruiser that began life as HMS Amphion before being purchased by the Royal Australian Navy, prior to the outbreak of WWII. Perth and her crew saw action all over the world, including in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. In 1942, Perth joined American, British, and Dutch forces to guard Java from Japanese occupation in the Battle of the Java Sea (27–28 February 1942). The Allies were decisively defeated, and Perth, together with USS Houston, was fortunate to escape (Perryman, 2017). The two vessels fled west, arriving in Tanjung Priok (Jakarta) on 28 February to re-fuel and re-load. Almost immediately, they received orders to sail through the Sunda Strait and towards Cilacap on the southern coast of Java. Although they had been told the coast was clear, Perth and Houston encountered the Japanese Western Invasion Convoy in waters near Banten Bay, just west of Jakarta. The intense battle that ensued has come to be known as the Battle of the Sunda Strait (28 February–1 March 1942). Both Perth and Houston were destroyed by Japanese torpedoes and gun fire, with Perth sinking just after midnight and Houston shortly thereafter. Japan also suffered losses. HMAS Perth (I) had 681 men aboard, including naval personnel, air force personnel, and civilian staff. Of these, 353 died when Perth went down. Of the 1061 aboard USS Houston, 693 lives were lost. Most of the survivors were taken as prisoners of war and endured years of suffering on the Thai-Burma railway. HMAS Perth (I) sank, largely intact, on her port side in Banten Bay. The wreck lay undisturbed until 1967 when it was rediscovered by Australian diver David Burchell. His intention was to recover touchstone objects from the vessel before it was ravaged by what he called ‘diving pirates,’ who, he feared, were salvaging non-ferrous metal from the many sunken warships scattered across the region (Burchell 1971, 26). After twenty-five years in the warm waters of Banten Bay, both Perth and nearby Houston had become thriving marine ecosystems, alive with colour. Then as now, local fishermen have relied on these wrecks for their livelihoods and, due to the birds they attracted, as navigational aids. Burchell’s efforts to find and recover objects from HMAS Perth (I) heralded the first of many human interactions with the wreck. Many of these interactions were motivated by a desire to pay respect to Perth and her crew. Some visitors placed floral wreaths into the water above the site, while others descended below the waves to the wreck itself. These divers, some of whom visited the site on a semiregular basis, were the first to sound the alarm in 2013 that Perth was being salvaged on an industrial scale due to the re-sale value of its scrap metal (Besser, Oakes, & Hermant 2013). The salvaging of Perth for scrap metal has destroyed marine habitats, deprived local communities of sustainable livelihoods from tourism and fishing, and desecrated the final resting place of Australian war dead. Besides the concern over human remains, the presence of unexploded ordnance and fuel oils add a further complication. Despite the imminent threat of destruction by looting, bilateral collaboration to protect and preserve Perth was—for reasons outlined elsewhere in the literature (Pearson 2023)—slow. In May 2017, the Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM) and the National Centre for Archaeological Research (Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, or Arkenas) conducted a technical survey of the site, which revealed that just 40 per cent of the wreck remained in situ (Hosty, Hunter, & Adhityatama 2017). The 2017 survey, together with petitioning by the Banten provincial government, played a critical role in supporting efforts to advocate for the establishment of a protected zone around the wreck. RESOURCES For Australia and Indonesia, the salvage of Perth placed maritime heritage cooperation in the spotlight, prompting greater bilateral engagement and collaboration to manage the wreck for the 2 �future. In February 2018, then-Minister for Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Susi Pudjiastuti, issued a Ministerial Decree designating HMAS Perth (I) and surrounding waters as Indonesia’s first Maritime Conservation Zone (Kawasan Konservasi Maritim) (Republic of Indonesia 2018). The Maritime Conservation Zone establishes a core zone around the wreck, surrounded by a zone of limited utilisation. The Decree provides a legal basis for site protection, and, in accordance with Indonesian law, was introduced at the national level but must be implemented at the provincial level. Since the establishment of the Maritime Conservation Zone around Perth in 2018, key stakeholders on both sides have worked hard to develop and refine a comprehensive management plan for the site that incorporates the technical requirements of wreck conservation with the historical, administrative, and economic considerations of managing a tourism site of Perth’s significance. Some of these efforts have taken place under a project funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Maritime Capacity Building Initiative (MCBI) and managed by the ANMM with support from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre at the University of Sydney. The MCBI, as initially conceived, was aimed at promoting greater awareness of the challenges and opportunities of managing HMAS Perth (I). In particular, it recognised the need to balance preservation interests with economic benefits for local communities. One of the first activities conducted under the auspices of the MCBI Perth project was a follow-up survey of the wreck by ANMM and Arkenas in May 2019 (Hosty, Hunter, Adhityatama, & Malliaros 2020). Results suggested that the wreck had been damaged further by a tsunami in Banten Bay in late 2018. Community consultations and capacity building were also considered to be essential components of the MCBI in its original incarnation, due to the value of Perth not only as a grave site and a historic site, but also as a source of tourism opportunities and sustenance for the local fishing economy in Banten Bay. These consultations, involving Australian and Indonesian stakeholders, were due to take place in Banten in 2020, and were intended to contribute towards the development of an overall management plan for the wreck. FRAMEWORK Plans to undertake