28 10 700 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Japanese Piracy in Ming China During the 16th Century Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kwan-wai So Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Michigan State University Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Kwan-wai So Item Type Book ISBN 0870131796 Call Number DS753 .S57 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975 Library Catalog 128.125.253.52 Library Catalog Num Pages 251 Place East Lansing Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Michigan State University Press Title A name given to the resource Japanese Piracy in Ming China During the 16th Century China Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c7c53130df44ceef03108ca1eb8ad050.pdf 5922aa5c957c77a993fc89a5c34753b2 PDF Text Text Joint airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to inspect the submerged archaeological sites: The Taijiang Waters in Taiwan Liwen Chen1, Sheng-Chong Lo2, Lun-Tao Tong3, Gwo-Shyh Song4, Yi-Wei Lu2, Cheng-Wei Tseng3, Jheng-Kai Huang5, Wai-lam Wong1, Wei-Chung Han6 1. 2. National Academy of Marine Research, Ocean Affairs Council, Taiwan Green Energy and Environment Research Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute,Taiwan 3. Material and Chemical Research Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan 4. 5. 6. MMA Global Aqua Co., Ltd., Taiwan Chinese Ocean & Underwater Technology Association, Taiwan Exploration and Development Research Institute, CPC Corporation, Taiwan ABSTRACT To better identify submerged archaeological targets, multiple state-of-art survey techniques were carried out in underwater geoarchaeological studies at the exploration stage. Previous underwater surveys identified ten Dutch colonial vessels dating from the first half of the seventeenth century. Four of them were found on the banks of the Yanshui River, and most of them were situated at the historical waters of Dayun Port. Underwater archeology research at this inland sea of Tainan, the base for the Dutch route, was the key era in the development of maritime trade in Southeast Asia. Therefore, inspecting the potential archaeology in Taijiang Waters is under our consideration, which is situated in a historical city, Tainan, leads us to link the ancient shipwreck event to consider the sustainable preservation solution. However, it is challenging to inspect the submerged archaeological targets since the geomorphology rapidly changed due to the long- and short-term geological processes. The resources available to conduct the work include accurate frequency control on magnetic data acquisition and comprehensive geophysical integration for data interpretation. Therefore, we combine the acoustic and magnetic techniques and joint airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to inspect the submerged assessment. After integrating with previous survey results, seven underwater cultural heritages were linked to shipwrecks, which allows us to embark on follow-up verification plans for archaeological research, preserving the potential historical footprints of Taiwanese and the treasure wetlands environments of the Taijiang National Park for endangered ecosystems. Keywords: geophysical survey, Taijiang Waters, underwater cultural heritage INTRODUCTION The topic of this paper fits best within this Session 24 ‘” Database, monitoring, non-intrusive documentation techniques and new technologies applied to underwater cultural heritage” because we jointly apply multiple the-state-of-art survey techniques including airborne- and shipborne-based geophysical methods to inspect the submerged archaeological sites in the Taijiang Waters of Taiwan. Overall, this study is based on non-intrusive geophysical methods and it involves database building and future underwater cultural heritage (UCH) monitoring/preservation. The Taijiang Waters are archaeologically significant since it was a crucial ship channel during the seventeenth century and therefore many ships sank in its surrounding waters during the period. Previous studies have found at least ten Dutch vessels in the study area dating from the first half of the seventeenth century (Chiang, 1999; Li, 2018; Wang, 2012). However, it is challenging to inspect the submerged archaeological targets by using traditional surveying methods due to the poor visibility in the water, strong tidal currents, and rapidly changing morphology. For instance, the strong tidal currents can be dangerous to divers and the low water visibility makes it difficult to operate underwater cameras. Moreover, the 1 �rapid erosion and deposition processes cause major challenges in monitoring, or even locating the archaeological targets. Please note that many land or wetland areas were oceans back in the seventeenth century due to the massive sediment deposition carried by the Yanshui River. This results in limited water areas nowadays capable of ships or boats passing through. With all the restrictions and challenges, this study also applies airborne-based geophysical survey methodology to acquire the overall information within the study area, including the land areas or fish farms where shipborne-based methods cannot be operated. A more detailed description of the geophysical instruments used is outlined in the “Resource” section. By integrated analysis of various geophysical data, we have built a database and developed a workflow for locating and monitoring the potential archaeological targets, which may give insights into the surveying strategies in other shallow water areas worldwide that are challenging for applying traditional archaeological surveying methods. CASE STUDY The case studies under consideration mainly are the previous geophysical surveys used for shallow water UCH identification. According to the previous experience, we realized that a new and integrated approach must be introduced to overcome the environmental challenges in Taijiang Waters. Geophysical prospecting methods have been extensively used to locate buried antiquities in terrestrial sites for decades. This approach involves interdisciplinary studies which is also applicable and efficient to document the underwater environment in detail. Besides mapping the subsurface images, geophysical prospecting methods also provides critical physical properties of buried structures to complement archaeological research in a timely and costly efficient manner. The technological and methodological innovations upgraded it from an “amateur” activity to scientific research with a substantial contribution in the domains of past commerce and coast exploitations (Dobson 2005). However, the