28 10 700 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c523833a25bb03cde5fb458c778031d7.pdf 39f063505a1ab66bbff69c2fbc9a12a7 PDF Text Text Recent Efforts in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Dave Ball Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Camarillo, California 93010, USA Email: david.ball@boem.gov Abstract The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing the nation’s energy and mineral resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These resources include conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind and hydrokinetic) and sand and gravel extraction for beach restoration. As with any federal action or undertaking, an assessment of potential impacts to the environment, including cultural resources, is required to make an informed decision. The BOEM Pacific OCS Region is taking a proactive approach to cultural resources management on the OCS by funding research efforts that provide baseline information on known and potential underwater cultural resources, and by identifying best practices for incorporating information from indigenous communities in the planning process. Key words: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Cultural Landscape, Offshore Renewable Energy, Outer continental Shelf, Submerged Landform, Tribe Introduction The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing over 1.76 billion acres of seafloor off the coast of the United States (U.S.) and is charged with regulatory oversight of offshore conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind, wave and ocean currents) and marine minerals (primarily sand and gravel resources for coastal restoration). The Bureau’s jurisdiction begins 3 nautical miles offshore and extends approximately 200 nautical miles, to the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone1. BOEM’s authority over conventional energy and marine minerals was established through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority over mineral exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Through the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 BOEM (then operating as the Minerals Management Service) also has authority over offshore renewable energy. The EPAct significantly expanded the bureau’s offshore energy responsibilities and renewed interest in energy development on the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. For any federal action or undertaking within the Bureau’s authority, BOEM 1 �must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other legislative and regulatory environmental requirements. Included in those requirements is the obligation to consult with federally recognized tribal governments, as mandated through Executive Order 13175 and Secretarial Order 3317. Additionally, the NHPA requires consultation with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations for cultural resources that are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As BOEM’s offshore renewable energy program has developed, and applications for construction of offshore facilities are increasing, it is important that the Bureau properly engage with the nation’s coastal indigenous communities. To ensure that the Bureau is consulting properly, BOEM is funding several projects that seek to be more proactive in developing the best practices for identifying appropriate information gathering protocols and survey measures in order to avoid or mitigate adverse effects during development on the OCS. Each of these projects is rooted in the cultural landscape concept, which seeks to develop a more holistic understanding of areas that could be affected by a proposed action or undertaking by integrating environmental science with historical, archaeological and traditional knowledge. Cultural Landscape Approach The concept of cultural landscapes is not new. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “[I]n 1992, the World Heritage Convention became the first international legal instrument to recognize and protect cultural landscapes” (Mitchell et al., 2009: 19). UNESCO defines a cultural landscape as embracing… “…a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature…Cultural landscapes are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time” (Mitchell et al., 2009: 19-20). In recent years the cultural landscape approach has also gained traction and acceptance within the federal historic preservation program in the U.S. For example, the U.S. National Park Service’s Bulletin 36 defines a cultural landscape as, “a 2 �geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS, 1994). More recently, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee issued a white paper in 2011, which recommended incorporating a cultural landscape approach to “strengthen conservation of resources that cross the land/sea interface, promote sustainability of those resources and improve the socio-economic resilience of communities which depend upon them” (MPAFAC, 2011: 4). Additionally, in 2011 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) released the Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan, which is designed to:  Promote the recognition and protection of Native American traditional cultural landscapes both within the federal government and the historic preservation community  Address the challenges of the consideration of Native American traditional cultural landscapes in the Section 106 review process as well as in NEPA reviews (ACHP, 2012). This plan was adopted by the ACHP in November 2011 and announced by the White House on June 28, 2012 (Donaldson, 2012). BOEM Environmental Studies Established in 1973 under the former Minerals Management Service, the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is an applied science program that was created to develop, conduct and oversee scientific research specifically to inform policy decisions regarding offshore energy and marine minerals activities on the OCS. Research conducted through the BOEM ESP covers physical oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural resources and environmental fates and effects. The primary goal of the ESP is to provide information needed for the assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human, marine and coastal environments of the OCS and the potentially affected coastal areas. As a result, BOEM is a leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge about the nation’s marine and coastal environment. Through BOEM’s ESP, baseline 3 �analysis of underwater cultural heritage resources has been updated off the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts (Pearson et al., 2003; TRC, 2012; ICF International et al., 2014, respectively). Each of these studies includes a database of identified and reported historic shipwrecks and a predictive model of high probability areas that could be associated with submerged prehistoric landforms, areas that would have been exposed thousands of years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Additionally, in support of potential offshore renewable energy development, initial baseline assessments have been completed along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of historic properties that could be affected by alteration of the seascape from construction of offshore facilities (TRC, 2012; ICF International et al., 2014, respectively). BOEM held the first commercial offshore renewable energy lease sale for an area off of Rhode Island in July 2013, and a second sale was held off Virginia in September. Interest for developing offshore renewable energy has also been expressed elsewhere on the Atlantic OCS, as well as off the coasts of Hawaii and Oregon within the BOEM Pacific OCS Region. Offshore renewable energy siting could have an affect on submerged prehistoric sites and coastal sites that are important to indigenous groups. Expected impacts to the seafloor will occur from the installation of individual wind, wave or ocean current generators and associated transmission cable corridors. Additionally, wind turbines, which can stand 300-500 feet above the ocean surface, will have a definite visual signature. Depending on how far offshore wind turbines are constructed, many of these facilities will be visible to some extent from the coast, and therefore will have some level of affect to the offshore view. Therefore, as BOEM reviews applications for offshore renewable energy projects, it is critical that the Bureau not only develop protocols that honor the unique relationship between the federal government, sovereign tribal nations and indigenous communities, but also incorporates traditional knowledge and oral tradition into the decision-making process. To meet these challenges, BOEM has awarded several research studies that seek to develop best-practices protocols for working with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, as well as incorporating information from these groups into the analysis of offshore geophysical survey data. Some of these projects are briefly 4 �highlighted below and two of these efforts will be detailed further in this session by Valerie Grussing and Hans Van Tilburg. Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project Off the Atlantic coast of the U.S., where interest in offshore wind energy has been more prominent, BOEM has entered into a cooperative agreement with the University of Rhode Island, in partnership with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office, to develop a science-based, standardized best practices methodology for incorporating tribal knowledge into a predictive model for identifying submerged landforms. Developing Protocols for Reconstructing Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes and Identifying Ancient Native American Archaeological Sites in Submerged Environments seeks to enhance and refine the Bureau’s understanding of submerged paleocultural landscape distribution on the Atlantic OCS and to better understand and identify paleocultural landscapes of importance to regional tribes through collaborative research. Specifically, the project is designed to incorporate Narragansett Indian Tribal oral history and traditional knowledge with remote sensing surveys off the coast of Rhode Island in order to develop a geospatial predictive model that will identify offshore environments with varying archaeological sensitivity for containing ancient Native American archaeological resources. The first phase of the project was completed in the spring of 2013, which consisted of a 2-day workshop between invited tribal representatives and archaeologists from Europe and the U.S. The workshop reviewed current theories on submerged landform identification and discussed how to respectfully engage Native American tribes. The second phase of the project will synthesize the information obtained at the workshop, along with published sources, to develop a methodology aimed at incorporating tribal knowledge into best practices protocols for developing a model to identify submerged landforms. Once a working model is developed, researchers will conduct field investigations and data acquisition, combined with tribal traditional knowledge in order to validate the model and create a more complete understanding of the paleocultural landscape off Rhode Island. The project also includes an outreach component with the Narragansett Tribe and will develop training materials and a documentary film. This project was awarded as a cooperative agreement through the North Atlantic Coast 5 �Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit in July 2012 and should be completed in September, 2016. Characterization of Tribal Cultural Landscapes At the time of this writing, the BOEM Pacific OCS office has received two applications for offshore renewable energy projects off the Oregon coast. These proposed projects include a commercial floating wind lease off of Coos Bay and a marine hydrokinetic (MHK) research lease off of Newport. Prior to receiving these lease requests, the BOEM Pacific OCS office entered into an interagency agreement with NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas Center and the Maritime Heritage Program to develop best practices protocols for working with west coast tribes to incorporate information on tribal cultural landscapes into the Bureau’s decision-making process. The goal of this project, Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, is to develop a proactive approach to working with Native American communities in order to identify areas of tribal significance that need to be considered in the planning process. A more detailed discussion of this project is provided elsewhere in this session by Dr. Valerie Grussing in her paper, Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes for Resource Preservation and Protection. Hawaii Maritime Heritage The BOEM Pacific OCS Region office has not yet received any completed applications for renewable energy projects offshore Hawaii, however, interest has been expressed for offshore wind development. In May 2012, the BOEM Pacific OCS Region signed an inter-agency agreement with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to provide baseline information on underwater cultural heritage resources off the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The project, Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands, will develop a database of underwater and land-based cultural resources that could be affected by construction of offshore renewable energy facilities. The project also seeks to develop a best practices methodology for engaging Native Hawaiian communities, similar to the Tribal Cultural Landscapes project, so that information important to Native Hawaiians is included in the planning and review process for any future offshore renewable energy applications. This is the first cultural resources-related project that BOEM has undertaken for Hawaii and the information 6 �collected through this effort will provide critical information for taking into consideration the effects of offshore renewable energy development on cultural resources near the eight main Hawaiian Islands. Further information on this effort is discussed elsewhere in this session by Dr. Hans Van Tilburg in his paper, Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Submerged Landforms on the Pacific OCS With the completion of the updated baseline study on underwater cultural heritage for the BOEM Pacific OCS Region, BOEM developed this follow-up study to further investigate submerged landforms off the U.S. west coast and to refine the predictive model for where these landforms might be expected. Archaeological and Biological Assessment of Submerged Landforms off the Pacific Coast is a multi-disciplinary effort that will examine existing data sets from areas off the southern California and central Oregon coastlines that have been identified as having a high potential to be associated with previously exposed landforms. The project will develop and field test a geospatial model that will aid in the identification and classification of potential submerged cultural landforms from existing remote sensing data and seafloor maps in areas along the Pacific coast. Similar to the Narragansett project on the Atlantic OCS, this project will evaluate existing remote sensing data and review current theories on sea level rise during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) on the Pacific OCS in order to identify high probability areas for further testing. Biological indicators, such as hard-bottom features, will also be assessed to see if these features correlate with possible submerged landforms. The project will also conduct fine-scale survey and ground-truthing of identified features and analyze new data for possible indicators of prehistoric human activity. This project should be completed in 2017. Pacific Region Ocean Uses Atlas The last project that the BOEM Pacific Region office is currently undertaking, which has the potential to incorporate cultural use information from indigenous communities, is the Pacific Region Ocean Use Atlas (PROUA). The PROUA project was developed through an inter-agency agreement with NOAA’s National Ocean Service and is designed to document where coastal communities use the ocean across a full range of typical human activities and sectors. The primary objective of the project is to enhance ocean 7 �planning for offshore renewable energy development and inform other ocean planning strategies that require insight on how and where ocean areas are used for recreational, commercial and industrial types of activity. One component of this project is to conduct interactive participatory mapping workshops in order to capture the knowledge of community experts about the patterns of ocean uses occurring off the coasts of Hawaii, Oregon and Washington. Though the previously discussed efforts have not yet been completed to fully develop protocols for engagement with coastal indigenous communities, efforts have been made to invite these groups into the process appropriately. Conclusion With the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, BOEM’s mandate over offshore energy and marine minerals expanded to include offshore renewable energy. In an attempt to improve BOEM’s environmental review process and better fulfill the Bureau’s obligation to consult with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations, BOEM is developing a more proactive approach to engage indigenous communities in the decision-making process in support of offshore renewable energy. Information on each of the studies described in this paper, as well as other research funded by the Bureau, can be found on our website at: www.boem.gov\studies\. Acknowledgement Funding for the research projects identified above has been provided through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The author would like to thank the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Makah Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe for their efforts on the Tribal Cultural Landscapes project, as well as the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office for their efforts on the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes project. Endnote 1 OCSLA and the Submerged Lands Act define the OCS as all submerged lands lying seaward of state coastal waters. For most coastal states federal waters begin 3 nautical miles past the mean low tide line, the exception to this rule includes offshore Texas and the west coast of Florida, whose state waters extend 9 nautical miles offshore. 8 �References ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), 2012. The ACHP’s Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan. http://www.achp.gov/traditional-culturallandscape.pdf, accessed 05 December 2013. Donaldson, M. W., 2012.Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan – Better Decisions for Historic Properties. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/28/native-american-traditional-culturallandscapes-action-plan-better-decisions-histo-0, accessed 05 December 2013. ICF International Davis Geoarchaeological Research and Southeastern Archaeological Research, 2013. Inventory and Analysis of Coastal and Submerged Archaeological Site Occurrence, Pacific OCS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS, Camarillo, CA OCS Study BOEM 2013-0115, pp. 363. Mitchell, N., Mechtild Rössler, and Pierre-Marie Tricaud., (Eds.), 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_26_en.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. NPS (National Park Service), 1994. Bulletin 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/36PreserveBrief-Landscapes.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. MPAFAC (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee), 2011. White Paper and Recommendations of Managing Marine Resources across the Land/Sea Interface. http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpafac_rec_protected_landsea_12_11.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. Pearson, C. E., James, Jr., S. R., Krivor, M. C., El Darragi, S. D., and Cunningham, L., 2003. Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region HighProbability Model for Historic Shipwrecks: Final Report. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-060, 2003-061, 2003-062, 3 Volumes. TRC Environmental Corporation, 2012. Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 9 �Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-008, pp. 324. Dave Ball is the Pacific Region Historic Preservation Officer and Diving Safety Officer for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Before joining BOEM he worked for several archaeological firms in the Pacific Northwest. He received a BA in anthropology from Sonoma State University in 1992 and an MA in anthropology from Florida State University in 1998. Dave has over 20 years’ experience in archaeology and has directed field research on both terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites across the country, including inundated prehistoric sites, World War II shipwrecks, and deepwater shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology. 