community consultations and capacity building were, however, temporarily, and then permanently, disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges posed by COVID had a severe impact on the project, with travel (both international and domestic), budgets, timelines, and expectations all affected. In the absence of face-to-face activities, were the capacity building aspects of the project still feasible? Initially, consideration was given to engaging local enumerators to conduct community consultations, but it was agreed that this would pose an unacceptable health risk to the enumerators themselves. Instead, adapting the project required the development of methodological alternatives. This included engaging more directly with key Indonesian collaborators to facilitate access within and beyond the national level of government. In some respects, this approach serves the capacity building objectives better, in that it allowed for deep and extended engagement with specific individuals. At the same time, however, this reliance on certain stakeholders placed a significant imposition on their time and commitments. This was a delicate balance and one that had to be negotiated with care. Another consequence was a greater reliance on existing networks. This has served as a valuable reminder of the importance of investing in relationships prior to any capacity building project. Strong relationships don’t come about because of capacity building projects; successful capacity building projects are the result of such relationships. RESULTS Due to the pandemic, and in lieu of face-to-face activities, the MCBI pivoted to support a range of other events and programs. This was a complete reframing of what constitutes capacity building in a travel- and budget-constrained environment, requiring a reconsideration of the purpose of such 3 �activities within the context of the MCBI project. The activities conducted as part of this pivot were led by the author in her capacity as project consultant to the ANMM. To guide the re-design, the project objectives–to balance Perth’s preservation requirements with its tourism potential–were front of mind. The first pivot activity was the Historic Shipwrecks Workshop Series, which ran online across five modules in November 2020. The Series was designed to promote understanding among Indonesian government stakeholders, academics, and diving practitioners about the significance of HMAS Perth (I) and the necessity of working together to develop a plan to protect and preserve the wreck. It attracted key representatives from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Education and Culture; the Coordinating Ministry for Political, Legal and Security Affairs; the Indonesian Navy; Indonesian Universities; and representatives from local diving associations. Australian, Indonesian, and international experts presented on themes relating to maritime heritage in Indonesia, sustainable management of WWII wrecks, and public education and engagement. The Historic Shipwrecks Workshop Series helped identify areas for further collaboration. Subsequently, representatives from the University of Sydney and the ANMM met with representatives from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (national level) and the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Service in Banten (provincial level) to review and refine the draft management and zoning plan (Rencana Pengelolaan dan Zonasi) for HMAS Perth (I). To ensure access to knowledge for ongoing capacity building, Australia also supported the creation of digital content that can be accessed online. This includes a limited podcast series called Perth’s Stories (https://soundcloud.com/hmasperthi_asharedhistory). Produced and hosted by Australian and Indonesian partners at the University of Sydney and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the podcast features survivors, descendants, historians, advocates, officials, scholars, students, archaeologists and Banten Bay locals. The podcast series is readily accessible via major streaming platforms including Spotify and Soundcloud. The project team also developed a bilingual digital museum via an online portal, with the intention that it would be made publicly available. The portal seeks to do justice to HMAS Perth (I) and its communities by broadening the scope of our understanding of underwater cultural heritage management beyond a conflict-centred approach to one that instead creates space for multiple viewpoints, including not only survivors and descendants but also those who have lived with the wreck in their waters for close to eighty years. It provides an entry point for members of the public interested in learning more about both HMAS Perth (I) and Banten province, and features themes including ‘The Battle of the Sunda Strait,’ ‘The Ship’s Bells,’ ‘Waters of Banten Bay,’ ‘View from the Shore,’ ‘Sites of Pilgrimage, ‘The Pepper Sultans of Banten,’ and ‘Preserving a Wreck.’ A key feature of the website is an option for members of the public to submit their own stories and photos of Perth. The portal also provides links to Perth and Banten-related resources and websites. Many of these activities and achievements have resulted from a project-based approach to maritime heritage collaboration between Australia and Indonesia. However, Australia has also taken steps to establish a more strategic and sustainable model of maritime heritage engagement. It has done so by embedding bilateral collaboration within a revitalised whole-of-government approach, building on previous ad hoc arrangements and ensuring ongoing future collaboration between Australia and Indonesia on maritime archaeology research and underwater cultural heritage management. CONCLUSION As project managers, researchers, and educators reconsider what bilateral engagement looks like in a post-pandemic world, this project also offers an opportunity to reassess what heritage will look like. 4 �First, COVID has forced us to face the problems of extractive research. We now rely on local partnerships more than ever and must recognise the shared responsibility of these research partnerships. This prompts the question of why we haven’t been doing this all along, and how we can embed this as part of collaborative research practices in the future. Second, given the healthcare and economic crises across the world, it