coastal and shallow underwater areas are still considered a “gray zone” or “white zone”, where different factors create a unique, constantly evolving, and challenging environment, sharing elements from both deep- water investigations and dry land surveys, which neither the equipment for deep-water exploration nor those used for dry land surveys can be directly employed in coastal areas (Galanidou, et al. 2020). Generally, most of the efforts to reconstruct the hidden cultural heritage are mainly focused on deep-water environment explorations by acoustic geophysical methods that have been used to map ancient shipwrecks (Sakellariou, et al. 2007). The accessibility of shallow water archaeological sites rise a dilemma for the government, as it must decide whether to prioritize openness to the public or protect cultural assets. On the other hand, the water presence in submerged lands makes this area susceptible to various post-depositional or abandonment effects, as evidenced by the Taijiang Waters in Taiwan (Li 2018; Wang 2012). Perhaps that’s the reason why there is no coherent and efficient approach or technique so far for shallow-water heritage documentation, study, and protection, despite the availability of methods to investigate the cultural heritage in dry land or deep water (Papadopoulos 2021). Since October 1966, several archaeological targets including a wreck site were discovered in the marine environment of Akko Harbour using a proton magnetometer, the technique has been widely used for underwater cultural heritage (Arnold and Clausen 1975). Today marine proton magnetometers have largely been replaced by optically pumped cesium vapor magnetometers and Overhauser effect magnetometers, both of which provide greater sensitivity and much faster cycle rates (Green 2014). Nevertheless, magnetic surveys may effectively detect shipwrecks but require a proper design operating in good weather conditions. And the beauty of a magnetic survey is that we don’t need to submerge the magnetometer before it can detect a shipwreck, most accessible wrecks that lie in shallow waters (<30m) are detectable from the surface (Steenkamp 2017). Generally, shipborne surveys are used for searching for wrecks in shallow waters and may be complemented by cheaply available side-scan sonar equipment. In Taijiang Waters in Taiwan, where some areas are difficult for the boat to access, we intend to take the advantage of a small drone equipped with a fluxgate magnetometer to offer good values to inspect the 2 �submerged archaeological sites. The sediment deposition in the Taijiang Water has greatly impacted human activities (Chen and Chang 2010). In the 17th century, the Taijiang Water was a natural port and was the administrative, economic, and cultural center of Taiwan. However, due to the sediment infill process of the Taijiang Water, it became more difficult to navigate ships in the nineteen century, and eventually impossible for the ships to pass today. Figure 1 shows an example of the Taijing coast in the seventeen and twenty-first centuries. Due to the severe sediment deposition processes, numerous coastal communities that depended on shipping for their livelihood have declined. To investigate the UCH in the Taijiang Waters, the Taiwanese government has conducted a shipboard general geophysical survey, including a multibeam echo sounder (MES), side scan sonar (SSS), subbottom profiler (SBP), and magnetic surveying (MG) (Lai 2018). Based on these datasets, several potential UCH targets were identified. After that, they conducted a detailed survey including underwater photography and resistivity image profiling, in addition to the four methods used in the general survey, to examine potential UCH targets. However, during the detailed survey, they observed a significant topographic change caused by rapid sedimentary processes. Either moving by the currents or buried by sediments, numerous previously identified potential UCH sites showed no obvious geophysical anomalies from the data collected from the detailed survey. Therefore, this study aims to introduce a joint data analysis technology to better detect and monitor potential UCH targets in this challenging site. Figure 1. An ancient nautical chart by Dutch navigators (1652) overlaid with modern satellite images (Lai 2018) revealing the changing coastlines. RESOURCES To better identify the submerged archaeological targets (potential UCH) in Taijiang Waters, we integrated multiple the-state-of-art survey techniques to improve the certainty of potential target recognization. Our survey strategies and techniques in Taijian underwater geoarchaeological research not only increased the 3 �density of the ship tracks to better image the seafloor topography, and profile the subsurface strata and magnetic features to recognize the potential targets; but also, we take the advantage of magnetic anomalies derived from airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys, to inspect the assessments which might be buried in the subsurface. Furthermore, we directly sample the channel sediments to investigate the sedimentological and environmental records to study the potential geological events in hundreds of years. The instruments and survey strategies we used are introduced as follows. Shipborne-based geophysical survey Based on the existing water depth and nautical chart data, the investigative scope of the Taijiang Waters includes intertidal zones with water depths ranging from 0 to 10 meters. Due to the shallow water depth and numerous obstacles such as oyster rafts near the coast, the operation uses a small boat, the Wan Bao Long 58, to reduce operational risks. The vessel has a total length of 14.60 meters, a width of 2.90 meters, a maximum draft of 0.74 meters, and a total tonnage of 11.75 tons. (1) Side-scan sonar (SSS) We use an EdgeTech 4125 side-scan sonar to collect dual-frequency seafloor images for the entire area while the survey line spacing and instrument's slant range were set at 25 meters, simultaneously. (2) Multi-beam bathymetry (MB) We predominantly use the RESON SeaBat 9001 multi-beam sounder with a survey line spacing of 10 meters to collect the bathymetry data. For the areas with water depth shallower than 1 meter, the Odom Echotrac CV100 single-beam sounder was used to fill the gap. Besides the relevant position, the angle deviation was obtained by superposition testing. All data were recorded in the collection software to obtain the relative position parameters of the instruments in 3D. For the sound velocity information, the vertical sound profile was measured at least 2 times a day. More measurements were conducted with