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 Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg 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 Recent Efforts in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Description An account of the resource The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing the nation’s energy and mineral resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These resources include conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind and hydrokinetic) and sand and gravel extraction for beach restoration. As with any federal action or undertaking, an assessment of potential impacts to the environment, including cultural resources, is required to make an informed decision. The BOEM Pacific OCS Region is taking a proactive approach to cultural resources management on the OCS by funding research efforts that provide baseline information on known and potential underwater cultural resources, and by identifying best practices for incorporating information from indigenous communities in the planning process. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dave Ball, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c7defd7427a3e7b5fd8d0df9a290cafa.mp4 047c7d466cbd0c91ef647b34b55a2924 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Video interview with Session 1 chair Etienne Clément. Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. To view the papers presented in this session please use the Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mr. Etienne Clément Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/26ac59ff7503fcb9c6bd4d7ee84d336d.pdf 2653f9513523ff5df8dbfbe9e1d6b632 PDF Text Text Human remains on underwater cultural heritage: Ethics, values and law Elena Perez-Alvaro Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham UK Email: exp140@bham.ac.uk Abstract All of the factors and complexities of the issues regarding the management of underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. Catastrophes creating shipwrecks frequently also cause deaths, ranging from single fatalities to disasters claiming hundreds of lives. However there is not a specific legislation dealing with the treatment of the human remains on shipwrecks. Nevertheless, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage includes in its definition the term human remains, which means that the same guidelines for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage preservation in situ for the public benefit - are also applicable to human remains. In this regards, this paper will justify that declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries in most cases attracts tourism, apart from the own meaning of these sacred places, and also complies with the 2001 UNESCO Convention principles. In addition, the possibility of the treatment of human remains as intangible heritage can lead to a new whole vision for its protection and management. Underwater cultural heritage can be not only monuments to the great journey or heroic combat, but also a tool to shape the collective memory. Underwater cultural heritage can act as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. Key words: Human remains, UCH, Submerged cemeteries, Watery graves, 2001 UNESCO Convention Introduction The management and protection of human remains as part of the underwater cultural heritage is a complex ethical issue – as it is in land archaeology - entangled with technical considerations for being underwater. And although human remains can be found at sites that are several hundred years old (Dromgoole, 2013), its preservation depends on different factors and environmental conditions. Different issues arise from the issue, which requires a lot of unpacking before offering possibilities. The establishment of the respect for the deceased or the development and education for the future faces complicated moral questions. One of the 1 �justifications of archaeologist and museum managers for the recovery and/or exhibition of human remains is the appeal to science and education, which raises other ethical issues. In addition, the definition of respectful treatment is different in different cultures. Problems with those who believe on live after death are also a complicated aspect on the management of human remains. The international community must establish clear rules about how to protect shipwrecks containing human remains. Different attitudes to underwater cultural heritage The current tendencies on the protection of underwater cultural heritage show differences in the protection between countries determined by aspects of culture, such as tradition, mentality or habit. States may also manage and protect their underwater cultural heritage to shape public memory through the memorial forms, sites, references and public rituals (Nora, 1996). As a result, the different countries develop their protection policies according to their system of collective values, which work as guides to decide what deserves to be preserved and how it has to be managed. As part of this heritage, shipwrecks can also represent different meanings for different people in different cultures, so their actions to enable preservation show a real complexity because of these differences. The complexity of the issue has led to similar complexities on the procedures to preserve. Since most of the Earth is covered with water, burial at sea has long been the accepted norm for mariners all over the world. Most of those burials are accidental as a consequence of a casualty. Says Delgado (2011): Despite years of shipwreck exploration as a maritime archaeologist and a decade as director of a maritime museum, Titanic was never high on my list of lost ships to visit. I'd never considered it an archaeological site, but rather an underwater museum and memorial. However, some authors are opposed to the treatment of shipwrecks as cemeteries (Bryant, 2001). This school of thought support its theories by three main assertions: It is argued that neither history nor the law treats shipwrecks, historic or otherwise, as protected underwater cemeteries, stating that the historic, social, scientific, and monetary value of historic shipwrecks dictates that they should not be treated as underwater cemeteries protected from salvage or recovery. This fact is well documented: neither history nor the law treats shipwrecks as protected underwater cemeteries. However, if as we will claim, human remains are underwater cultural heritage, they are protected and managed by the 2001 UNESCO Convention 2 �(Convention hereinafter), meaning that they have to be preserved in situ. According to the Convention, the use of these shipwrecks as underwater cemetery will make the history for future generations. It is also suggested (Bryant, 2001) that since underwater shipwrecks are unnatural and do not belong on the bottom of the sea -they belong at their home ports and intended destinations - neither do human remains belong on the bottom of the seas there. As a consequence, recovery is acceptable where circumstances permit: the reason being that while cemeteries are the intended resting places for the dead, shipwrecks are not, and because shipwrecks have other diverse values, they should not glibly be labelled as cemeteries and kept off-limits to salvors and others. Historic shipwrecks containing human remains deserve respect, although not so far as to treat them as underwater cemeteries that cannot be salvaged, Bryant concludes (2001). In this regard, it is open to debate that, while cemeteries are the intended resting place for the dead, shipwrecks are not. Throughout history, cemeteries have changed their context according to the circumstances: from churches - which are not meant to be cemeteries - to main squares in the village when there are mass deaths. Therefore, fatalities and deaths on board - of the now shipwrecks - has converted them into submerged cemeteries. Finally and more importantly, it seems that declaring shipwrecks as underwater cemeteries is generally the result of a need to enhance the cultural identity of a nation, region or group, something not well accepted in some circles, since it is highly selective in terms of what is portrayed as worthy of being remembered. In this sense, the topic of heritage as a tool to shape the collective memory has been well studied (Nora, 1996; Viejo-Rose, 2011). It seems true that heritage can become an evocative national symbol, acting as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. During a period of deciding what to preserve, efforts are made to shape public memory through memorial forms, sites, references and public rituals (ViejoRose, 2011). As a consequence, the heritage can be manipulated by the rulers to remember history in a different way. In the case of the shipwrecks, it is the idea of those who died for us, for their country. Legal approach The Convention defines underwater cultural heritage as: all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at 3 �least 100 years such as: (i) sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context; (ii) vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context; and (iii) objects of prehistoric character. This definition appears to represent that human remains are underwater cultural heritage, regardless of whether they are contained on a shipwreck or just lying at the bottom of the sea. In other words, human remains under water for at least 100 years are objects according to the Convention. As a consequence, every article and every rule of the Convention is applicable to human remains. Any direct citation to human remains in the rest of the text is redundant and expresses differences with the rest of the cultural heritage discriminating against - or emphasizing - human remains with respect to sites, structures, buildings, artefacts, vessels or other vehicles lying at the bottom of the sea. The term is used in two more articles. Human remains are also explicitly named in Article 2.9: States Parties shall ensure that proper respect is given to all human remains located in maritime waters. This article suggests a respect in any case or activity when dealing with human remains. The last mention of human remains is found in the Annex, Rule 5, where it is specified that activities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall avoid the unnecessary disturbance of human remains or venerated sites. This last reference deals with human remains contained within the other underwater cultural heritage, for instance a shipwreck. However, none of these articles directly states the best conditions to manage human remains, for instance in cases where the shipwreck is going to be excavated and/or raised. The Convention does not describe whether the bodies should be recovered with the ship and reburied, or should remain at the bottom of the sea. It is also not stated if the human remains should repatriated to their country of origin if the shipwreck is, for instance, salvaged by a private company. The Convention mainstays are: 1. Preservation of underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humanity; 2. In situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage; 3. Prohibition of commercial exploitation of the underwater cultural heritage; 4. International cooperation in the preservation of underwater cultural heritage. 4 �In this regard, if we finally agree that human remains are in fact underwater cultural heritage, the same terms are applied. As a consequence, human remains have to be preserved for the benefit of humanity, they cannot be commercially exploited and an international cooperation must occur in order to preserve them. The Convention also establishes what to do with the underwater cultural heritage – and therefore with human remains - once it has been discovered (Article 18. 4): A State Party which has seized underwater cultural heritage shall ensure that its disposition be for the public benefit, taking into account the need for conservation and research [...] the need for public access, exhibition and education [...] in respect of the underwater cultural heritage concerned. Leaving aside the economic definition of public benefit, it is worth to remember that families may need a place to pray, to honour the victims of the shipwrecks. This demand is part of the public benefit. Article 18.4 is complemented in the Annex of the Convention consisting on Rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage: Rule 1. The protection of underwater cultural heritage through in situ preservation shall be considered as the first option […]. Rule 4. Activities directed at underwater cultural heritage must use non-destructive techniques and survey methods in preference to recovery of objects. If excavation or recovery is necessary for the purpose of scientific studies or for the ultimate protection of the underwater cultural heritage, the methods and techniques used must be as non-destructive as possible and contribute to the preservation of the remains. As a consequence, none of the instruments dealing with the protection of underwater cultural heritage deal specifically with human remains and how to manage them, but since human remains are underwater cultural heritage, the same rules are applicable; the most important direction is the preservation in situ for the benefit of the public. However, since the two articles refer to human remains in specific terms, the Convention sows doubts about its specific distinction and consequently, about the specific treatment. Other instruments, like the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains (1989) that remarks respectful treatment and consideration of indigenous communities and the Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects (2005) that establishes ethics on the display of human remains are not specific to human remains on shipwrecks, although they can be combined. 5 �Watery graves The community is relaying its history, its past and in some way its future in the hands of archaeologists. How those elements are going to be managed and manipulated will build the history of an individual, a community or a nation Archaeologists have also to respond to an ethic of cultural dignity, which may include obtaining permission from the descendants of the human remains. The biologically and culturally related groups must have a substantial role in the decisions and the treatment of their ascendants. In this sense, there has been an apparent growth of the notion of shipwrecks as graveyards and memorials, some with traditional notions of burial at sea, and requiring recognition and respect beyond the protection of the archaeological remains (human and otherwise) contained within. Among the reasons of such interest, it is necessary to consider both the controversial aspect of this option and the effectiveness showed in some countries. In the first of these two aspects, the controversial one, a group of elements are combined: from the purely technical to those of ethical or human nature. In this sense, the recovery of human remains (sometimes with a high number of civil or military victims) is a source of controversy on the way that both the bodies and the shipwrecks containing them should be managed. With these controversies, there are conflicts without a clear solution, where some opinions are opposed to the treatment of human remains while other ones are related to the need of the historians and public opinion to understand the facts, and through these gain knowledge of history. Bryant (2001) remarks that it is widely acknowledged that gaining knowledge about the past requires examining ruins of earlier cultures, including human skeletal remains. On the other side to those technical matters, the ethical background includes some other facts of a particular complexity which determines the actions of the management and the protection of certain countries. Wight (2009) observes that the issue of remembering tragedy and oppression in heritage sites is at the centre of an academic debate surrounding “truth” or “authentic” narratives. Truth, he continues, depends on a number of ethical codes codified through cultural background, and religious or secular beliefs. Among these matters, the cultural ones dominate the picture: The consideration of death, where there are usually superstitious perceptions, and a general attitude to the “respect to the dead” and their remains. 6 �- The religious considerations with transcendental character, and its impetus in life after death. - The consideration of memories as an instrument to continue life after death. - The consideration of the past as an example (positive or negative) for the present and for the future, associated with the collective memory of the human being. One particular way of this consideration is the one who use the memories as a tool for the benefit of the social cohesion, to create or strength a national, regional, local… identity, as explained before. The concepts of monument and hero acquire, in those contexts, an emotive capacity which can strengthen the goals and the actions for the protection of the heritage (Nora, 1996). Shipwrecks as cemeteries It is necessary for the international community to leave an open option to preserve shipwrecks with human remains as watery graves. That option will depend both on the collective interest to remember the tragedy, and the weight of the attitude to consider the shipwrecks as a sanctuary for the dead people. Anyway, the diversity of countries of origin and the nationalities of the victims on some shipwrecks reduces the consideration of an emotional answer to an attack or national identity, although there is still an attitude of collective awareness of the realities of our times. War graves have a different consideration (Williams, 2005). They have a particular legal status which establishes a degree of protection from disturbance: it is a mixture of salvage principles and legislation relating to military remains. The difficulty comes when those human remains are something that some want to forget, rather than remember. Watery graves as memorials Part of our identity is based in our cultural property identity. This is the feeling of a group of people, or of an individual which are influenced by their culture. As Renfrew and Bahn (2008: 546) remembered, ethnicity today is a living force, and heritage is an important tool in the definition of national identity. Declaring a shipwreck as a cemetery can be considered as part of this enhancement of the national identity. Memorials are highly selective in terms of what they portray as worthy of being remembered. 7 �Watery graves attracting black tourism Management of shipwrecks as watery graves can lead to dark tourism, attracting tourists to a place with special meaning to the friends and relatives of the people who lost their lives in the disaster. Tragedies can be then exploited, not only to convey political messages, but also for commercial gain (Sharpley, 2009). Dark tourism is defined as a different type of tourist attraction. It is the act of travel and visitation to sites of death, disaster and the seemingly macabre (Stone, 2009). It has to be analyzed if declaring shipwrecks as watery graves will attract this kind of tourism. Conclusion All the factors and the complexities of the issues on the management of the underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes the term human remains within its definition of underwater cultural heritage. As a consequence, the same principles applicable to the underwater cultural heritage – no commercial exploitation, preservation in situ, preservation for the benefit of the mankind and international cooperation- are also valid for human remains. Preservation in situ of human remains means the treatment of shipwrecks as underwater cemeteries. The recovery of those remains would contravene the Convention. On the other hand, benefits from the study of human remains would come to an end if some of those human remains are not recovered and/or studied. The complexity arises from the choice of those remains that will be disturbed. Declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries can be attractive not only because of the controversy, but also for the effectiveness of preservation. Delgado confirmed (2004: 56) that “the best and largest museum of all lies in the bottom of the sea”. It can also be the largest cemetery of the world. Acknowledgements The present work benefited from the input of J. Carman, C. Forrest, M. AznarGomez, and M. Manders, who provided valuable comments to the writing of the research summarised here. 8 �References Bryant, C. R., 2001. The archaeological duty of care: the legal, professional, and cultural struggle over salvaging historic shipwrecks. Albany Law Review, Fall 2001: 97-145. Delgado, J., 2004. Adventures of a Sea Hunter: In Search of Famous Shipwrecks. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. Delgado, J., 2011. Diving on the Titanic. Archaeology, Vol. 54 (1) (January/February): 34-41. Dromgoole, S., 2013. Underwater cultural heritage and international law. Cambridge University Press, New York. Nora, P., 1996. Realms of Memory. (English Translation: L. Kritzman), Columbia University Press, New York. Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P., 2008. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. Thames & Hudson, London. Sharpley, R., 2009. Dark Tourism and Political Ideology: Towards a Governance Model. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 145-163. Stone, P. R., 2009. Dark Tourism: Morality and New Moral Spaces. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 56-72. Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects, 2005. From http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php. Vermillion Accord on Human Remains, from http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php. Viejo-Rose, D., 2011. Reconstructing Spain: cultural heritage and memory after civil war. Sussex Academic Press, Sussex. Wight, C., 2009. Contested National Tragedies: An Ethical Dimension. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 129-144. UNESCO., 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural- heritage/2001-convention/official-text/ Williams, M., 2005. “War graves” and Salvage: Murky Waters? International Maritime Law, June/July 2000, Vol. 7 (5): 151-158. 