is increasingly important to be aware of why we are choosing to give time and resources to heritage. We need to not only have a keen sense of why heritage matters at a time when there are so many competing priorities, but to be able to communicate the value of heritage meaningfully and effectively. As the dismantling of confederate and other pro-slavery statues in the United States in 2020 demonstrated, heritage is a flashpoint for the biggest issues of our times. It is where these debates–about identity, inequality, privilege, opportunity, modernity, colonialism, national ambition–come together, where the ideas and legacies of the past intersect with the present and create both friction and opportunity. Finally, COVID has accelerated the push toward digitisation and access for all. With museums closed and travel banned, the need to digitise the past and make it accessible seemed to become more pressing. At the same time, however, the embrace of digitisation raises many important questions that we are yet to fully reckon with, such as the value we ascribe to authenticity (Lixinski 2022), and the potential for open access data to be exploited for purposes other than those intended. Although many decades have passed, the sinking of warships and the catastrophic loss of life that accompanied their destruction continues to reverberate today as nations grapple with the complexities arising from the presence of naval shipwrecks in foreign territorial waters. Cooperation and collaboration are essential if this maritime heritage is to be managed for the future. HMAS Perth (I) is a significant shipwreck for both Australia and Indonesia, and there is strong interest from both sides in working together to ensure that we can do justice to its communities and continue to tell its stories for the future. COVID forced us to think more creatively and more expansively about heritage and about bilateral cooperation. Even as we continue to prioritise the protection and preservation of sites such as HMAS Perth (I), we must also be cognisant of the broader questions about how heritage is being used, and the opportunities, for better and for worse, it presents. BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Government. (2018). Plan of Action for the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (20202024). https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/indonesia/Pages/plan-of-action-for-the-indonesia-australia-comprehensivestrategic-partnership-2020-2024 Besser, L., Oakes, D., et al. (2013). HMAS Perth: WWII Warship Grave Stripped by Salvagers. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/outrage-as-warship-grave-stripped-by-salvagers/5156320. Burchell, D. The Bells of Sunda Strait. Adelaide: Rigby, 1971. Hosty, K., Hunter, J., et al. (2017). Maritime Archaeological Investigation of HMAS Perth (1942) (THE HMAS PERTH PROJECT 2017). Retrieved from Sydney; Jakarta: http://www.hmasperth.asn.au/drh0507/Perth_2017_Report.pdf Hosty, K., Hunter, J., et al. (2020). Maritime Archaeological Investigation of HMAS Perth (1942) (THE HMAS PERTH PROJECT 2019). Manuscript, Australian National Maritime Museum and Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, Sydney, Australia. Lixinski, L. (2022). Against Authenticity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28(11-12), 1213-1227. Pearson, N. (2023). Too Little, Too Late? Redefining the legacy of HMAS Perth (I), an Australian shipwreck in Indonesian waters. Historical Archaeology, 57(1). Perryman, D. J. (2017). HMAS Perth (I). Retrieved from http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-perth-i. Keputusan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan No.21 Tahun 2018 tentang Kawasan Konservasi Maritim HMAS Perth di Perairan Provinsi Banten (Ministerial Decree from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries No.21/2018 regarding HMAS Perth Maritime Conservation Zone in the waters of Banten Province), (2018). 5 � 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 2023 Session 4: Underwater Cultural Heritage of World War II in the Asia-Pacific Region: Discoveries, Opportunities & Challenges Subject The topic of the resource Session 4 papers Description An account of the resource Papers presented at Session 4 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage 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 Capacity Building in the Time of COVID: The Case of HMAS Perth (I) Description An account of the resource The topic of this abstract best fits within Session 4, ‘Underwater Cultural Heritage of World War II in the AsiaPacific Region: Discoveries, Opportunities & Challenges’ because of the latter’s focus on World War II heritage in the Asia-Pacific. The case study under consideration in this paper is that of HMAS Perth (I), an Australian warship sunk in Indonesian waters in 1942. The focus of this paper is Australia’s maritime capacity building initiative for the wreck of Perth (I), and the challenges and opportunities of advancing this project in the time of COVID-19. While some projects lent themselves to being conducted online, many others were forced to reevaluate their feasibility entirely. This paper considers the changes wrought by COVID-19 on conventional heritage capacity building and management models, and the extent to which these models still apply. As it proposes, the limitations posed by the pandemic on capacity building projects created space for more inclusive and enduring knowledge building approaches, which elevated local stakeholders and, arguably, contributed to more sustainable outcomes in the long-term. At the same time, however, broader questions remain about the uses of digital heritage in a connected world. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Natali Pearson Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Language A language of the resource English Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Pearson, Natali. 2023. “Capacity Building in the Time of COVID-19: The case of HMAS Perth (I).” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Alexis Catsambis. In Proceedings of Fifth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Gwangju, The Republic of Korea, November 13-18 2023. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology.URL: https://apconf.omeka.net/exhibits/show/apconfproceedings/item/1900 Asia-Pac Session 4 2023