significant changes in water temperature or salinity. (3) Sub-bottom profiler (SBP) We utilize the EdgeTech SB-216S tow-fish with a digital variable-frequency sonar sounder in 10 meters line spacing survey to image the subsurface strata. (4) Magnetic Survey (MG) Considering of the interference of the vessel, the SeaSPY used for shipborne magnetic survey was tied to a float and towed about 30 meters behind the vessel. And principally we set up the line space as 12.5 meters to derive better coverage of the data. Airborne magnetic survey With the airborne magnetic survey, we undertook a general survey around the Taijian area with 100% coverage and a detailed survey focussed along the river to better detect anomalies in those waters. (1) General Survey The general survey aims to mark the distribution of buried magnetic bodies. The operation height should be adjusted according to the environmental conditions. Therefore, a 25-meter design line spacing is used for this phase of the survey. The measurement height is set between 15-20 meters above ground level and adjusted according to the height of buildings, power poles, or windbreak trees in the survey area. 4 �(2) Detailed Survey Ideally, the survey line spacing is about 4 meters with a flying height of 4-8 meters above the ground/water level. The actual survey area was selected based on the results of the general airborne magnetic survey and the shipborne geophysical surveys. FRAMEWORK This study aims to identify potential UCH targets by applying geophysical methods for future monitoring and preservation. Considering the challenging survey environment, we applied an integrated analysis of different geophysical datasets including the MB, SSS, SBP, and magnetic methods. In terms of geophysical data interpretation, the exposed targets were mainly identified through the interpretation of the SSS images. All the exposed targets show magnetic anomalies. However, due to the poorer resolution of the multibeam terrain data, the comparison results between exposed target objects and multibeam data target objects were inconsistent, and their shapes could not be identified through the multibeam depth data in this area. As fishing activities are prosperous in the Taijiang Waters, there are many oyster rafts or abandoned fishing gear in the river channel. Therefore, anomalous responses observed only from one single geophysical data were not used as the basis for identifying potential UCH target objects. Regarding the buried target objects, anomalous responses observed from SBP and magnetometer are the main criteria for interpretation. After the integrated geophysical data analysis, we compared the potential UCH target locations with historical literature to have a preliminary idea from an archaeology perspective. RESULTS Besides collecting shipborne geophysical data including the SSS, MB, and MG, we further check the subsurface feature by SBP to define the suspicious targets (Figure 2). Then we combined the magnetic anomaly derived from airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys simultaneously to inspect the submerged assessment (Figure 3), the resources available to conduct the work include accurate frequency control on magnetic data acquisition and comprehensive geophysical integration for data interpretation. After integrating and interpreting various survey data in the Taijiang Waters, a total of 13 potential UCH targets were obtained (Figure 4), including 12 targets on the riverbed and 1 buried target. With these results, we are confident that our strategy of jointly analysing multiple geophysical data can increase the chance of identifying potential UCH sites and therefore benefit geoarchaeological research. After integrating with previous survey results, seven underwater anomalies were correlated to the ancient Dutch shipwreck (Figure 4). This allows us to now embark on planning follow-up verification of each anomaly through archaeological research, for the purposes of confirming, or not, discovery and identifying each site. Through these activities we hope to preserve the historical underwater cultural heritage of the Taiwanese, and the endangered ecosystems of the treasured wetlands environments of the Taijiang National Park. 5 �Figure 2. The four shipborne geophysical surveys we applied in the Yanshui River to investigate the suspicious targets. Figure 3. Magnetic anomaly derived from airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to help inspect the submerged assessments. 6 �Figure 4. Map showing the locations of the potential UCH targets proposed by this study and previous studies with the planned drilling locations. 7 �BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnold III, J.B. and Clausen, C.J. A magnetometer survey with electronic positioning control and calculator-plotter system. Historical Archaeology 9, no. 1 (1975.), 26-40. Chen, H. L., Chang, J. C. Terrestrialization process of the TaiJiang Water and its relations to human activities. Geology of Taiwan 29, no.4 (2010), 34-38. Chiang, S. S. De Dagregisters van het Kasteel Zeelandia. Tainan City Government Publications. (In Chinese) Dobson, N.C., 2005, September. Developmental deep-water archaeology: a preliminary report on the investigation and excavation of the 19th-century side-wheel steamer SS Republic, lost in a storm off Savannah in 1865. In Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE (1999): 1761-1769. IEEE. Galanidou, N., Dellaporta, K., Sakellariou, D. Greece: Unstable landscapes and underwater archaeology. In Lakes of the World with Google Earth; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, (2020): 371–392. Green, J. The Application of Aerial Magnetometers in Maritime Archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43, no.2 (2014): 436-443. Lai, C. P. Remote Sensing Exploration Project for underwater cultural heritage in the Dayun Port Waters. The Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Taiwan. (In Chinese). 2018. Li, C. L. The shipwrecks' historical documents collecting and analyzing of the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie. The Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Taiwan. (In Chinese) 2018. Papadopoulos, N. Shallow offshore geophysical prospection of archaeological sites in eastern Mediterranean. Remote Sensing 13, no. 7 (2021): 1237. Sakellariou, D., Georgiou, P., Mallios, A., Kapsimalis, V., Kourkoumelis, D., Micha, P., Theodoulou, T., Dellaporta, K. Searching for Ancient Shipwrecks in the Aegean Sea: The Discovery of Chios and Kythnos Hellenistic Wrecks with the Use of Marine Geological-Geophysical Methods. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 2007. Steenkamp, B. Application of the Magnetic Method to Explore for Shipwrecks on the South African Coast. Extended Abstracts - 15th SAGA Biennial Conference & Exhibition. 2017. Wang, Y. The research of the 17th century Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie shipwrecks types and distribution in the Taiwan Strait. Studies of Underwater Archaeology, Beijing: Science Press. Vol. 1 (2012): 163-188. (In Chinese) 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 Joint airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to inspect the submerged archaeological sites: The Taijiang Waters in Taiwan Description An account of the resource To better identify submerged archaeological targets, multiple state-of-art survey techniques were carried out in underwater geoarchaeological studies at the exploration stage. Previous underwater surveys identified ten Dutch colonial vessels dating from the first half of the seventeenth century. Four of them were found on the banks of the Yanshui River, and most of them were situated at the historical waters of Dayun Port. Underwater archeology research at this inland sea of Tainan, the base for the Dutch route, was the key era in the development of maritime trade in Southeast Asia. Therefore, inspecting the potential archaeology in Taijiang Waters is under our consideration, which is situated in a historical city, Tainan, leads us to link the ancient shipwreck event to consider the sustainable preservation solution. However, it is challenging to inspect the submerged archaeological targets since the geomorphology rapidly changed due to the long- and short-term geological processes. The resources available to conduct the work include accurate frequency control on magnetic data acquisition and comprehensive geophysical integration for data interpretation. Therefore, we combine the acoustic and magnetic techniques and joint airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to inspect the submerged assessment. After integrating with previous survey results, seven underwater cultural heritages were linked to shipwrecks, which allows us to embark on follow-up verification plans for archaeological research, preserving the potential historical footprints of Taiwanese and the treasure wetlands environments of the Taijiang National Park for endangered ecosystems. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Liwen Chen Sheng-Chong Lo Lun-Tao Tong Gwo-Shyh Song Yi-Wei Lu Cheng-Wei Tseng Jheng-Kai Huang Wai-lam Wong Wei-Chung Han Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Language A language of the resource English Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Chen, Liwen , Sheng-Chong Lo, Lun-Tao Tong, Gwo-Shyh Song, Yi-Wei Lu, Cheng-Wei Tseng, Jheng-Kai Huang, Wai-lam Wong, Wei-Chung Han. 2023. “Joint airborne and shipborne geophysical surveys to inspect the submerged archaeological sites: The Taijiang Waters in Taiwan.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, and T. Kurt Knoerl. In Proceedings of Fifth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Gwangju, The Republic of Korea, November 13-18 2023. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology. URL: https://apconf.omeka.net/exhibits/show/apconfproceedings/item/2018 Asia-Pac Session 19 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/f294dcc0ba93657da85daa853cc99eab.pdf ef2e1b13dc454fa2c151e26fd81a119d PDF Text Text Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan Daniele Petrella (IRIAE, daniele.petrella@iriae.com) Irene Ciulla (IRIAE, ciullairene@gmail.com) Diego M. Mezzapelle (IRIAE, halfskin@hotmail.it) Giuseppe Avola (IRIAE, peppeavola95@gmail.com) ABSTRACT Japanese neolithic, the so called Jōmon Period, represents a vast terrain in which to develop new and exciting research in the archaeological field. This is because there are still many questions that need to be answered to better clarify the evolutionary dynamics of the cultures that characterized it. The project Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan aims to study and understand the use of the sea and waterways during the Japanese Neolithic period, both in terms of movements within the archipelago and contacts with the surrounding territories. In its first phase, the project will focus on the analysis of the nature and dynamics behind the first relations with the Korean peninsula. For this reason, International Research Institute for Archaeology and Ethnology (IRIAE) has developed a new project of maritime archaeological investigation on land and underwater. The project identifys the island of Tsushima (Nagasaki Prefecture) as a crucial point. The activities will begin at the sites of Meotoishimae and Ongaura, both overlook the Korean coast and have geomorphological characteristics of possible landings and/or coastal settlements. Among these, those most under analysis are related to the origins of the Jōmon culture, a topic that cannot be separated from human environment interaction: the relationship with the Korean populations and that with the sea. What was the role of the sea in the life of the Jōmon People? How did they move and what boats did they use? What were kaizuka really and what did they mean? How did they adapt to the environmental changes at the advent of the Holocene? List of Figures Figure 1: Flowchart of the Adaptation Cycle Figure 2: Waniura Bay and Shishimi Bay Figure 3: Ongasaki / Ongaura Site Figure 4: ‘Meotoishimae’ Site INTRODUCTION The topic of this abstract fits best into the session ‘History and Current Trends of Underwater Archaeology around East Asia’ because it aims to address the study of the relationships between Jōmon communities and the sea, its use and exploitation of resources, and the role it played in the relations between them and continental populations, not neglecting the importance of other waterways in internal movements and communications. All this through a new methodological proposal based on the simultaneous investigation of land and underwater sites with the aid of innovative technologies and computer systems. Our methodology is the study of coastal sites in relation to the adjacent seabed, in GIS, to bring together archaeological data from the various sites under investigation. This will open up new research perspectives in the complex field of movement and settlement choice during the Japanese Neolithic. As there are clear cultural differences in the archipelago during the Jōmon Period (14,000 BC and 9,500 BC and end around 1000 BC), we prefer to identify this period as the 'Japanese Neolithic’ and use the term jōmon to indicate the cultural faces that characterised it. The identification and 'development' of cultural faces is based on changes in the relationship between man and his environment and how he adapted to it. In the circular flowchart (Figure 1) the environment inevitably influences the lifestyle of human groups, which produces a 'material culture' that, in turn, favours and enables the adaptation necessary to survive climatic and environmental changes (Renfrew et al. 1991). 