9 �Biography Elena Perez-Alvaro is a PhD candidate in Underwater Cultural Heritage at University of Birmingham, UK. She holds an undergraduate degree in History of Art and MSc in Heritage and Museum Studies at University of Portsmouth and LLM in Maritime Law at University of London. She has studied a Masters Research Degree at University of Cambridge, being the title of her dissertation ‘Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Spain’. Her work on ‘Unconsidered Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage: Laying Submarine Cables or Experiments on Particle Physics using underwater cultural heritage: the dilemma’ has been published in Rosetta Journal. 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 Human remains on underwater cultural heritage: Ethics, values and law Description An account of the resource All of the factors and complexities of the issues regarding the management of underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. Catastrophes creating shipwrecks frequently also cause deaths, ranging from single fatalities to disasters claiming hundreds of lives. However there is not a specific legislation dealing with the treatment of the human remains on shipwrecks. Nevertheless, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage includes in its definition the term human remains, which means that the same guidelines for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage preservation in situ for the public benefit are also applicable to human remains. In this regards, this paper will justify that declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries in most cases attracts tourism, apart from the own meaning of these sacred places, and also complies with the 2001 UNESCO Convention principles. In addition, the possibility of the treatment of human remains as intangible heritage can lead to a new whole vision for its protection and management. Underwater cultural heritage can be not only monuments to the great journey or heroic combat, but also a tool to shape the collective memory. Underwater cultural heritage can act as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/34b414ba51dcc2fe4f0f2a29849ddeeb.pdf 6375b0a513e7a93fb6b439a9b197a13f PDF Text Text Feasibility study on capacity building in Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific Jennifer F. McKinnon East Carolina University Program in Maritime Studies Greenville, 27858 USA Email: mckinnonje@ecu.edu Abstract The first UNESCO regional workshop on Pacific underwater cultural heritage (UCH) took place in December 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the workshop identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; and developing a training and education programme for managers. Based on the recommendations made at the Honiara workshop, a Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO support. The study recommends a possible capacity building programme to be hosted by the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji. Key words: UNESCO, Capacity Building, UCH, Training Programme, Pacific Introduction Experts from Pacific Island nations and underwater cultural heritage (UCH) practitioners identified the need for UCH capacity building during the December 2009 workshop “Towards the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific” held in Honiara, Solomon Islands and sponsored by the UNESCO, Apia. During this meeting it was identified that, although there are limited resources available, most Pacific nations recognize the need to develop a program of UCH management and have staff trained in recording, managing and protecting this heritage. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the meeting specifically identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; strengthening assessment and mitigation techniques for negative impacts to underwater sites; and developing a training and education program for managers. These views were expressed in light of increasing threats 1 �posed by lack of legislation, tourism, development, natural disasters and climate change. The UNESCO Apia Office contracted Flinders University’s Program in Maritime Archaeology to conduct and write a feasibility study for developing capacity in UCH management in the Pacific (McKinnon and Kimura, 2011). The Program has a history of participation in UNESCO sponsored programs and an ongoing research agenda on UCH within the Pacific region and was suited to conduct such a project. Selected Existing and Planned Capacity: Programs, Projects and Activities The development of a capacity building program rests on knowledge of what capacity already exists and any future planned capacity. Thus a review of existing programs, projects and activities including UNESCO Pacific member, associate member and non-member nations located in the Pacific was conducted. This included the following nations: Australia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (non-member), Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam (non-member), Hawaii, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau (Associate member), Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. A review of the existing programs included thorough Internet searches, library searches and targeted emails to relevant practitioners to identify activities related to UCH. Each program, project and activity was then reviewed and information was collected to assess their capacity. Data collated included: institution name, geographic area, previous and current research/work/projects related to UCH, available facilities, contact information, associated websites and publications/texts/references. This information was compiled into a database and each nation was assessed for their potential to contribute to or host a capacity building program. For the purposes of identifying capacity building potential, the definition of “capacity” in the feasibility study involved two key criteria: framework and sustainability. In order for a project, program or activity to be viable and capable of supporting long-term capacity it should provide a general framework that may include, but not be limited to expertise, administration and funding. As well, that project, program or activity must be sustainable over time, that is, not a one-off effort. Thus the existing and planned capacity projects, programs and activities outlined in the feasibility study fulfilled both these criteria. The following nations were outlined for their potential to contribute capacity building programs for UCH in the Pacific: Australia, Commonwealth of the 2 �Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Hawaii, New Zealand and Palau. The programs, projects and activities of these nations were investigated further and subdivided into the following categories: government organisations, university programs, non-government (NGOs) and not-for-profit (NFPs) organisations, museums and private organisations and businesses. The best location for hosting a UCH capacity building program was identified as Fiji, discussed further below. A new Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program During the December 2009 workshop in Honiara, participants discussed the possibilities for building capacity in the Pacific region and decided that it was too early to attempt establishing a Regional Centre of Excellence Field Training Facility as had been done in the Asia region at Chanthaburi, Thailand. Thus, the capacity building program in the Pacific would need to take an approach suited to the Pacific. As a result, the capacity building program focused less on the need for certification in SCUBA and diver training and more on knowledge building and knowledge transfer. Most practitioners and agencies would agree that knowledge is at the core of sustainable capacity development. By increasing knowledge, the capacity building program would develop a framework for training future practitioners to have actual UCH working capacity. The UNESCO Apia Office outlined the following requirements for a capacity building program (UNESCO, 2010a):  combine classroom/online lectures with field training for diving at UCH sites, including those in Pacific island countries  use ICT as a tool for knowledge sharing and networking  be based on public-private partnership, involving tourism diving industry, in order to ensure sustainable funding These three requirements were incorporated into the design of a program that met the needs identified by Pacific nations during the workshop (UNESCO, 2010b) including:  systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites  exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites 3 � strengthening assessment and mitigation techniques for negative impacts to underwater sites  developing a training and education program for managers as possible steps towards building a capacity for managing UCH Training Based on the above needs identified by Pacific nations, a capacity building program would include an intensive, regional training in one of the Pacific nations involving relevant representatives from each nations’ management authorities and experts in the field of UCH and heritage management. The training would focus on basic knowledge and capacity building. It could be offered during one long training session (i.e. three-four weeks) or divided into two, three, or four sessions over an extended period. The following was a proposed outline for the training separated into sessions, modules and subject matter: Session 1: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Identification, Recording and Database Management Module 1: Defining UCH using a Pacific approach: Introduction to UNESCO and ICOMOS; What is intangible and tangible heritage? Regional priorities in Pacific UCH management Module 2: Requirements for systematic recording of UCH: site identification, recording and delimitation: What types of sites are UCH? Cultural maritime landscape and seascape approaches; Recording techniques for UCH; Defining site boundaries Module 3: Understanding site significance: The Burra Charter process; What is significance? Writing a significance statement; Thematic frameworks and approaches Module 4: Building and maintaining a database of UCH: What is a heritage database? What is included in a database? What software to use? Maintenance of databases; Successful uses of databases Module 5: Practice in recording sites: Conduct an actual archaeological survey of a UCH site 4 �Session 2: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Management Module 1: Identifying risks to intangible and tangible heritage: What are the risks to Pacific UCH? Preventative approaches; Case studies Module 2: In situ conservation and preservation: What is in situ conservation and preservation? Developing and conducting conservation surveys; Developing a conservation management plan Module 3: Disaster risk management and developing a plan: What are natural disasters? Vulnerability of various types of UCH; Planning for disasters; Writing a disaster risk management plan Module 4: Assessment and mitigation of impacts to UCH: Damage assessment investigation and surveys; Violation investigations; Damage assessment report preparation; Case studies Module 5: Developing a network of support: local and regional capacity: Strengthening inter- and intra-island communication and collaboration; Identifying regulatory agencies for partnerships; Trainings for law enforcement on UCH protection; Public outreach programs; Developing local heritage interest groups Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Interpretation and Heritage Tourism Module 1: Methods in public interpretation: in situ and museum approaches: What is public interpretation and what forms does it take? In situ interpretation and museums; Traditional approaches to museum interpretation Module 2: Respecting Indigenous UCH places and values: What is an Indigenous heritage place? Identifying traditional owners’ rights and interests; Consulting with traditional owners; Dealing with disputes Module 3: Restricting access to UCH by the public: licensing, permitting and regulation: Legal implications of restricting access; Licensing and permitting schemes using case studies; Regulation of access restriction; Dealing with breaches of access restriction Module 4: Heritage tourism strategies: What is heritage tourism? Regional issues and how can it be sustainable; Working with and training local tour companies and dive shops; Developing a plan for monitoring heavily visited sites; Developing site stewards programs; Heritage Awareness Diving Seminar Trainings Module 5: Successful heritage tourism approaches: UCH parks, trails and preserves; Case studies 5 �Location The preferred location chosen was Fiji. Fiji is an accessible island nation and is serviced by three international airlines including Air New Zealand (Star Alliance member), Air Pacific (Fiji’s national airline) and Pacific Blue (Virgin) as well as several smaller regional airlines. This makes getting to and from Fiji easy for both Pacific nation representatives and experts. Fiji was chosen as the location because the government and the Fiji Museum have previous experience with hosting UNESCO capacity building training programs (Smith and O’Keefe, 2004). The previous capacity building training was run with the permission and support of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs; the Department of Culture and Heritage; the Fiji National Commission for UNESCO; and the National Trust for Fiji. Fiji also was chosen due to the location of the University of South Pacific and the possibility of a partnership between the University’s School of Marine Sciences (SMS) and the Fiji Museum. This would increase capacity for the use of infrastructure such as classrooms, wet and dry labs, boats and ICT tools. According to USP, “SMS is situated in a modern, state-of-the-art facility on the shore of Laucala Bay in Suva, not far from the main Laucala Campus. Its buildings were purpose-built through a grant from Japan, and include offices, science and computer laboratories, lecture theatres, aquaria, a comprehensive library (PIMRIS), a modern fish processing laboratory, collection, SCUBA and boat service facilities”. SMS has a fully equipped and self-contained dive shop with lockers, showers and change-rooms and equipment hire is available. Additionally, there is continual availability of small and medium boats with capacities of 6-20 persons. All are equipped with navigational and safety equipment and operated by trained personnel. Once the training is completed there exists the opportunity to continue taking advantage of USP resources through their online ICT services. USP has campuses located in Suva, Labasa and Lautoka, Fiji; Apia, Samoa; Port Vila, Vanuatu; Rarotonga, Cook Islands; Tarawa, Kiribati; Majuro, Marshall Islands; Nauru; Alofi, Niue; Honiara, Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Nuku'alofa, Tonga; and Funafuti, Tuvalu. The town of Levuka on the island of Ovalau, Fiji, was chosen as the dive training site because Levuka offers a diverse array of prehistoric, colonial and post-colonial heritage in the form of built and archaeological heritage and more specifically shipwrecks. Three historic shipwrecks in Levuka Harbour have already been 6 �archaeologically surveyed (Hosty and Hundley, 1998). These sites are easily accessible and lie in 5m, 12m and 20m of water. Shallow sites such as these with good visibility are excellent sites to use for training purposes. Alternatively, for those participants with no SCUBA qualification, there are inter-tidal and terrestrial “maritime-related” sites that could be chosen for the practical component. Delivery The delivery mode of the training modules was designed to be face-to-face and involves experts in the field of UCH and heritage management in the Pacific delivering module lectures, practical and discussions. This approach was preferred due to the difficulty of content and the need to demonstrate during practical sessions and discussions. It is understood that for this capacity building exercise to be sustainable and to build a stronger network of practitioners who interact on a regular basis, several follow-up developments should be put in place. The first development would be the production of a CD for distribution to participants that includes all of the readings, training modules, PowerPoint slideshows, lectures and other materials developed for the program. This CD could be used by participants to review materials and develop programs based on some of the examples and case studies presented. Another development would be two Webinars whereby the participants and experts participate in an online web-based seminar to discuss any issues that developed out of the program, relate any advances made in the recording and management of UCH sites, and ask questions of the experts about specific queries or directions for future work. The Webinars could be conducted through an online program such as GoToMeeting™ (http://www.gotomeeting.com.au/fec/). Another development would be the creation of a listserv for practicing professionals and experts in the field of UCH in the Pacific. Such a listserv would provide a useful communication vector for discussing ideas, issues and developments in UCH in the Pacific. Finally, another option would be the creation of a blog through WordPress.org on the topic of UCH in the Pacific. A blog would facilitate discussion and interaction in a slightly more creative and interactive way. The blog could be a place to post photographs, stories, developments, questions, etc. The development of the blog could begin with a short training session during the program so that all participants are able to utilise the software. Access could be restricted to only those who 7 �participated in the program. Restricting access would allow potentially sensitive information from being distributed widely. Steering Committee The steering committee was designed to include a range of practicing professionals and experts in the field of UCH and cultural heritage management. It would consist of individuals from a variety of institutions and countries with a focus in research and management within the Pacific region. Timeframe The development of such a capacity building program would take 9-12 months of planning so that the maximum amount of participation can be achieved. Below was an estimated timeframe: Planning (9-12 months) Develop steering committee Send out invitations to training Develop curriculum Organise logistics such as airfare, lodging, transportation, boats, diving needs, training classrooms, site survey areas, etc. Training (1 month) Run training over one month period or split into two or three sessions of a week or two each Follow up Developments (6 months) Organise and run Webinar at 3 months and 6 months after training Organise and run Listserv Organise and run blog Create CD of course materials Total timeframe (16-19 months) Table 1. Timeframe for developing a capacity building program Budget An estimated budget for the costs of running a capacity building program was created. It included costs related to travel, accommodation and equipment for up to 25 participants. The 25 participants would include between three to five trainers and the remainder would be trainees. The budget did not include the costs of organising the training or curriculum development, nor did it include the follow-up organisation of Webinars, a list serve or blog. It is expected that some of the training content and curriculum development might exist in some capacity within organisations identified 8 �in the list of capacity building programs reviewed in the study. For example, Flinders University offers courses and curriculum in the subject of maritime archaeology and has run similar trainings in the past (i.e. ALA Fellowships). If partnerships or arrangements were made with such organisations, these training components and curriculum could be made accessible. However, it was recommended that a specific curriculum that is catered to the Pacific region that deals with Pacific issues be developed for this program. This would require financial support that could be negotiated through a one-off contract with an organisation already equipped with the capacity to develop such a program (i.e. existing framework, specialists, administration support, etc.). This program curriculum could then be used in the future in other locations or successive years. An estimated budget for the development of the curriculum and the delivery of curriculum (for one person/organisation) was provided separate from the main budget for operating the program. The budget assumed the trainers would participate as volunteers and present content relevant to their own experiences/projects/programs and did not include preparation time or salaries. Conclusion In concluding it is pertinent to re-state that the Pacific region has its own unique set of challenges and issues that are quite different to adjacent regions. Thus it is important when designing a UCH capacity building program that other “models” for capacity building, training, and management are not applied wholesale to this region. A careful approach that considers the challenges and difficulties the Pacific is facing should be taken, and a program that is suited to deal with these challenges and resolve them into the future should be outlined for a successful program of capacity building. As Anita Smith has stated in Contested Heritages in the Pacific, “Communities and governments in the region are keen to engage with international conservation programs not only because they are interested in protecting their heritage and resources but also as they provide a source of income, training and avenue for communication with the global community. The challenge is for processes of heritage protection and national legislation to govern and enforce this protection to be based in and evolve from traditional systems of governance and cultural practices rather than imposed from the outside”. 9 �Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge and thank Jun Kimura and Ross Anderson who provided input on the original UNESCO feasibility study. References Hosty, K., and Hundley, P., 1998. Maritime Archaeological Investigation off the Port of Levuka, Island of Ovalau, Fiji. Australian National Maritime Museum, Sydney: 151. McKinnon, J. F., and Kimura, J., 2011. Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program. Flinders University, Maritime Archaeology Program, Adelaide, South Australia: 1-32. Smith, A., and O’Keefe, D., 2004. Training Workshops in Cultural Heritage Management in the Pacific Island Nations: Interim Report, Workshop 1. Report prepared for UNESCO Division of Cultural Heritage, Paris: 1-63. UNESCO., 2010a. Financing Activities Contract between UNESCO and Flinders University. On file at UNESCO, Apia Office: 1-2. UNESCO., 2010b. Report on Workshop: Towards the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 16-18 December 2009. On file at UNESCO, Apia Office: 1-53. Jennifer McKinnon is an Assistant Professor at East Carolina University in the Program in Maritime Studies. Prior to teaching at ECU, she was a Senior Lecturer at Flinders University, South Australia for seven years. Jennifer is a Research Associate of the non-profit organization Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research, Corpus Christi. She has conducted a number of archaeological research projects on terrestrial and UCH sites in the Pacific. Jennifer’s research focuses on public and community engagement and collaborations with coastal and heritage agencies. 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 Feasibility study on capacity building in Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific Description An account of the resource The first UNESCO regional workshop on Pacific underwater cultural heritage (UCH) took place in December 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the workshop identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; and developing a training and education programme for managers. Based on the recommendations made at the Honiara workshop, a Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO support. The study recommends a possible capacity building programme to be hosted by the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jennifer F. McKinnon, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/01c79df7409295e1de52845419f7cf91.pdf 17990c60b95e39d99310cc2f00401ab5 PDF Text Text UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Akatsuki Takahashi UNESCO Office for the Pacific States Apia Samoa Email: a.takahashi@unesco.org Abstract This paper will begin by introducing the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2001 in terms of background, guiding principles, international cooperation mechanisms, Annex, as well as benefits and implications of ratification by countries. It will provide progress in its implementation at the global level. It will then provide progress in the Pacific Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), addressing their particular challenges and opportunities. The paper will suggest a possible inter-Convention cooperation for the UCH protection and management in the Pacific by analyzing the recent progress in the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Pacific SIDS. The paper will conclude by summarizing the significance of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (henceforth UCH) protection and the UCH Convention not only in terms of its contribution to the advancement of knowledge of the history of humanity but also from the perspectives of the environmental protection, sustainable development and ocean governance. Key words: UNESCO, 2001 UCH Convention, Pacific, World Heritage Sites, International Cooperation Introduction UNESCO is one of the specialized agencies of the UN. UNESCO’s mission is to promote peace and the well-being of peoples in the world through international cooperation in education, science, culture and communication. Normative action is one of the core functions of UNESCO. Over the years, UNESCO adopted numerous international instruments. Among them, there are seven important Conventions in culture. These Conventions are: The Universal Copyright Convention (1952, 1971), The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflicts 1 �(1954) and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999), The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Illicit (1970), The Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), The Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), The Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). The ultimate goal of UNESCO’s normative action is to safeguard the cultural heritage and cultural diversity as the heritage of humanity. As the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention states that “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”, UNESCO played a pioneering role in promoting the concept of the heritage of mankind that is also the important principle of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). All together, these Conventions provide a comprehensive coverage of the culture sector. International NGOs such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have been playing important roles in their elaboration and implementation. The ambassador of Malta to the UN, Arvid Pardo, in his speech to the UN General Assembly in 1967, raised the question of the sea bed and the ocean floor, which launched a process that led to the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea during which UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. UNCLOS sets forth the rights and obligations of states regarding the use of the oceans, their resources, and the protection of the marine and coastal environment, while seeking to establish a balance between “Freedom of the Ocean” and “Management of the Ocean”. It also provides a definition of maritime zones. Part XI of UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authorities (ISA) to allow States Parties to organize, control and administer activities and resources in ocean areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, commonly referred to as “the Area”, through the common heritage of mankind principle. It entered into force in 1994 and is supplemented by the 1994 Deep Seabed Mining Agreement and the 1995 Agreement regarding Fish Stocks. UNCLOS obliges States Parties to protect UCH under the term “archaeological and historical objects”. UNCLOS includes two provisions concerning 2 �UCH; i) Article 149 that stipulates the UCH protection in the Area and ii) Article 303 that sets out a general obligation for States to protect their UCH. These articles, however, were felt by cultural experts to be unsatisfactory and incomplete without providing details of the measures to be taken especially in the space beyond the Contiguous Zone, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf. Moreover, Article 303 paragraph 3 leaves room for the commercial destruction of UCH and creates a legal vacuum concerning the protection of UCH. With this as background, the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (herein after the UCH Convention) was prepared and adopted with the main goals to complement the provisions in UNCLOS for strengthening UCH protection. Acknowledging that “the importance of underwater cultural heritage as an integral part of the cultural heritage of humanity and a particularly important element in the history of peoples, nations, and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage” in its Preamble, the UCH Convention provides the working definition of UCH as “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character, which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years”. Generally speaking, UCH, undisturbed in situ, is better preserved as compared to land-based cultural heritage. This is the reason why UCH is often called as a time capsule holding invaluable information for historians, archaeologists and scientists to reconstruct past cultures. The UCH Convention protects UCH from being commercially exploited for trade or speculation. The UCH Convention provides the linkages to the 1970 Convention on the actions related to illicit trafficking in cultural objects recovered from the sea. In order to resolve the conflict between ownership claims, salvage claims and cultural heritage interest, Article 4 of the UCH Convention states that “Any activity relating to UCH to which this Convention applies shall not be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds1, unless it; (a) is authorized by the competent authorities, and (b) is in full conformity with this Convention, and (c) ensures that any recovery of the UCH achieves its maximum protection”. The UCH Convention establishes a protection regime for UCH by maritime zones determined by UNCLOS. States parties have the exclusive right to regulate activities in their internal and archipelagic waters and their territorial sea. Within their Contiguous 3 �Zone, States Parties may regulate and authorize activities directed at UCH within their Contiguous Zone. The UCH Convention recognizes the right of the coastal states to prohibit or permit activities directed to UCH in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf. Where there is a discovery of UCH or activities directed at UCH in these areas, Article 10 gives priority to the coastal states to act as a “Coordinating State” to coordinate consultations with all other States Parties which have declared an interest. Within the Area, a “Coordinating State” will be designated by the DirectorGeneral of UNESCO after inviting all the countries that declared an interest. The Director-General shall also invite International Seabeds Authorities (ISA) to consultations. In this way, the UCH Convention provides a comprehensive coverage of UCH regardless of its locations, greatly extending the legal protection of UCH. It must be noted that the UCH Convention does not regulate the ownership of UCH. Being aware of the responsibility entrusted to the coastal states especially in the developing world, the UCH Convention emphasizes the importance of UCH training and capacity building, technology transfer and information sharing, as well as awareness raising of the significance of UCH. The UCH Convention provides in its Annex the important principle of the preference for the preservation in situ as well as practical rules for the UCH treatment and research based on internationally recognized best practice and the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of UCH in 1996. Joining the UCH Conventions, countries can ; i) achieve UCH protection at the same level as land-based cultural heritage, ii) protect UCH from looting and commercial exploitation, iii) ensure comprehensive protection of UCH regardless of their locations through state cooperation system. On the other hand, by joining the UCH Convention, States Parties shall pledge to protect UCH against lootings and commercial exploitations and apply the provisions of the UCH Convention and the Rules in its Annex. There is no financial implication involved in joining the UCH Convention. The UCH Convention entered into force in January 2009. UNESCO provides a forum for the adoption of a common approach of all States Parties towards UCH protection through the Meetings of States Parties and its Scientific Advisory Body (SAB). SAB is composed of twelve expert members nominated by States Parties. They have a 4 �scientific, professional and ethical background in the field of underwater archaeology, international law, materials science or UCH conservation. SAB assists States Parties in the implementation of the Convention and its Annex and the elaboration of the Operational Guidelines, while consulting with International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) through its International Committee for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICPUCH) and other accredited NGOs in its deliberations. UCH in Oceania The Pacific region covers about one-third of total surface area of the Earth, and comprises over one thousand islands and atolls. Reflecting on the long history of human settlements and interactions with other regions, the Pacific Ocean contains a wealth of UCH that spans human history from the Stone Age to the Atomic Age (UNESCO, 2010). For instance, the Oceania region was populated by the Austranesians, or Lapita people, and traces of their culture remain both above and under water. The Pacific islanders developed fishing infrastructures such as fish traps and fish ponds, unique indigenous UCH. Among the vessels built by the Pacific islanders, the Fijian Duras were double-hull sailing canoes of a length of up to 30 m. In the 17th and 18th century, the Pacific region was explored and “discovered” by navigators such as Magellan, Torres, Tasman, D’Urville, Drake, Cook and La Perouse. The Spanish dominated early Pacific colonizations and there are many shipwrecks related to the Spanish Manila galleon trade. Shipwrecks on the labor trade in the 19th century such as the Fijian sugar and Peruvian guano industries were found in the Pacific, while whalers, missionaries and traders have also left behind a legacy of underwater sites. More recently, the Pacific was among the major theatres of the Second World War. The Pacific holds numerous submerged ships, submarines and aircraft, some of them are war graves still containing human remains that must be approached with respect. The Pacific region has taken a progressive approach to applying the principles and the guidelines in the UCH Convention to the region’s UCH. The First Regional Workshop on the Pacific UCH took place in 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. The Workshop brought together representatives of the cultural authorities in the Pacific SIDS in order to share information on the current status of UCH protection and management in each country. 5 �The Workshop participants identified priority areas for cooperation that included developing systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites, exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites, and developing a training and education program for UCH archaeologists and managers. The papers presented at the Workshop were compiled, edited and published as UNESCO publication "Underwater Cultural Heritage in Oceania" in 2010. As a follow up, a feasibility study on the Pacific capacity building programme was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO assistance. This study found the advantages of partnering with regional intergovernmental bodies such as the University of the South Pacific (USP) for this task. Palau was the first Pacific island state that organized the UCH Training Course in Koror in 2013 with UNESCO assistance. Progress in UCH protection in the Pacific is being made within the framework of not only the UCH Program but also the World Heritage Program and the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) program. The World Heritage Convention ratified by 190 countries reflects the global recognition of the intrinsic value of our heritage. As of today, 12 out of 14 Pacific member states are parties to the World Heritage Convention 2, which has allowed Pacific countries to formulate a regional action plan and take a coordinated approach. ICOMOS Pacifika and Pacific Island Museum Association (henceforth PIMA) have been formed to provide Pacific perspective for the program implementation. Although the Pacific still remains the least represented region on the World Heritage List, over ten sites in the Pacific Small Island Developing States (henceforth SIDS) and territories are inscribed on the World Heritage List. Already enjoying the high visibility and increase in visitors and revenue from tourism, these World Heritage sites, some of which contain UCH elements, can be ideal places for the actual maritime survey and field work. With regard to the ICH program, the Pacific SIDS out of which 8 countries are now parties to the ICH Convention3 have been developing related cultural policies. The safeguarding of the traditional ship building technologies and navigation systems as part of the Pacific ICH are intimately related to the understanding of UCH. followings are some of the examples. 6 The �Yapese Stone Money Bank (Palau and the Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia) Before and during European contact, Yapese people travelled across the 400 km of open water to the Rock Islands in Palau where they quarried their stone disk money. They were transported back to the Yap Island by canoe. Some of them arrived safely in Yap, while, according to the oral histories transmitted among local communities, the biggest stone disk fell onto the seabed during its transport and remains on the ocean floor between Yap and Palau. Palau and FSM nominated “Yapese Stone Disk” as a trans-border site for inscription on the World Heritage List in 2011. This joint nomination, although deferred, has contributed to revitalizing the collaboration between the two countries, resulting in the establishment of a joint management committee for the heritage sites. On the other hand, “the Rock Islands and Southern Lagoon” that includes some archaeological elements became the first World Heritage Site in Palau in 2012. The government of Palau puts in place an added departure tax to finance local community efforts under the Protected Areas Network in the country. This has been attracting attention as a potential model for a sustainable financing mechanism for protected areas in other Pacific SIDS (UNESCO, 2012). Levuka Historical Port Town (Fiji) Fiji shipwrecks, ranging from sailing ships to steamships, are mainly located around the Lomaiviti Island Group, where Levuka is located. Levuka is the first colonial capital of Fiji ceded to the British in 1874. “Levuka Historical Port Town” became the first World Heritage site in Fiji in June 2013. Levuka developed from the early 19th century as a center of commercial activity by Americans and Europeans who built a colonial port town was influenced in its development by the indigenous community. The buffer zone of Levuka World Heritage site includes offshore waters under which the important UCH are submerged according to the Levuka Maritime Archaeological Survey conducted by the Australian National Maritime Museum in 1998. Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site (Marshall Islands) From 1946 to 1958, after the displacement of the local inhabitants, 67 nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall archipelago by USA, including the explosion of the first H-bomb (1952). Bikini Atoll has conserved direct tangible evidence that is highly 7 �significant in conveying the power of the nuclear tests, including a unique collection of shipwrecks at the bottom of the lagoon. These vessels sunk in 1946 by two separate nuclear detonations were a group of warships from the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that were assembled for Operation Crossroads. Dr J. Delgado, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, USA, states “The sunken test ships, as well as associated aircraft, test vehicles, and test equipment, cables, test bunkers, and the atomic craters (the gigantic Bravo crater) on the sea floor inside the lagoon are a museum of the beginnings of the atomic age, and as such, have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2010” (UNESCO, 2010). The property is protected by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Act (1991). The main threats to the property are the effects of climate change and the presence of stocks of bombs and fuel in the underwater part of the property. Empowering Pacific SIDS for UCH protection Under UNCLOS, Pacific SIDS have sovereign rights over the management of the natural resources, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment in their territorial waters and EEZ that is almost 100 times larger than their total island area. From this perspective, Pacific SIDS are not small but large maritime states and communities. These resources include not only mineral resources, fishery stocks, biological diversity, but also cultural, historical and archaeological resources such as UCH. Unfortunately the current level of attentions and considerations given to UCH in the Pacific is not adequate. This makes Pacific UCH particularly vulnerable to the risks, including commercial fishing, construction of offshore and onshore maritime infrastructure, environmental changes and the rise in marine tourism that may make an adverse impact on UCH protection. Special attention needs to be given to a growing interest in a Deep Sea Mining (henceforth DSM) in the Pacific. Several SIDS have private sector interests actively engaged in their EEZ and in the Area over which ISA has responsibility for approving programs of work. There are 13 programs of work approved for exploration for polymetallic manganese nodules in the Area in the Pacific, including 3 programs of work in “Reserve Areas” for developing countries to sponsor programs of work with private entities. New applications for contracts for exploration for Cobalt-Rich Crusts were 8 �approved by ISA in 2013. The impacts of DSM activities on the marine environment are unknown. Like the land-based mining projects, DSM projects must be carried out after the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including archaeological and UCH components has been completed. Several projects have been launched notably by the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) in order to assist Pacific SIDS in safeguarding its resources against commercial interests by establishing appropriate measures. With regard to legal protection, EU-funded Deep Sea Minerals (DSM) project implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (henceforth SPC) (2012) through the Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (henceforth SOPAC) advises Pacific SIDS to improve legal frameworks, increase technical capacity and to develop effective monitoring systems. As for UCH, the guidelines advise them to include wording along the following lines: i) Any object of an archaeological or historical nature found by any Title Holder or person conducting Marine Scientific Research within the jurisdiction or control of the [country] shall be reported to the [regulating body] and treated in accordance with its instructions, and shall be safeguarded pending receipt of those instructions and ii) The instructions given by the [regulating body] shall take into account Article 149 and/or 303 of UNCLOS. UNESCO has been in touch with SOPACSPC in order to strengthen the above guidelines and provide technical assistance for countries from the perspective of UCH protection. UNESCO has extended its assistance to a range of activities to enhance SIDS capacities in UCH protection. Besides, as part of its advocacy activity, UNESCO will organize a workshop on UCH and SIDS before the UN 3rd International Conference on Small Island Developing States (Samoa, 1 - 4 September 2014). Following the Conferences held in Barbados (1994) and Mauritius (2005), the 3rd SIDS Conference in Samoa will be held to renew the international community’s commitment to the sustainable future of SIDS and forge a genuine and durable partnership for this endeavor. UNESCO workshop on UCH and SIDS will bring together eminent experts in UCH from SIDS States Parties to the UCH Convention in the Caribbean region and international experts with the aims of enhancing the awareness of the importance of the UCH Convention. It is hoped that this workshop will provide an opportunity for mutual 9 �learning and networking among SIDS, let alone the increased ratification of the UCH Convention by SIDS. Conclusion The Ocean Declaration adopted at the Pacific World Heritage Workshop in Maupiti, French Polynesia, in 2009, emphasizes the cultural link amongst the peoples of the Pacific that extends beyond the artificial boundaries of the current geopolitical system and reinforces the ocean as being intrinsic to the identity, ways of life, values, knowledge and practices of Pacific peoples (UNESCO, 2012). The recent positive progress in the heritage safeguarding in the Pacific as shown in the increased number of the Pacific States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and ICH Convention represents an opportunity for inter-Convention cooperation in UCH protection and management in the Pacific. At the same time, much more efforts are needed to promote the UCH Convention in the Pacific, since to this day among forty-five States Parties there has been no signatory to he UCH Convention from the Pacific4. This situation makes the Pacific region particularly under-represented in the activities related to the UCH Convention. Ratification of the UCH Convention by the Pacific countries would increase the representation of the region as well as bolster the Convention’s universality. It must be noted that, guided by the principles embodied in the UCH Convention as well as its State Cooperation System, the UCH Convention will empower Pacific SIDS by promoting the sharing of duties and obligations among the coastal states and the broader international community. The UCH Convention will also assist them in strengthening its ocean governance by establishing necessary legal frameworks and building capacities. The diversity of UCH linking Pacific SIDS with other countries within and outside the region will also foster cultural exchange, cooperation, mutual understanding and peace. The significance of the UCH Convention and the importance of the participation of Pacific SIDS in its implementation must be understood from this perspective. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the advice and support from Mr. Etienne Clement, Director of the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, and Dr. Ulrike Guerin, Secretary for the UCH Convention at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. 10 �Endnote 1The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who saves another person’s ship or cargo from peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property so saved. The law of salvage never grants ownership, but grants compensation or the right to retain the objects by way of a maritime link, as long as the salvage award has not been paid. The law of finds has been applied to sunken and abondaned vessels and the finder is granted ownership of the objects. 2Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu. 3Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu. 4Albania; Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Panama, Palestine, Paraguay, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago,Tunisia, Ukraine. References UNESCO., 2010. Underwater Cultural Heritage in Oceania, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO., 2012. World Heritage Papers 34, World Heritage in a Sea of Islands, Pacific 2009 Programme, UNESCO, Paris. SPC, 2012. Annual Report of SPC-EU EDF 10 Deep Sea Minerals (DSM) Project, SPC, Suva. Biography Akatsuki Takahashi (高橋 暁), BA in international relations (Tsuda College, Tokyo), Diploma in education (International Christian University, Tokyo), PhD in cultural heritage risk management (Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto) has been the Programme Specialist for Culture at the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States in Apia, Samoa, since January 2010. Previously, she was at the Executive Office of the Culture Sector at UNESCO in Paris (2001-2009), UNESCO Office in Venice (1998-2001) and at the Culture Sector of UNESCO in Paris (1989-1998). Before joining UNESCO in 1989, she worked at the Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) (1986-1989) in Tokyo. 11 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Description An account of the resource This paper will begin by introducing the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2001 in terms of background, guiding principles, international cooperation mechanisms, Annex, as well as benefits and implications of ratification by countries. It will provide progress in its implementation at the global level. It will then provide progress in the Pacific Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), addressing their particular challenges and opportunities. The paper will suggest a possible inter-Convention cooperation for the UCH protection and management in the Pacific by analyzing the recent progress in the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Pacific SIDS. The paper will conclude by summarizing the significance of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (henceforth UCH) protection and the UCH Convention not only in terms of its contribution to the advancement of knowledge of the history of humanity but also from the perspectives of the environmental protection, sustainable development and ocean governance. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akatsuki Takahashi, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/2b025dc658519af2369571e723593e36.pdf 1f5cc197d24e650c481acfd42e8b5f29 PDF Text Text The Role of ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS in Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection in the Pacific Mark Staniforth Monash University Melbourne Australia Email: mark.staniforth@monash.edu Abstract This paper outlines the role played by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), which is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the conservation of the world's cultural monuments and sites and specifically in awareness raising and training related to underwater cultural heritage protection. ICOMOS membership requires an individual to be a practicing cultural heritage professional or have professional qualifications in the fields of conservation or preservation such as architect, archaeologist, town planner, and engineer, administrator of heritage, art historian or archivist. ICOMOS International Scientific Committees (ISCs) (such as ICUCH) are the vehicles through which ICOMOS brings together, develops and serves its worldwide membership according to their fields of specialized interest. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multidisciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management. ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was founded in 1991 by ICOMOS Australia to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world. ICUCH currently has ten members from the Asia and the Pacific region and this paper will discuss the role of ICUCH in the region. Furthermore ICUCH’s mission will only be achieved in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). NAS training aims to increase public awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. Key words: Training; Collaboration, Cooperation, Public awareness, Underwater cultural heritage protection Introduction The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a global, professional non-governmental organization (NGO) established in 1965 that is dedicated to the conservation and protection of the world’s cultural heritage monuments and sites (see http://icomos.org/en/). The Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) is a global non-government organization (NGO) based in the UK that had its beginnings back in 1964 (see http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/). Non1 �government organisations, such as ICOMOS and NAS, are often dependent on membership fees for the majority of their funding and therefore tend to have limited funding available to conduct ‘activities’ on a ‘paid’ basis. They also often have a very small number of paid staff and therefore it is up to the membership, working collaboratively, and individual members, usually working with other partners, to volunteer their time (usually at no cost), find funding and conduct activities ‘under the auspices’ or ‘on behalf of’ a particular NGO. Clearly ICOMOS, NAS and other ‘membership-based’ NGOs depend on their membership to take a proactive role in initiating, and contributing to, collaborative activities often volunteering their services pro bono (at no cost). This paper considers ICOMOS and one ICOMOS ISC - ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) together with NAS and the NAS Training Programme. It discusses a range of activities conducted by ICOMOS and NAS members, in relation to raising public awareness and conducting training about the management, preservation and protection of underwater cultural heritage in the Asia and the Pacific region. Unlike the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage had no fund to pay for activities included in the original convention although an account has now been established to allow for pooling donor donations to support certain projects and programmes (Jeffery, 2006; Parthesius and Jeffery, 2011: 281). This lack of funding as well as inadequate numbers of trained and experienced maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers in many countries in the Asia and the Pacific region are recognized as significant problems. The 2001 UNESCO Convention, nevertheless, has two articles related to public awareness and training. The first is Article 20 - Public Awareness that states: Each State Party shall take all practicable measures to raise public awareness regarding the value and significance of underwater cultural heritage and the importance of protecting it under this Convention. and the second is Article 21 - Training in underwater archaeology, which states: States Parties shall cooperate in the provision of training in underwater archaeology, in techniques for the conservation of underwater cultural heritage and, on agreed terms, in the transfer of technology relating to underwater cultural heritage 2 �The need for raising public awareness about, as well as training and teaching (capacity building) in, maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage management in the Asia and the Pacific region have been identified as important issues for more than a decade including during at least three UNESCO supported regional meetings and in their resultant action plans or recommendations. The first arose from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on the 2001 UNESCO Convention held in Hong Kong in 2003 (Prott, 2006: 158-160). The second was from the 2010 International Meeting on Protection, Presentation and Valorisation of Underwater Cultural Heritage held in Chongquig in China (Shuguang, 2011: 433434). The third was the Asia-Pacific Meeting on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage held in Koh Kong, Cambodia in 2012. ICOMOS ICOMOS has more than 11,000 members, over 100 National Committees and nearly 30 International Scientific Committees. International Scientific Committees (ISCs) focus on specialist areas of heritage conservation and are made up of ICOMOS members drawn from those specialist areas. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multi-disciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management see http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/committees/scientific- committees ICOMOS works for the conservation, protection, use and enhancement of cultural heritage monuments, sites and places including buildings, historic cities, cultural landscapes and archaeological sites. ICOMOS is dedicated to promoting the application of theory, methodology, and scientific techniques to the conservation of the world's architectural and archaeological heritage. Its work is based on the principles enshrined in a number of ICOMOS Charters including the 1964 International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter), the 1996 Charter on the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the 2000 International Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (see http://icomos.org/en/chartersand-texts). ICOMOS works closely with UNESCO, ICOM, ICCROM and other partners, across a wide range of areas in relation to cultural heritage protection, preservation, management and training. ICOMOS is primarily composed of its National 3 �Committees (NCs). Within the Asia and the Pacific region (as defined by UNESCO and comprising of 50 nations) there are more than 20National Committees at present plus ICOMOS Pasifika which covers all of the island nations of the Pacific Ocean. Many of these National Committees have websites and for a complete list of National Committees with contact details and website addresses see http://icomos.org/en/network/national-committees/list-of-national-committees. ICOMOS Pasifika was created in 2007 and aims to further the conservation and protection of heritage places in the Pacific Islands, with a focus on the cultural and natural specificities of the region. In particular, ICOMOS Pasifika aims to raise awareness with regards to the conservation of heritage places in the Pacific Islands amongst local, national and regional cultural organizations in the region (see https://www.facebook.com/pages/Icomos-Pasifika-International-Council-onMonuments-and-Sites/357945310963424). ICOMOS holds a General Assembly (Congress or Conference) every three years – the 18th ICOMOS General Assembly with the main theme of “Heritage and Landscape as Human Values” will take place in Florence, Italy from 10 to 14 November 2014 (see http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/governance/general-information-about-thegeneral-assembly/18th-general-assembly-florence-2014). To date the only ICOMOS General Assembly to be held in the Asia and the Pacific region was the 15th General Assembly held in Xi’an, China in 2005 (see http://www.international.icomos.org/xian2005/home_eng.htm). ICOMOS membership requires that an individual be working as a practicing cultural heritage professional and/or to have formal qualifications in one of the fields related to cultural heritage conservation/preservation such as architects, archaeologists, historians, town planners, engineers, administrators of heritage, art historians, geographers, anthropologists or archivists. The author, for example, has been an ICOMOS member for more than two decades. Individuals, and institutions, can apply for membership through their National Committee and there are more than 100 ICOMOS National Committees. If there is no National Committee in a particular country, however, then membership requests can be made through the ICOMOS International Secretariat for approval by the ICOMOS Executive Committee (see http://www.icomos.org/en/get-involved/join-icomos). The author encourages all underwater cultural heritage professionals in the Asia and the Pacific region to join ICOMOS and to get involved in ICOMOS ISCs. 4 �ICOMOS provides a network of experts that benefit from the interdisciplinary exchange of its members and who are available to provide assessment and advice on cultural heritage matters. ICOMOS publishes reports and special editions on cultural heritage topics such as the Heritage at Risk – Special edition titled Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk (2006) which can be downloaded from the ICOMOS website (see http://www.icomos.org/en/component/content/article?id=195). In addition ICOMOS supports open access, free and unrestricted, to scientific publications, through the project ICOMOS Open Archive: EPrints on Cultural Heritage (see http://openarchive.icomos.org/). Part of the ICOMOS mission is to help to raise public and government awareness about cultural heritage protection and cultural heritage issues. It also encourages ICOMOS members to volunteer and participate in capacity building and training activities. These parts of the ICOMOS mission provide the general basis for members of ICOMOS ISCs to undertake, and be involved in, awareness raising, training and capacity building activity, which is the main focus of this paper. ICUCH ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was established as an ICOMOS scientific committee in 1991 to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world (see http://icuch.icomos.org/the-icomos-international-committee-on-the-underwatercultural-heritage/). ICUCH has a global membership of professionals and focuses on international cooperation, legislative issues, and quality standards for interventions and training and closely cooperates with regional and international NGOs, including NAS, in raising public awareness. In the early 1990s ICUCH developed the ICOMOS Charter on the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage which was ratified by the 11th ICOMOS General Assembly in Sophia, Bulgaria in 1996 see: http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/underwater_e.pdfICUCH also assisted in the drafting of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) and continues to lobby for its ratification (see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001convention/official-text/). The aims of ICUCH include to: stimulate international interest in the conservation of the world's underwater cultural heritage among government and private institutions, 5 �practitioners and the general public; establish standards for the training and qualification of practitioners involved with the conservation and management of underwater cultural heritage sites; and share experience and expertise in the conservation and management of underwater cultural heritage sites. For more than a decade ICUCH membership was restricted to one member from each country but this situation changed as a result of the Eger-Xi’an Principles for the International Scientific Committees of ICOMOS adopted by the 15th General Assembly of ICOMOS at Xi’an in October of 2005, as amended by the Scientific Council in July 2008 (Eger-Xi’an Principles, 2008) see: http://www.icomos- uk.org/committees/international-scientific/. Since 2009 ICUCH can, and does have, more than one member from a number of countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Lebanon, South Africa and the USA. In addition, over the past five years, ICUCH has considerably expanded its membership from about 20 to 48 members. The Asia and the Pacific region (as defined by UNESCO) currently has 10 ICUCH members (one from each of Japan, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, India, Indonesia and China and three from Australia). It is clear that, just as ICOMOS need more members in the Pacific, ICUCH needs one, or more, members from the Pacific. ICUCH membership is not simply an issue for the Asia and the Pacific region, for comparison, the Europe and North America region has 19 members while the Africa region has just 5 members and the Arab States just 4 members. Fortunately in 2014 ICUCH will be considering an expansion of ICUCH membership as part of the flowon effects from the Eger-Xi’an Principles. The author has been a member of ICUCH since 2009 and for a full list of ICUCH members see: http://icuch.icomos.org/icuchmembers/ ICUCH’s Vision, Mission and Strategy for the period 2009-2012 were formulated at the Annual General Meeting of ICUCH in Québec in 2008 and include the following missions: ▪ To assist other stakeholders in the field of maritime archaeology to manage, protect, carry out sound study, and share knowledge on underwater cultural heritage. ▪ To raise public awareness of the existence of the world’s archaeological underwater cultural heritage. ▪ To promote the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage through facilitating development of national and regional cooperation, programmes, and legislation. 