1 �Figure 1: Flowchart of the Adaptation Cycle The advent of the Holocene brought about great changes that conditioned and forced human groups in the area to modify their 'habits' (Barnes 2015). Climatic change characterised the Holocene. On the one hand, on land evergreens and deciduous broadleaf trees produced acorns and hard fruits (Teshigawa 2022; Williams et al. 1982) and the ecological process of insularisation led to an increase in the populations of smaller mammals such as wild boar and deer. This followed the extinction of larger animals that could not migrate to places with more suitable temperatures. All this allowed for a constant seasonal food supply for gathering and hunting (Habu 2022). On the other hand, in the water the sea level rise separated Japan from the continent. This led to the development of navigation, both for marine and terrestrial travel. On land the presence of the great mountains over the entire surface of the archipelago make overland travel extremely complex. Rivers represented the main inland communication routes, while lakes were an important source of supply for inland areas further from the coasts (Hornell 1946). Over the sea people performed cabotage and inter-island boating. Moreover, water products, such as molluscs, fish, and marine mammals, represented a new source of food supply that not only contributed to the general needs of the populations, but also compensated for seasonal food fluctuations (Habu et al. 2011; Koike 1980; Teshigawara 2021; Teshigawara 2022). Excavations conducted in various areas of Japan, related to the various phases of the Jōmon Period, have brought to light bones of large marine mammals and large fish, such as whales and tuna. Such animals require complex organisation, strategy, and technology of evolved societies (Hosoya et al. 2014). The waterways became the main communication routes for the 'flow of goods, people and information' (Mizoguchi 2013) not only within the archipelago itself, but also from outside. Japan, in fact, with the advent of the Holocene, became a territory with a temperate climate, rich in vegetation and raw materials and particularly suited to both fishing and hunting (Teshigawara 2016). This 'oasis' was a destination for migratory flows of foreign cultures that greatly influenced the development of local communities (Mizoguchi 2002). Namely, from the north populations of Siberia and the American territories; from the south-west populations of Korea; and from the south populations of the Southeast Asian Archipelago (Nakagome et al. 2020). The reconsideration of all these elements led to the project 'Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan' by the International Research Institute for Archaeology and Ethnology (IRIAE). The project is divided into three phases. Jōmon Sea 1 will focus on understanding the nature of early relations with Korea and how these influenced the evolution of Jōmon cultures. Jōmon Sea 2 will deal with relations with northern cultures. Jōmon Sea 3 will address the study of internal contacts within the country. 2 �The first phase will focus on relations with the Korean peninsula to investigate the island of Tsushima (Nagasaki Prefecture). The island is located in the centre of the Sea of Japan, on the route between Kyūshū and Korea, from whose coastline it is only 47 km away. It is likely that this island was intercepted by explorers from the peninsula in search of richer territories. Tsushima represents a veritable 'treasure chest' for archaeological research because since ancient times it has been the crossroads of all cultural dynamics between Japan and the surrounding cultures; just as Sicily, Italy is at the centre of the Mediterranean. Numerous investigations were conducted on the island in recent decades by Japanese scholars, which confirmed the strong Korean presence and exchanges with northern Kyūshū, but also the mutual influence between Korean and local populations (Shōbayashi 1995). The project is carried out in collaboration with Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology and the Asian Research Institute of Underwater Archaeology (ARIUA), which has been carrying out archaeological investigations on Tsushima Island for years. CASE STUDIES After analysing the reports of all the excavations and investigations conducted on the island, we chose to start with the north-western area, which faces Korea. Two extremely interesting sites can be found in this area (Figure 2). These are the Waniura Bay, located in the far north, and the Shishimi Bay area, slightly further south (Nagasaki 2019), which represent the case studies examined. Figure 2: Waniura Bay and Shishimi Bay The Ongasaki / Ongaura Site This is the first of the inlets, coming from the south, in Waniura Bay and facing the Korean coast. It is part of the Yabitsu area, which is being investigated by ARIUA; where the first, and so far, only, Jōmon landing site has been identified, as well as numerous Korean Neolithic evidence (Hayashida 2019). 3 �The investigations focused on the Ongasaki promontory that closes the inlet to the north (around 20 metres above sea level) and in the stretch of sea that bathes Ongaura (Figure 3). Figure 3: Ongasaki / Ongaura Site The surface survey of Ongasaki revealed the presence of three obsidian points and significant quantities of obsidian, quartz crystals and shell waste. Considering the particular purity of the obsidian found, the absence of quarrying pits on Tsushima Island and the morphological characteristics of the tips found, we assume that it came from the Koshidake quarry in northern Kyūshū. The shape and quality of these finds is absolutely superimposable to those found along the southern coast of Korea and, mainly, in the Busan area. The route of obsidian is likely: raw obsidian arrives on the island from northern Kyūshū reaching Ongasaki for processing, from there, the finished products are sent to the Korean coast. In addition, the presence of hundreds of quartz crystals, shell waste and numerous traces of charcoal make Ongasaki an important processing and sorting site for obsidian products and other valuable materials. We also found archaeological evidence related to later periods, such as fragments of iron swords (dated