6 �▪ To encourage an inclusive approach in underwater cultural heritage. These particular missions were to be carried out using the following strategies: ▪ Promoting and actively assisting in capacity building in all the roles mentioned in the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. ▪ Promoting education in underwater cultural heritage at all levels. ▪ Being strongly involved in raising public awareness. These ICUCH missions and strategies, specifically those that encourage ICUCH members to undertake, and be involved in, awareness raising, training and capacity building in underwater cultural heritage protection and management, are the main focus of this paper. ICUCH, for example, is an official partner of UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Partners in Asia and the Pacific see: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/partners/ As part of the Asia-Pacific Regional Capacity-Building Programme in Underwater Cultural Heritage several ICUCH members, including the author, were invited to contribute to three UNESCO Foundation Courses and two Advanced Courses on Underwater Cultural Heritage between 2009 and 2011 (Staniforth, 2010). These courses were primarily funded by the Government of Norway with support from the Government of Thailand but they have not been run since 2011 as a result of a lack of available funding. These courses were primarily held in Chanthaburi (Fig. 1) in Thailand see: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/capacity- building/courses/foundation/ One valuable product of this particular collaboration has been the development of the Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCO Bangkok, 2012). This training manual can be downloaded (for free) at: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/uch-publication/. Another publication that a number of ICUCH members contributed to is the Manual for Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage published by UNESCO in 2013 (Maarleveld, Guerin and Egger, 2013) which is available to be downloaded (for free) at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/ In addition to involvement in awareness raising, training and capacity building individual ICUCH members have been involved in collaborative research and 7 �underwater cultural heritage management projects in the Asia and the Pacific region (Kimura et al., 2014; Lê et al., 2011; Manders, 2010). Fig. 1 First UNESCO Foundation Course on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Chathaburi, Thailand in 2009. (Mark Staniforth) NAS The Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) was formed to promote interest in underwater cultural heritage and is dedicated to advancing education in nautical and maritime archaeology for everyone – its members, the general public and across the global archaeological sector. NAS membership is open to everyone regardless of qualifications and NAS publishes a quarterly member’s newsletter as well as a peer reviewed academic journal twice a year – the highly respected International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA). The NAS International Training Programme has been delivering courses in maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage for nearly 30 years see: http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/content/what-nastraining-programme The NAS Training Programme has a modular structure, starting with a one day Introduction course and working through the Part I, II and III Certificates and finally the Part IV Diploma. The NAS programme has a published handbook available, now in its second edition (Bowens, 2008) and is open to everybody with the Introduction course requiring no prior learning or qualifications. The NAS Training Programme is designed with courses in a wide range of topics and subject areas within nautical 8 �and maritime archaeology. The author has been involved with the NAS Training Programme since the mid 1990s when the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) introduced NAS training into Australia (Moran and Staniforth, 1998). From 1997 AIMA tailored the NAS Training programme to suit Australian conditions and sites and the author served for five years as the first AIMA/NAS Senior Tutor in Australia. Over the last fifteen years or so, dozens of AIMA/NAS Training courses have taught hundreds of people in all states of Australia about underwater cultural heritage and maritime archaeology (see: http://www.aimaunderwater.org.au/parts-i-iv/). In addition AIMA/NAS Training has also been successfully incorporated into university level studies in maritime archaeology, for example, those conducted at Flinders University (Staniforth, 2008). In 2012 the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) gave permission for a pilot program of NAS training to be conducted in Vietnam (at no cost) on a “one-off” basis. NAS Training was conducted at the Institute of Archaeology building in Hanoi, over a three-day period during November/December of 2012. Early in 2013 NAS granted a free NAS International license to the Institute of Archaeology (IA) in Vietnam and the author was appointed as the NAS Senior Tutor for Vietnam for a five-year term. With support from the Nghe An province an NAS Introduction to Maritime Archaeology training course (1 day) was held in Vinh city on Thursday 16 October 2013. Thanks to the Hoi An People's Committee, which agreed to sponsor NAS training at Hoi An in November 2013, an NAS Introduction courses (1 day) took place on 7 November followed by an NAS Part 1 course (2 day) on 8 and 9 November 2013 (Fig. 2). The NAS Training programme in Vietnam has been designed to increase awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of Vietnam’s underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. With the assistance of partners, sponsors and contributors, NAS training has been provided free of charge to more than 100 Vietnamese students, government agency personnel, archaeologists and others in order to raise awareness about underwater cultural heritage and maritime archaeology in Vietnam. Hopefully, this should help Vietnam to preserve and protect its underwater cultural heritage see: http://www.themua.org/vietnam/nas.php 9 �Fig. 2 NAS practical training at the Nghe An Museum in Vinh City, Nghe An, Vietnam. (Mark Staniforth) University level teaching UNESCO has suggested that the minimum qualification for an archaeologist is: “A degree in archaeology or similar qualification recognized by the country in which the archaeologist is working” see: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-culturalheritage/underwater-heritage-tutorial/tutorial/ Throughput the world, tertiary qualifications at some level from undergraduate degrees through to Doctoral level degrees from a fully accredited university are usually seen as the basic qualifications required for professional underwater or maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers (Staniforth, 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2010). Unfortunately university level teaching in maritime archaeology is both limited and expensive in the Asia and the Pacific region, which means that only a limited number of maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers have been able to benefit from this level of training. One of the few examples where university level training has been made available at no cost to participants, was organized partly using ICUCH networks, when the Maritime Archaeology Program (MAP) at Flinders University was awarded funding from Aus AID, the Australian federal government’s overseas aid organization, to bring 11 midcareer professionals involved in maritime archaeology from the Asia-Pacific region to Australia for a 6 week training program (Staniforth, 2011). Mid-career professional 10 �training like this goes some way to fulfilling social justice and equity aspirations to make university level teaching in maritime archaeology available to more people in the Asia and the Pacific region (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 Opening ceremony of the Flinders University Intensive Progam on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Adelaide, South Australia in 2009. (Jun Kimura) Language of Instruction There is no doubt that for training courses with participants who come from a number of different countries, such as the UNESCO Foundation courses, there is a need for a single common language. One result is that most previous training activities in the Asia and the Pacific region have been conducted in English. Nevertheless, in order to successfully conduct public awareness raising and training within an individual country, the content really has to be interpreted and translated into the national language. The language of instruction was seen as one of the key issues for NAS Training in Vietnam, for example, where it was clear that we needed to have the training both interpreted into spoken Vietnamese and translated into written Vietnamese. Fortunately the Institute of Archaeology (IA) has been able to provide interpretation services for NAS training and, in addition, the entire content of the NAS Introduction course (11 sessions) has now been translated into Vietnamese. One of the benefits of this approach has been to increasingly involve IA archaeologists in NAS training with the stated aim of allowing NAS training to be primarily taught by Vietnamese archaeologists within five years. In 2013 IA was also able to establish an Underwater 11 �Archaeology Department, headed by Dr. Le Thi Lien, which was, in a small part, as a result of the NAS training initiative and will aid NAS training over the next few years. Conclusion ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS can and do provide networks, advice, support and training programmes but they are by no means the only ways of conducting these activities. It is hoped that some approaches outlined in this paper can be adopted and adapted by other countries, organizations and individuals in the Asia and the Pacific region as the basis for effective collaboration and co-operation in awareness raising, training and teaching of underwater archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers. Acknowledgements I would like to particularly thank my colleagues in ICUCH, NAS and at Flinders University for their contributions to, and support for, the networks, programmes, projects and field schools that this paper discusses. Also the enthusiasm and interest of the trainees and students has helped to make these activities productive as well as enjoyable to conduct. I hope that they enjoy their involvement with underwater cultural heritage as much as I have. References Bowens, A., (Ed.), 2008. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. Wiley-Blackwell and the Nautical Archaeology Society, Portsmouth. ICOMOS., 2008. Eger-Xi’an Principles for the International Scientific Committees of ICOMOS. ICOMOS, Paris. Jeffery, W., 2006. Federated States of Micronesia. In S. Dromgoole (Ed.), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural heritage: National Perspectives in light of the UNESCO Convention 2001. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 145-59. Kimura, J., Staniforth, M., Lien, L. T., and Sasaki, R., 2014. Naval Battlefield Archaeology of the Lost Kublai Khan Fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 43 (1): 76-87. Lê, Thị Liên., Nguyễn,Thị Mai Hương., Pham, C., Staniforth, M., Delgado, J. P., Kimura, J., and Sasaki, R., 2011. Understanding the Bach Dang battlefield from recent research results. In M. Staniforth, Jennifer Craig, Sheldon Clyde Jago-on, Bobby Orillaneda, Ligaya Lacsina (Eds.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific Regional 12 �Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage. Asian Academy for Heritage Management. Manila: 77-90. Maarleveld, T. J., Guerin, U., and Egger, B., (Eds.), 2013. Manual for Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage: Guidelines to the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris. Manders, M. J., 2010. Dutch involvement in Asian Underwater Cultural Heritage management: building upon old connections. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 5 (2): 117-127. Manders, M. R., and Underwood, C. J., (Eds.), 2012. Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO Bangkok, Bangkok. Moran, V., and Staniforth, M., 1998.The AIMA/NAS Part 1 Training Program. The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 22: 137-138. Parthesius, R., and Jeffery, W. F., 2012. Building country-relevant programmes in the context of the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. In S. J. van der Linde, M. H. van den Dries, N. Schlanger and C. G. Slappendel (Eds.), European Archaeology Abroad: global settings, comparative perspectives. Sidestone Press, Leiden: 267-286. Prott, L. V., 2006. Finishing the Interrupted Voyage: Papers of the UNESCO AsiaPacific Workshop on the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester. Shuguang, L., (Ed.), 2011. 2010 International Meeting on Protection, Presentation and Valorisation of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Chongqing, China: Proceedings. Cultural Relics Press, Beijing: 433-4. Staniforth, M., 2008a. Strategies for teaching Maritime Archaeology in the 21st century. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 3: 93-102. Staniforth, M., 2008b. Collaboration is the key: Developing field and work skills in collaboration with government, museum and commercial underwater cultural heritage organizations. In R. Radic Rossi, A. Gaspari and A. Pydyn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (Zadar, Croatia, 18-23 September 2007. Session: Underwater Archaeology), Hrvatskoarheoloskodrustvo – Profil, Zagreb: 111-120. 13 �Staniforth, M., 2009. Work-Integrated Learning in Maritime Archaeology: An Australian Approach. The International Journal of Learning, Vol. 16 (8) Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com Staniforth, M., 2010. Issues in Education in Maritime Archaeology. In R. Amoeda, S. Lira and C. Pinheiro (Eds.), Heritage 2010: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Greenlines Institute for Sustainable Development, Evora, Portugal: 315-322. Staniforth, M., 2011. The Flinders University Intensive Program in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management. In M. Staniforth, Jennifer Craig, Sheldon Clyde Jago-on, Bobby Orillaneda, Ligaya Lacsina (Eds.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage. Asian Academy for Heritage Management, Manila: 613-623. Mark Staniforth is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Flinders University in Australia. He has been an ICOMOS member for two decades and he is an expert member of two ICOMOS International Scientific Committees - ICOMOS - ICUCH (International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage) and ICOMOS - ICAHM (International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management). Mark is also the NAS Senior Tutor for Vietnam. Mark was the Convener of the Maritime Archaeology Program (MAP) in the Department of Archaeology at Flinders University for 14 years (1997-2010) where he taught topics in undergraduate and postgraduate maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage management. 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Role of ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS in Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection in the Pacific Description An account of the resource This paper outlines the role played by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), which is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the conservation of the world's cultural monuments and sites and specifically in awareness raising and training related to underwater cultural heritage protection. ICOMOS membership requires an individual to be a practicing cultural heritage professional or have professional qualifications in the fields of conservation or preservation such as architect, archaeologist, town planner, and engineer, administrator of heritage, art historian or archivist. ICOMOS International Scientific Committees (ISCs) (such as ICUCH) are the vehicles through which ICOMOS brings together, develops and serves its worldwide membership according to their fields of specialized interest. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multi-disciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management. ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was founded in 1991 by ICOMOS Australia to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world. ICUCH currently has ten members from the Asia and the Pacific region and this paper will discuss the role of ICUCH in the region. Furthermore ICUCH’s mission will only be achieved in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). NAS training aims to increase public awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mark Staniforth, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Zotero Editor Van Tilburg, H. Tripati, S. Walker Vadillo, V. Fahy, B. Kimura, J. Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/eb606d5576d199f693a8ce1fc0ca3010.pdf e385fb9425a78ac03842c796a8738d45 PDF Text Text Maritime Archaeology of Ships of Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and East Asia, the question of bulkheads Jeremy Green Abstract This paper will discuss the maritime archaeological work that has been carried out in the region, looking at shipbuilding construction and what has been learned through this work. In Southeast Asia the excavations in the 1980s by the Department of Archaeology of Thailand and the Western Australia Museum on the Pattaya and Ko Si Chang 3 sites will be examined, with a discussion on the construction techniques. In East Asia the significance of the Song dynasty ship from Quanzhou will be discussed in relation to the Southeast Asian ship construction. The whole of the geographical region dealt with in this paper is faced with the challenge of dealing with treasure hunting and the exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for financial gain. While maritime archaeological projects in the region have been limited, there is a need to encourage countries to understand and protect their cultural heritage. This can only be done through archaeological work, as there can be no real benefit from working for commercial salvage. The paper will discuss the relative merits of archaeological investigations of shipwrecks in the region compared with that of commercial salvage. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that simple archaeological methods, when applied to shipwrecks, can produce important information. The paper centres on the Pattaya shipwreck, a site in the Gulf of Thailand that was completely looted in the 1970s. By examining the hull of the vessel a number of important conclusions were made about the construction of Southeast Asian ships. This was the first site in Southeast Asia where the construction of a vessel was published. Comparisons can be made with the Song dynasty shipwreck from Quanzhou, China. It is surprising that in spite of a number of non-archaeological projects involving Southeast Asian vessels, almost no information has been forthcoming on the construction and building of these vessels. It seems that the commercial companies involved in these operations, even when they employ an archaeologist, have neither the interest nor the inclination to study this aspect of the site. No doubt based on the commercial consideration that such work has no financial benefit. Historical evidence Needham (1971), in his encyclopaedic work Science and Civilisation of China (Volume 4: Physics and Physical Technology, Part III: Civil Engineering and Nautics) stated that ‘Geographical factors have had considerable influence in differentiating the craft found along the coasts of China…Hsieh Chan-Jen, commenting on a passage in the Jih Chih Lu (Daily Additions to Knowledge) of Ku Yen-Wu, itself finished in +1673, wrote as follows: The sea-going vessels of the Jiang-nan are named ‘sand-ships’ (sha chuan) for as their bottoms are flat and broad they can sail over shoals and moor near �sandbanks, frequenting sandy (or muddy) creeks and havens without getting stuck…But the sea-going vessels of Fujian and Guangdong have round bottoms and high decks. At the base of their hulls there are large beams of wood in three sections called ‘dragon-spines’ (long gu). If (these ships) should encounter shallow sandy (water) the dragon spine may get stuck in the sand, and if the wind and tide are not favourable there may be danger in pulling it out. But sailing to the South Seas (Nan-Yang) where there are many islands and rocks in the water, ships with dragon-spines can turn more easily to avoid them. (Needham 1971, Vol. 4.3: 429). It is unclear from this passage if Needham has confused the strengthening wales with the true keel of deep hulled vessels. The earlier passage clearly indicates this error, since it refers to the long gu getting stuck in the sand. Needham (1971:409) also refers to the Tien Gong Wu (Exploitation of the Works of Nature) by Song Ying Xing in 1637. Here a description of a canal grain-carrying vessel is given and then his description of the shipyards: The construction of the boat begins with the bottom. The strakes of the hull are built up on both sides from the bottom to a height (equivalent to that of the future) deck. Bulkheads are set at intervals to divide the vessel (into separate compartments), [we may interpret this statement as an indication that the vessels were built shell-first] and (the holds have) sheer vertical sides which are called qiang…The horizontal bars (heng mu) which grasp the mast’s foot below this are called ‘ground dragons’ (di long), and these are connected by components called ‘lion-tamers’ (fu shi), while underneath them lies another called a ‘lion-grasper’ (na shi). Under the ‘lion-tamers’ are the ‘closure pieces’ (feng tou mu) otherwise known as triple tie-bars (lian san fang)… Another important source from the Song Dynasty is Marco Polo who resided in China between 1275 and 1292. He wrote about Chinese river shipping and also on sea-going vessels of Guangdong and Fujian. There are interesting variations in the translation of The Travels of Marco Polo. The version translated by Latham (1958) gives the following account at the beginning of Chapter Six: From China to India: They are built of a wood called spruce or fir. They have one deck; and above this deck, in most ships, are at least sixty cabins, each of which can comfortably accommodate one merchant. They have one steering oar and four masts. Needham (1971) gives an alternative and unreferenced translation that will be quoted here in full. Note the differences between the two versions: …the merchants go and come into India through the Indian Sea. Now you may know that those ships are made in such a way as I shall describe unto you. I tell you that are mostly built of the wood which is called fir or pine. They have one floor, which with us is called a deck, one for each, and on this deck there are commonly in all the greater number quite 60 little rooms or cabins, and in some, more, and in some, fewer, according as the ships are larger or smaller, where, in each, a merchant can stay comfortably. …Some ships, namely those which are larger, have besides quite 13 holds, that is, divisions, on the inside, made with strong planks fitted together, so that if by accident that the ship is staved in any place, namely that it either strikes on a rock, or a whale-fish striking against it in search of food staves it in. And then the water �entering through the hole runs to the bilge, which never remains occupied with things. And then the sailors find out where the ship is staved and then the hold which answers to the break is emptied into the others, for the water cannot pass from one hold to another, so strongly are they shut in; and they repair the ship there and put back the goods which were taken out. They are indeed nailed in such a way; for they are all lined, that is, that they have two boards above the other. And the boards of the ship, inside and outside, are thus fitted together, that is, they are in the common speech of our sailors, caulked both outside and inside, and they are all well nailed inside and outside with iron pins. They are not pitched with pitch, because they have none of it in those regions, but they oil them in such a way as I shall tell you, because they have another thing that seems better than pitch. For I tell you that they take lime and hemp chopped up small and they pound it all together, I tell you that becomes sticky and holds like birdlime. And with this thing they smear their ships and this is worth quite as much as pitch. Moreover I tell you again that when the great ships wish to be decorated [?], that is to be repaired, and it has made a great voyage or has sailed a whole year or more and needs repair, they repair it in such a way. For they nail yet another board over the aforesaid original two all round the ship without removing the former at all, and then there are three of them over the whole ship everywhere, one nailed above the other, and then when it is nailed they also caulk and oil it with the aforesaid mixture and this is the repair which they do. And at the end of the second year at the second repair they nail yet another board leaving the other boards so that there are four. And this way they go each year from repair to repair until the number of six boards, the one nailed on the other. And when they have six boards the one upon the other nailed then the ship is condemned and they sail no more in her on too high seas but in near journeys and good weather and they do not overload them until it seems to them that they are of no more value and that can make no more use of them. Then they are dismantled and broken up. Marco Polo is the origin of the theory that Chinese ships had bulkhead compartments that were completely watertight. Later writers, up to and including Needham followed this suggestion. However, every Asian vessel with bulkheads that has been archaeologically excavated shows evidence that the bulkheads, although sealed with luting, had limbers to allow water to flow between the compartments. Additionally, there has been no evidence of stoppers or bungs in the limbers, indicating at the time of sinking the limbers were open. The statement about the multiple planking provides historical evidence for a technique that would be hard to understand from the archaeological evidence alone. Ibn Battutah (Gibb 1958), who was in China in 1347, noted that: The Chinese vessels are of three kinds; large ships called chunks [in other translations jonouq, in Needham chuan]…These vessels are built in the towns of Zaytún and Sín-Kalán. The vessel has four decks and contains rooms, cabins, and saloons for merchants; a cabin has chambers and a lavatory, and can be locked by its occupant…This is the manner after which they are made; two (parallel) walls of very thick wooden (planking) are raised and across the space between and longitudinally and transversely by means of large nails, each three ells in length. When these walls have thus been built the lower deck is fitted in and the ship is launched before the upper works are. �Southeast Asian examples of bulkheads The Pattaya Pottery Site, in the Gulf of Thailand was discovered in about 1976 by sports divers and was the subject of continual looting. Howitz (1977: 14) reported: …to a very large extent treasure hunters had already looted valuable and goodquality items and had, as well, seriously damaged the remains of the ship itself. There is evidence that they had used explosives to enter the cargo compartments, and an airlift to blow away the mud and sand. In 1982 a joint Thai–Australian team of maritime archaeologists carried out an excavation of the site (Green & Harper 1982). It provided, for a looted wreck site, a large body of information. Evidence of looting included recently broken stoneware storage jars littering the site and holes dug around the site. What was of particular interest was the remaining hull structure, about 9 meters by 4 meters, which was protruding from the seabed. The excavation revealed a remaining hull structure composed of eight strakes on either side of the keel, six bulkheads and a mast step. The planking was edge joined with dowels, consisted of three layers, an inner layer 70 millimeters (mm) thick and two outer layers of 40 mm. Six bulkheads, with two limbers 110 mm in diameter cut in the base next to the keel, were supported by light frames. The bulkheads consisted of parallel planks 70 mm thick, edge-joined with dowels. The frames were nailed to the bulkhead and to the hull, with lateral and vertical iron nails. A mast step consisting of large block of wood, shaped to fit the bottom of the vessel, sat across the keel against the sixth bulkhead also had two limber holes. The excavation also showed some evidence as to how the cargo was arranged on the ship. Between bulkheads three and five on the starboard side of the vessel was a very large concretion that was confined to a line 300 mm off the centre line of the vessel. There was also evidence of bamboo dunnage protruding from the concretion. The concretion appeared to be confined by a partition to the starboard side of the vessel that may suggest internal arrangement and explain the function of the watertight bulkheads and the limbers. It is unclear why one would go to such lengths to seal the bulkheads while having large limbers on the bilge. Marco Polo’s statement that the compartments were watertight has been taken in the past to mean that the compartments were sealed. However, every vessel with bulkheads has been found to have open limbers. Some rational explanation is required to explain the presence of sealed bulkheads with open limber holes. If the cargo completely filled the compartment, how then does this work? The evidence on this site that there was a space in the centre of the compartment, about 600 mm wide that was kept clear. Presumably there was some form of longitudinal partition to confine the cargo space. This would then provide a narrow, but clear access to the limbers at the bottom of the bulkheads. One possibility is that in the event of the vessel springing a serious leak, the crew could gain access to the limbers and block them so that the leak could be confined to the hold affected. In normal circumstances the limbers were free to allow the movement of bilge water to the lowest point where it could be bailed or �pumped out. If there were no limbers then the bilge water would collect in each compartment, necessitating a bilge pump to be located or used in each compartment. However, this was not always the case. In the Ko Si Chang Three site (Green, et al. 1987), a large concretion of iron and storage jars was located over the keel area in one compartment, thus blocking the access to the limbers within that compartment. Possibly, depending on the nature of the cargo and loading arrangements, access (in these cases) was provided on alternate sides of the bulkheads. Chinese bulkheads The Song dynasty shipwreck found near Quanzhou, in Fujian Province of China (known as the Quanzhou Ship), has been the subject of a number of studies. It was the first Chinese vessel to be completely excavated and as such it is extremely interesting in relation to the question of bulkheads. In the Song ship the bulkheads are constructed from planks about 80 mm thick, skew nailed together. The skew nails were driven downwards and were inserted from both forward and aft faces of the bulkheads. Unlike the plank shell skew nails, they are very irregularly spaced (<100 mm–400 mm). The few scarfs in the planks that make up the bulkheads are complex and carefully made. On the side of each bulkhead closest to mid ships there are half frames. The half frames are on the aft side of bulkheads 1–6 and the forward side of bulkheads 7–11. There are no half frames at bulkhead 12. One immediately obvious difference in the construction of the bulkhead is the presence of iron brackets, that are cut through the hull and serve to support the bulkheads on the opposite to the frames. Brackets have not been found on any Southeast Asian vessel (defined by edge joining with dowels), but are common on Chinese vessels (Ningbo (Shimin 1991), Fa Shi (Yingfan 1985) and Shinan (Green 1983) ships). Limbers are about 250 mm high and 90 mm wide and their presence make it clear that neither the bulkheads nor the frames could have been strongly fastened to the keel; therefore, it is highly unlikely that they were set up before the plank shell was assembled. Remains of a layer of lime putty, containing very fine jute fibres, inside and out of the hull. This once again raises the question of the function of the limbers in relation to the bulkheads. Every Asian shipwreck with bulkheads has been found with open limber holes. There is conflicting evidence in the two Southeast Asian vessels, where in one case, at least one compartment between the bulkheads was completely filled with cargo, and in the other there is evidence that a central area between the two sides of the compartment was kept clear. Discussion The evaluation of the sites discussed suggest the following: • Both Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels shared common features, in particular the bulkheads and the frames that supported the bulkheads. �• • • • • • Bulkheads were luted to make them watertight but had limber holes that were open at the time of the loss of the vessels. Southeast Asian vessels were edge joined with dowels whereas Chinese vessels were fastened with iron nails. Chinese vessels often had a form of stiffeners that penetrated the hull and attached to the opposite of the bulkhead to the frames to support the bulkheads. The main mast step was similar in both Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels, indicating a tabernacle arrangement. The location of the frames against the bulkheads, on either side of the mast step was similar in both Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels. There is evidence for multiple layers of planking, with the innermost layer being the thickest, in both Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels. There is evidence that both Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels were built shell first with the bulkheads inserted after the construction of the main hull shell. Bibliography Gibb, H.A.R., 1958 Green, J.N, Harper, R. & Intakosi, V., 1987 Green, J.N. & Harper, R., 1982 Green, J.N., 1983 Green, J.N., 1983 Howitz, P.C., 1977 Latham, R., 1958 Lin Shimin, Du Genqui and Green, J.N., 1991 Needham, J., 1971 Wang Gungwu, The travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325-1354. Hakluyt Soc., Cambridge. (Second Series). The maritime archaeology of shipwrecks and ceramics in Southeast Asia and the Ko Si Chang Three shipwreck excavation. Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology Special Publication, No. 4. The excavation of the Pattaya wreck site and survey of three other sites, Thailand 1982. Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology Special Publication, No. 1. The Shinan excavation, Korea: an interim report on the hull structure. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 12. 4: 293–302. The Song Dynasty shipwreck at Quanzhou Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 12. 3: 253–261. Two ancient shipwrecks in the Gulf of Thailand: a report on archaeological investigations. Journal Siam Society, 65.2: 1–22. The travels of Marco Polo. Penguin Books. Waterfront excavations at Dongmenkou, Ningbo, Zhe Jiang Province, PRC. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 20.4: 299–311. Science and Civilisation of China (Volume 4: Physics and Physical Technology, Part III: Civil Engineering and Nautics). Cambridge University Press. The Nanhai trade, a study of the early history of Chinese �1958 Xu Yingfan, 1985 trade in the South China Sea. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 31.2: 1–135. Origin and technique of gua ju (iron cramp) connections in wooden craft construction. Transactions of CSNAME Marine History Research Group, No. 1. � 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 Maritime Archaeology of Ships of Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and East Asia, the Question of Bulkheads Description An account of the resource This paper will discuss the maritime archaeological work that has been carried out in the region, looking at shipbuilding construction and what has been learned through this work. In Southeast Asia the excavations in the 1980s by the Department of Archaeology of Thailand and the Western Australia Museum on the Pattaya and Ko Si Chang 3 sites will be examined, with a discussion on the construction techniques. In East Asia the significance of the Song dynasty ship from Quanzhou will be discussed in relation to the Southeast Asian ship construction. The whole of the geographical region dealt with in this paper is faced with the challenge of dealing with treasure hunting and the exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for financial gain. While maritime archaeological projects in the region have been limited, there is a need to encourage countries to understand and protect their cultural heritage. This can only be done through archaeological work, as there can be no real benefit from working for commercial salvage. The paper will discuss the relative merits of archaeological investigations of shipwrecks in the region compared with that of commercial salvage. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jeremy Green Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 4 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/6ac0b2aed14538957784317705f8198b.pdf 44061e57d93e02e2e57a27f676bdbce7 PDF Text Text JPAC Underwater Geographic Information System (UGIS) Stefan Claesson, Ph.D. Andrew Pietruzska, Ph.D. Richard Wills, M.A. Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command U.S. Department of Defense Honolulu, HI http://www.jpac.pacom.mil JPAC conducts global search, recovery, and laboratory operations to identify unaccounted for Americans from past conflicts in order to support the U.S. Department of Defense’s personnel accounting efforts. Phase 1: Inventory Distribution of U.S. Military Aircraft Losses in Asia-Pacific Region A primary goal of UGIS is to develop a comprehensive inventory of all underwater U.S. military losses including aircraft and ships from World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War and Cold War for the entire Asia-Pacific region. Inventory and environmental data are used to quickly access and identify geospatial information pertaining to U.S. military losses in marine, lacustrine, riverine, estuarine, and aquaculture environments. These data are digitally warehoused in UGIS and used to support JPAC underwater investigation and recovery missions.  Assess, analyze, identify and manage underwater military losses and archaeological site information.  Determine the environmental feasibility of conducting underwater investigation and recovery activities.  Prioritize investigation and recovery efforts in order to achieve the best possible accounting results.  Deliver mission planning and post-mission reports and map products.  Access and distribute geographic information to JPAC sections, and investigation/recovery teams in the laboratory and/or field. OTHER <4% INDONESIA 32% PHILIPPINES 6% KOREA, NORTH 7% PAPUA NEW GUINEA 12% JAPAN 9% VIETNAM 12% Total: 1,900 Phase 2: Analysis UGIS provides a composite map or layers of historical, remote sensing, environmental, and political geo-spatial features that can be used to assist in the planning, management and recovery of U.S. missing persons from past conflicts. Vector data sets developed in UGIS include: Vietnam War (15%) Korean War (11%) INDONESIA 37% CHINA 6% SOLOMON ISLANDS 7% World War II (74%) MICRONESIA 4% NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 4% VIETNAM 7% JAPAN 10% SOLOMON ISLANDS 14% Total: 6,446 Cold War (<1%) Historical Records Remote Sensing  Locations: features derived from historical records such as witness observations and aerial photographs.  Targets: features derived primarily from remote sensing survey operations.  Areas: survey or recovery areas proposed for investigation or recovery operations based on locations, targets, and other environmental (e.g., bathymetry, sediments) and political information (e.g., marine boundaries). Environmental Data Composite map of UGIS data sets include base maps such as nautical charts, loss incident locations as recorded in a legacy database system, targets or anomalies as identified in remote sensing surveys, and historical observations. Based on analysis of the combined data, JPAC plans investigation and recovery operations. Jurisdiction/Political Boundaries  Preservation and loss prevention of historical information and knowledge, including storage and warehousing of underwater investigation survey and recovery data. Underwater Casualties (by Country) OTHER <4% Loss Incidents: Why create an Underwater GIS? Underwater Loss Incidents (by Country) Phase 3: Recovery Planning Investigation Excavation Identification Closure Contribute to UGIS! JPAC seeks the support and cooperation of AsiaPacific nations, underwater cultural heritage specialists and the regional diving community to assist with the inventory and protection of U.S. military archaeological sites under water through the sharing of national or regional archaeological inventory data. Please contact us to support our mission. Contact Information: Stefan Claesson (stefan.claesson@jpac.pacom.mil) Andrew Pietruzska (andrew.pietruzska@jpac.pacom.mil) Richard Wills (richard.wills@jpac.pacom.mil) Currently, JPAC’s underwater archaeology team conducts three investigations (or surveys) and three recoveries (or excavations) around the world each year. Factors such as weather, terrain, site accessibility, and various logistical concerns influence how and when JPAC teams deploy to each specific site. Underwater investigation teams (UIT) utilize a variety of tools and methodologies to locate and correlate crash sites with specific loss incidents and unaccounted for individuals. These include remote sensing technologies such as side-scan sonar, multi-beam sonar, and magnetometer, witness interviews, and diver groundtruthing. If enough evidence is found, a site is then recommended for recovery. Underwater excavations and recovery teams (URT) are directed by a JPAC underwater archaeologist. The recovery teams consists of specialized U.S. military personnel including Navy/Army divers, combat photographers, medics, linguists, life support analysts, and support staff. Recoveries are conducted according to the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors – Laboratory Accrediting Board (ASCLD-LAB) crime scene standards. Human remains and material evidence recovered from the field are returned to JPAC’s Central Identification Laboratory (CIL) in Hawaii, where they undergo analyses. Positive identifications are formulated on the basis of multiple lines of evidence including skeletal and dental analysis, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and associated material evidence. The final outcome, and the goal of every JPAC mission, is the repatriation and transfer of accounted for remains and associated personnel items to a soldier’s surviving family members. More than 1,800 Americans have been identified as a direct result of the work undertaken by JPAC and its predecessors since accounting efforts began in the 1970s. � https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/9bb65c8f519a3a5333876620c04b72c9.jpg ad90ed50bd2f81f400da2311f054ef59 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 593 Height 446 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. 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 JPAC Underwater Geographic Information System (UGIS) Description An account of the resource The mission of the U.S. Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) is "to achieve the fullest possible accounting of all Americans missing as a result of the nation's past conflicts." To support this mission objective, JPAC is developing an Underwater Geographic Information System (UGIS) that will be used to inventory, manage and analyze a complex historical record, integrate numerous disparate databases, and analyze marine remote sensing and environmental data sets related to underwater military losses. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Stefan Claesson Dr. Andrew Pietruzska Richard Wills Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command US Department of Defense Asia-Pac Poster https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/58638aac62bd6af08c9f3ed4fad0f4ad.jpg 347382332462621b59ecad45ffb83741 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 315 Height 278 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 IPTC String caption: IPTC Array a:1:{s:7:"caption";s:31:" ";} https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/4547fb3c265cb55a4324c893109e8239.jpg 23cc3dde5458b9513a5278536544d563 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 648 Height 390 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 IPTC String caption: IPTC Array a:1:{s:7:"caption";s:31:" ";} https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/92bb5d94134bdeb2152bd7aa260fbc94.pdf 4a985f2bf93bbc68daa9baabd2feccc9 PDF Text Text THE 2001 CONVENTION: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SAFEGUARDING OUR UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE Dr. Tim Curtis Chief of Culture Unit UNESCO Bangkok Office Conference participants, Ladies and gentlemen, Good morning. On behalf of UNESCO, I am very pleased to be here at this Inaugural Asia-Pacific Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, in the company of distinguished scholars and professionals who have devoted their careers to the study and protection of this region’s invaluable underwater cultural heritage. As the first academic conference on this significant theme focused on Asia and the Pacific, our gathering here today marks an important milestone. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our host, the National Museum of the Philippines, for its warm hospitality, and to commend the organizers, the Asian Academy for Heritage Management and, in particular, Dr Mark Staniforth of Flinders University, for their initiative in making this conference a reality. Challenges for Underwater Cultural Heritage All around the world, our underwater cultural heritage is under threat. Unlike archaeological sites on land, which are under stringent legal protection and widely understood by the general public to be worthy of conservation, the sites underwater are still vulnerable to exploitation and destruction. Looting by treasure hunters, commercial fishing, seabed exploitation, construction of offshore and on-shore maritime infrastructure, improvements in diving technology, environmental changes and the rise in marine tourism – these are all factors that have put this heritage at risk. Here in the Asia-Pacific region, it is common knowledge that our waters are home to some of the world’s richest archaeological remains, bearing witness to over three millennia of history concerning the region and, indeed, the world. The extensive 1 �underwater cultural heritage ranges from ancient shipwrecks to the remains of submerged cities and settlements to other traces of maritime infrastructure. Yet, the state of protection of the underwater cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific is particularly worrying, as most States have very limited resources to adequately enact measures to protect such sites – from the policy level down to practical in situ protection operations. This leaves a gaping chasm which has resulted in the witting or unwitting destruction of the sites by a range of actors, from illicit treasure hunters to deep sea oil exploration companies. Data compiled by UNESCO shows that at least seventy-two shipwrecks were reported to have been looted and/or commercially excavated in the region within a period of forty-seven years from 1963 to 2010. Of the seventy-two shipwrecks, only eight were excavated with government cooperation or participation of archaeologists from relevant agencies. Commercial salvage operations by treasure hunters are of particular concern for UNESCO. With financial resources fueled by the growing market in antiquities, these operations have become increasingly ubiquitous. Driven by commercial motivations, such treasure hunting operations often result in destruction of the wreck site, selective recovery of high-value artefacts and a dispersal of finds into the hands of antique collectors in various countries. They do not provide the means to undertake the rigorous scientific inquiry and preservation measures for the sites and artefacts which is advocated by the international conservation community and by UNESCO. National legislation governing the protection of underwater cultural heritage is greatly varied. Some countries provide a high level of protection, others provide a minimum level of protection, while many provide no protection at all. Moreover, the remit of national legislation is limited only to waters in the exclusive jurisdiction of states. Given that only a small part of the world’s underwater cultural heritage are in territorial waters, this leaves a vast amount without any effective protection. The Making of the 2001 Convention In response to the international community’s growing concern about the underwater cultural heritage, the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was promulgated under the auspices of UNESCO. The Convention is the key international treaty that sets a common framework and standard for the protection of underwater cultural heritage against looting and destruction. The Convention extends protection to cultural heritage underwater that is 2 �comparable in spirit to the protection granted by existing international conventions or national legislation for cultural heritage on land. The Convention helps to strengthen the international normative framework that UNESCO has been supporting in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property. As an instrument dealing specifically with underwater cultural heritage, it fills the gap in the international law and reinforces the provisions of three other important conventions, namely: • • • the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (known as the Hague Convention), the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Objects The Convention was the result of four years of intense negotiations which started in 1998 and included a wide range of stakeholders from government representatives to archaeologists, lawyers and NGOs. It was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 2001 and entered into force on 2 January 2009. Popularly referred to as the 2001 Convention, at present, it has been ratified by forty countries: fourteen from Latin America and the Carribean, eight from Africa, three from the Arab States and fourteen from Europe and North America. This includes both Spain and Portugal, two major maritime powers during the colonial era. However, to this day, there has been only one signatory to the Convention from the Asia-Pacific region, that is, Cambodia. The 2001 Convention: An Overview How does the 2001 Convention contribute to the protection of the underwater cultural heritage? The 2001 Convention starts by providing a shared understanding of what constitutes the underwater cultural heritage. It defines underwater cultural heritage as “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally underwater, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years”. The 2001 Convention sets out basic principles for the protection of underwater cultural heritage, and attempts to harmonize the protection of underwater archaeological sites with that of heritage on land. It provides a detailed cooperation system among States. 3 �Finally, it provides practical rules for the treatment and research of underwater cultural heritage in its Annex. It should be noted that the 2001 Convention does not regulate the ownership of cultural property. As such, the Convention cannot be used to arbitrate quarrels or claims to ownership between the various parties concerned. Similarly, the 2001 Convention has no bearing on the sovereignty of States. Article 3 of the Convention specifically says that it is not intended or designed to amend the regulations of 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or any other international law which outlines the definition and boundaries of maritime zones and the jurisdiction and sovereignty of States. The 2001 Convention: Main Principles The 2001 Convention is underpinned by four main principles. 1. States Parties have an obligation to preserve underwater cultural heritage 2. In situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first and preferred option 3. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited 4. States Parties should promote training and information sharing The preference given to in situ preservation as the first option stresses the importance and scientific significance of the historical context of the cultural object, which should be respected. It also recognizes that, under normal circumstances, heritage is well preserved under water, due to the lack of oxygen and low rate of deterioration. The Convention prohibits commercial exploitation for both trade and speculation; it also dissuades against the irretrievable dispersal of finds. Furthermore, the Convention requires States Parties to take measures against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects. In particular, they should prevent the entry into their territory, the dealing in, or the possession of underwater cultural heritage that was illicitly exported/and or recovered. States Parties should seize such property if it is found in their territories. The rationale is that if treasure hunters have a difficult time to sell looted objects, the financial motivation for conducting illegal excavations will eventually decrease. Finally, the Convention promotes information sharing, training in underwater archaeology, and technology transfer with a view to raising public awareness concerning the significance of underwater cultural heritage. States Parties are 4 �encouraged to cooperate and assist each other in the protection and management of such heritage, including collaborating in its investigation, conservation, study and presentation. It should be understood that the 2001 Convention contains minimum requirements. Each State Party, if it so wishes, may choose to develop even higher standards of protection. For instance, Australia, under the 1976 Historic Shipwrecks Act, protects all shipwrecks and associated artefacts that are older than 75 years. The 2001 Convention: A Framework for International Cooperation The 2001 Convention provides States with a clear framework for cooperating with other States to protect underwater cultural heritage sites wherever they are located. Prior to the Convention, the existing international law did not furnish a sufficient basis for such cooperation. UNCLOS, for example, has only two provisions that establish an obligation of its States Parties to protect underwater cultural heritage, with Article 303 saying simply that the States “shall cooperate” to protect the underwater heritage (paragraph 3), without providing further details or a mechanism for doing so. The 2001 Convention proposes a State Cooperation System for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Within the current situation, a State usually has exclusive jurisdiction only within its Territorial Sea, limited jurisdiction over the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf, and jurisdiction only over its own vessels and nationals at High Sea. As such, a Coastal State cannot prevent a vessel from another State from pillaging a site beyond its territorial seas. As for the Flag State of the pillaging vessel, it usually ignores the activities of its vessels and nationals, especially if they are undertaking activities very far away from its own territorial waters. As the extension of jurisdiction of States at sea was not an option, the 2001 Convention chose to facilitate cooperation among States as the only way to resolve this situation. By joining the 2001 Convention, States agree to prohibit their nationals and vessels from looting underwater cultural heritage, regardless of its location. The Flag State sets legal regulations for its nationals and vessels, and other States help it in implementing them. If no State has jurisdiction over a site, a “Coordinating State” takes over the control, coordinating the cooperation among States Parties and implementing their decisions, while acting on their behalf and not in its own interest. The Convention also provides specific regulations for the reporting and the coordination of activities, depending on the location of an underwater cultural heritage site. In their Internal and Archipelagic Waters and Territorial Sea, States Parties have the exclusive 5 �right to regulate activities. For activities further afield, for instance, in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, States Parties should report discoveries and activities concerning heritage in these areas, and inform other States Parties. Interested States can then cooperate in the protection of these sites. This system makes it easier for States to take joint and effective action against treasurehunting and pillaging being conducted in territories outside the national jurisdiction of any Coastal State. In the event that a large number of States join the 2001 Convention, this international cooperation scheme will eventually render comprehensive protection of underwater heritage sites around the world. Initiatives and Next Steps for Protecting UCH in Asia and the Pacific Even though ratification of the 2001 Convention is still pending among most Member States in Asia and the Pacific, a number of initiatives have already been implemented which are consistent with the spirit and intention of the Convention. That said, on the whole, legislation, institutions and professional expertise still need to be substantially strengthened, as the issue of underwater cultural heritage is relatively new in the region. UNESCO has been supporting Member States to raise awareness among policy makers and the general public, and to build national capacities in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. Of particular concern in the region is the lack of trained professionals who are qualified to protect and manage underwater cultural heritage. Without adequate human resources at the frontlines, efforts to apply the principles and regulations of the 2001 Convention will be difficult, even if policy and legislative measures are enhanced. In order to respond to this need, UNESCO has trained over 70 underwater archaeologists and professionals in allied fields since 2009 through a regional programme supported by the Norwegian government. A Field Training Centre has been set up in Chanthaburi, Thailand, which is hosted by the Royal Thai Government’s Fine Arts Department. Trainees hailing from as far afield as the western reaches of the Indian Ocean (like Kenya) and as far east as the Pacific islands have received rigorous instruction in various aspects of managing underwater cultural heritage during Foundation Courses, including GIS applications and techniques for in situ preservation in two Advanced Courses. To reinforce these skills, a number of graduates of the training courses were sponsored by UNESCO to take part in an actual survey and research project organized by the Sri Lankan Maritime Archaeology Unit on an ancient shipwreck in southern Sri Lanka. 6 �The curriculum and materials used in the training course will be made available in early 2012 as a standard training package for underwater cultural heritage. Already, the UNESCO-affiliated training centre in Zadar, Croatia has already expressed interest in using these materials for their upcoming training courses. As a way of reaching out to a broader audience, an interactive exhibition on underwater cultural heritage was organized for three months from August to October in 2010 at the Siam Ocean World Bangkok, viewed by an estimated 150,000 visitors. The exhibition material, which includes a full-scale model of a ship wreck, is now a part of the permanent exhibition of the National Maritime Museum in Thailand. It can also be accessed online through UNESCO Bangkok’s website as a virtual exhibition. To sustain these efforts in the future, the Thai Government has indicated its commitment to sustain the Field Training Centre over the long term. This welcome gesture will allow trainees from around the region to continue to benefit from the fullyequipped facilities of the Centre, one of the leading venues of its kind in Asia and the Pacific, and indeed, the world. Conclusion The success of the 2001 Convention hinges on the commitment of States to put into action this framework for international cooperation to protect the underwater cultural heritage. As a large part of this heritage is found on ocean floors located outside national jurisdiction, by definition, it cannot be sufficiently protected by any State alone, but only by a community of States. Until such time that a significant number of States ratify the Convention, the Asia-Pacific region will remain vulnerable to pillaging by treasure hunters and the destruction of underwater cultural heritage will continue. On behalf of UNESCO, I urge you, as policy makers, as leading scholars, and as professionals, to help support the process for the ratification of the 2001 Convention in your countries. It is only through our cooperation that this vulnerable heritage can be protected for future generations to come. Thank you. 7 �For further information Tutorial on the Annex to the 2001 Convention: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/underwaterheritage-tutorial/tutorial/ Code of Ethics for Diving on Submerged Archaeological Sites: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/scubadiving/ Frequently Asked Questions about the 2001 Convention: http://www.unesco.org/culture/underwater/faq-en/ Reference: ______.2006.Finishing the Interrupted Voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.L.V.Prott(ed.),Leicester,UNESCO/Institute of Arts and Law. 8 � Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The 2001 Convention: A Framework for International Cooperation in Safeguarding our Underwater Cultural Heritage Subject The topic of the resource Keynote Description An account of the resource <p>Keynote speech by Dr. Tim Curtis Chief of Culture Unit UNESCO Bangkok Office.</p> <p>To watch a video of this presentation please click here:</p> <p><a title="Dr. Tim Curtis Keynote Address" href="http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/videos/Tim_Curtis.m4v" target="_blank">http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/videos/Tim_Curtis.m4v</a></p> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Tim Curtis Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Keynote https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/198a5e7dddd7043fb413267eee938194.jpg 78f590dbf8e9bbef8be6bee2402ab935 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 517 Height 365 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. 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 Nautical Angkor: The Social Life of Boats in the Khmer Empire Subject The topic of the resource Poster Description An account of the resource <h2>This poster examines boats as depicted in bas reliefs in the Bayon temple that represent the everyday life of the Khmer empire during the 12th century.</h2> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h2>Click here to see the poster: <a title="Angkor Boats Poster" href="http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/posters/Angkor_Boats.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/posters/Angkor_Boats.pdf</a></h2> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Veronica Walker Vadillo Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Poster