to the Late Yayoi and the Kofun Period), bronze-finished weapons and armour, a bronze coin from the Edo Period and some fragments of medieval pottery (including celadon) that testify to the long life of the Ongasaki site and the strategic importance of its location. The underwater survey carried out on the seabed of Ongaura Bay revealed the presence of fragments of amphorae, still to be chronologically framed, and three lithic anchors whose typology can be ascribed between the Jōmon and medieval periods. The 'Meotoishimae' Site The geomorphology of Meotoishimae and the documented importance of the bay were the elements that prompted us to investigate this inlet. This site is located opposite the important site of Meotoishi in Shishimi Bay (Figure 4), which has always been known to Koreans and mentioned in the text Haedong Jegukgi (Adachi 1999). It was excavated between the end of the 1970s and 1993 and brought to light a very large number of Neolithic Korean pottery of the Sugari type and only a few fragments of Ataka-style pottery dated to the Middle Jōmon (Kiyoura 1992). 4 �Figure 4: ‘Meotoishimae’ Site Our investigations on the Meotoishimae site revealed an interesting similarity with the structures in Koshitaka, which is located on the same side of the island only three kilometers to the north and currently being investigated by the Tsushima Museum team. If this structure similarity is confirmed by subsequent investigations, one could hypothesise their repeated pattern during the Neolithic period, as well as location choice of the island's bays overlooking the stretch of sea facing Korea. The archaeological excavations at the Koshitaka site uncovered 2461 fragments of Neolithic Korean pottery and only seven fragments of Maebira-style Jōmon pottery (Shōbayashi 1995), as well as a Korean-style kiln. This discrepancy between the amount of Korean and indigenous evidence leaves little doubt these were Korean settlements. We hypothesize groups from Korea sailed in search of richer territories and then settled in Tsushima. Over time, they influenced and merged with the small local populations, and, from this fusion developed a hybrid culture. During the Early/Middle Jōmon this hybrid culture looked further east, towards the Kyūshū coast, which they reached by cultural exchanges. RESOURCES The resources that will be deployed to implement the project will come, in addition to the specific skills and expertise present in IRIAE, from the collaboration with Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology. They supply the technological approach to underwater investigations, and the ARIUA. Moreover, the project already enjoys the patronage of UNESCO Underwater Heritage and the financial support of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. FRAMEWORK The project aims to answer a series of interconnected questions. These questions are based on the use and exploitation of the sea, waterways and coastal settlements in bays. First, in Jōmon Sea the aim is to understand the structure and location-choice of coastal settlements in bays. We aim to contextualize this with the seasonal cycle of food supply and storage methods. Second, we aim to collect data on the 5 �types and level of nautical knowledge of the Neolithic communities that exploited the bays, along with their transportation of raw materials, related trade and cultural exchange. The methodological approach is simultaneous archaeological investigation and comparison of data from land and underwater. Further, we will use both sonar equipment for scanning the seabed and high-resolution satellite reading software. The latter will be used to obtain a clearer visualisation of the geomorphology of the areas and the identification of anthropic evidence that might otherwise be difficult to identify. Of extreme importance, moreover, is the creation of a GIS platform that collects data from the sites we have investigated and from those investigated by other research groups. The GIS facilitates site comparison to obtain a more complete reading of the historical dynamics that characterised the area starting from the Neolithic period. The GIS platform georeferences elements necessary for the management and analysis of the survey results (reconnaissance, excavation, protection, etc.). The GIS can be used for the planning and design of subsequent excavation work. Within GIS, we plan to carry out distributional-typological analyses of finds and fragments characterised with different symbology on the basis of the type of material (stone, metal, wood, etc.) and the type of artefact (e.g., scrap, arrowhead, blade, etc.). In this way it is possible to visualise and interpret the dynamics of distribution, concentration, isolation and thinning of specific typological groups and compare them simultaneously. RESULTS The results obtained during the spring 2023 survey campaign were the identification that the Ongasaki site is a processing and sorting site for valuable materials, and what routes these raw materials took to reach Ongasaki and from there to Korea. The existence of the Ongasaki processing site suggests a settlement or logistical support site in its vicinity. Therefore, future investigations and excavations will aim to find and understand site organisation. Another important outcome the research team is aiming for is the identification of repeated patterns in bay structure and their location, so that these may serve as a proto-type for future identifications of other anthropized bays. Finally, it is our intention that the GIS platform created can be constantly implemented with data from other research in order to achieve a comparison of data that facilitates a broad and syncretic reading of the periods under analysis. The GIS would become a baseline tool available to the scientific community and all researchers. Acknowledgements We would like to thank our Japanese colleagues at Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology and the ARIUA, whose input was essential to access Japan's difficult administrative mechanisms. As well as the Tsushima Board of Education and the Nagasaki Prefecture for granting us the necessary authorisations. In addition, we would like to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic, which has supported all IRIAE projects with great enthusiasm for years. Finally, we would like to thank all the IRIAE team members without whose professionalism and dedication the project would not have been possible. 6 �Bibliography Adachi, H. Nihon no Fune. Tokyo: Fune no Kagakukan, 1999. Barnes, L. G. Vulnerable Japan: The Tectonic Life Setting of Life in the Archipelago. In P. C. Brown and B. L. 2015 Habu, J. “Jōmon Collectors and Foragers: Regional Interaction and Long-Term Changes in Settlement System among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers in Japan.” In J. Habu and B. Fitzhugh (Eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems, New York: Kluwer-Plenum Publishing Corporation, (2002): 53-72. Habu, J., Matsui, A., Yamamoto, N. and Kanno, T. “Shell Midden Archaeology in Japan: Aquatic Food Acquisition and Long-term Change in the Jōmon Culture.” Quaternary International 239 (2011): 19-27. Hayashida, K. “2018 Nendo Yabitsu B Chiten Chōsa no Gaiyō.” ARIUA Newsletter 8 (2019): 27-33. Hornell, J. Water Transport, Origins and Early Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946. Hosoya, L. A., Nakamura, O., Seguchi, S. and Shibutani, A. “What Did Jōmon People Eat in Fact? Jōmon Subsistence and Society Chronological Shifts in Japanese Jōmon Subsistence Strategies on the Basis of Local Characteristics of North Tohoku Area.” Proceeding of the 6th Worldwide Conference of the Society for East Asian Archaeology (2014): 6-10. Kiyoura, G. “Meotoishi Iseki.” Nagasaki-ken Maizō Bunkazai Chōsashūhō 15 (1992): 1-38. Koike, H. Seasonal Dating by Growth-line Counting of the Clam, Meretrix Lusoria: Toward a Reconstruction of Prehistoric Shell Collecting Activities in Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 1980 Mizoguchi, K. An Archaeological History of Japan, 30000 B.C. to A.D. 700. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Mizoguchi, K. The Archaeology of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013 Nagasaki, A.”Tsushima Hokubu no Iseki no Yōsō.” ARIUA Newsletter 8 (2019): 2-10. Nakagome, S., Gakuhari, T. and Rasmussen, S. “Ancient Jomon Genome Sequence Analysis Sheds Light on Migration Patterns of Early East Asian Populations.” Common Biol 3 (2020): 437-456. Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson. 1991 Shōbayashi, M. Kōdai Kikō, Vol.1: Tsushima. Nagasaki: Town News-sha, 1995 Teshigawara, A. Jōmon Jidai-shi. Tokyo: Shinsenn sha, 2016 Teshigawara, A. Jōmon Jidai o Shiru Tame no 110 Mondai. Tokyo: Shinsen-sha, 2021 Teshigawara, A. Jōmon Jidai Gaido Bukku. Tokyo: Shinsen-sha, 2022 Williams, M. N. and Hunn, S. E. Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-gatherers. Boulder: Westview Press. 1982 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2023 Session 1: History and Current Trends of Underwater Archaeology around East Asia Subject The topic of the resource Session 1 papers Description An account of the resource Papers presented at Session 1 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Conference presentation Date Available Date (often a range) that the resource became or will become available. November 2023 Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan Description An account of the resource Japanese neolithic, the so called Jōmon Period, represents a vast terrain in which to develop new and exciting research in the archaeological field. This is because there are still many questions that need to be answered to better clarify the evolutionary dynamics of the cultures that characterized it. The project Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan aims to study and understand the use of the sea and waterways during the Japanese Neolithic period, both in terms of movements within the archipelago and contacts with the surrounding territories. In its first phase, the project will focus on the analysis of the nature and dynamics behind the first relations with the Korean peninsula. For this reason, International Research Institute for Archaeology and Ethnology (IRIAE) has developed a new project of maritime archaeological investigation on land and underwater. The project identifys the island of Tsushima (Nagasaki Prefecture) as a crucial point. The activities will begin at the sites of Meotoishimae and Ongaura, both overlook the Korean coast and have geomorphological characteristics of possible landings and/or coastal settlements. Among these, those most under analysis are related to the origins of the Jōmon culture, a topic that cannot be separated from human environment interaction: the relationship with the Korean populations and that with the sea. What was the role of the sea in the life of the Jōmon People? How did they move and what boats did they use? What were kaizuka really and what did they mean? How did they adapt to the environmental changes at the advent of the Holocene? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Daniele Petrella Irene Ciulla Diego M. Mezzapelle Giuseppe Avola Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Language A language of the resource English Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Petrella, Daniele. 2023. “Jōmon Sea: Navigation in the Origins of Japan.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, Akifumi Iwabuchi, and Kotaro Yamafune. In Proceedings of Fifth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Gwangju, The Republic of Korea, November 13-18 2023. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology. URL: https://apconf.omeka.net/exhibits/show/apconfproceedings/item/1891 Asia-Pac Session 1 2023 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 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 Kaigai Jouhou to Kyushu (Overseas Information and Kyushu) 海外情報と九州 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jun'ichi Himeno Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Jun'ichi Himeno Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996 Place Fukuoka Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai Title A name given to the resource Kaigai Jouhou to Kyushu (Overseas Information and Kyushu) 海外情報と九州 China Japan 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 Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 / Peattie, Mark R.,; 1930- Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David C Evans Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Naval Institute Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author David C Evans Item Type Book ISBN 0870211927 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997 Library Catalog OCLC WorldCat FirstSearch Num Pages 661 Place Annapolis, Md. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Naval Institute Press Short Title Kaigun Title A name given to the resource Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 / Peattie, Mark R.,; 1930- Japan 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 Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 / Peattie, Mark R.,; 1930- Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David C Evans Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Naval Institute Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author David C Evans Item Type Book ISBN 0870211927 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997 Library Catalog OCLC WorldCat FirstSearch Num Pages 661 Place Annapolis, Md. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Naval Institute Press Short Title Kaigun Title A name given to the resource Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 / Peattie, Mark R.,; 1930- Japan 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 Kaitei Kyuuden 海底宮殿 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Masaaki Kimura Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Jitsugyō no Nihonsha Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Masaaki Kimura Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Place Tokyo Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Jitsugyō no Nihonsha Title A name given to the resource Kaitei Kyuuden 海底宮殿 Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/28cfed170c5ed8294180a68309aac4b0.pdf 99a73c83860e711c73c9abb450b003f7 PDF Text Text Kānehūnāmoku: Indigenous Cultural Landscapes and Biocultural Resources in Hawai‘i and the Pacific Trisha Kehaulani Watson Honua Consulting 4348 Waialae Ave. #254 Honolulu, HI 96816 E-mail: watson@honuaconsulting.com William Ailā Jr. Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai’i E-mail: William.j.aila@hawaii.gov Kepa Maly Culture and Historic Preservation for Pūlama Lāna‘i E-mail: kepa@kumupono.com AdiMeretui Ratunabuabua Pacific Islands Museums Association E-mail: pimachair@gmail.com Abstract Responding to the effort to protect both natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, state and federal resource management agencies have been re-examining their cultural resource preservation mandates. 1 �New understanding of cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes is beginning to emerge. It is clear that “all traces of human existence that lie under water and have a cultural or historical character” (UCH) includes much more than simply shipwrecks and aircrafts. The potential for these new definitions to engage local communities and associated disciplines and to address biocultural conservation needs is great, particularly for indigenous communities in Hawai‘i and the Pacific who are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to plan for and protect their resources from climate change and other environmental threats. By integrating indigenous cultural landscapes and their related biocultural resources into a dynamic paradigm on underwater cultural heritage, the field looks to gain allies across stakeholder groups and develop its relevancy for younger generations, thus helping to ensure long-range traction for the preservation of all underwater heritage resources. Participants in this session focus on policy and research issues in indigenous cultural landscapes, and the dynamic nature of cultural heritage management in Hawai‘i and across the Pacific. Keywords: Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Cultural Heritage, Marine, Resource Management, Preservation, Indigenous Peoples, Cultural Landscapes, Introduction Underwater Cultural Heritage refers to all traces of human existence having a culture, historical or archaeological character, which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years (UNESCO, 2001). For indigenous peoples in the Pacific, who have lived of and with the ocean as their cultural seascapes for millennia, a substantial amount of their cultural heritage is linked to the sea and submerged resources. These heritages, like other underwater resources, are in grave peril.As a result of the advocacy by groups worldwide, issues pertaining to the cultural resources of indigenous peoples have increased in import and visibility. Responding to this effort to protect both natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, state and federal resource management agencies have been re-examining their cultural resource preservation mandates. New understanding of cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes is beginning to emerge. This new understanding reflects calls for enhancements of the Rights of Indigenous People. It is clear that “all traces of human existence that lie under water and have a cultural or historical character” (UCH) includes much more than simply shipwrecks and aircrafts, but a rich array of cultural resources valued by Indigenous Peoples. 2 �The potential for these new definitions to engage local communities and associated disciplines and to address biocultural conservation needs is great, particularly for indigenous communities in Hawai‘i and the Pacific who are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to plan for and protect their resources from climate change and other environmental threats. By integrating indigenous cultural landscapes and their related biocultural resources into a dynamic paradigm on underwater cultural heritage, the field looks to gain allies across stakeholder groups and develop its relevancy for younger generations, thus helping to ensure long-range traction for the preservation of all underwater heritage resources. Participants in this session will focus on policy and research issues in indigenous cultural landscapes, and the dynamic nature of cultural heritage management in Hawai‘i and across the Pacific.The goal of this paper is to articular the status of cultural heritage activities in the U.S. and the Pacific and then provide a range of examples of how different local areas have used planning documents to guide communitybased preservation activities. Through this comparison and the illustration of local examples, a promising intellectual landscape emerges. While there are certainly challenges in the field, it is nonetheless a time of great promise and potential. Cultural heritage in the Pacific is rich and dynamic, but there is still a great deal of work to be done if managers are to fully embrace the potential of this heritage. The reference to Kānehūnāmoku is intended to reflect that history and potential. Kānehūnāmoku is the secret land of Kāne. A mythical land of the gods, it is a valued resource associated with Hawai‘i’s cultural heritage. In myth Kane and Kanaloa are represented as gods living in the bodies of men in an earthly paradise situated in a floating cloudland or other sacred and remote spot where they drink awa and are fed from a garden patch of never-failing growth. Often this land is located upon one of the twelve sacred islands under the control of Kane believed to lie off the Hawaiian group "within easy reach of and having frequent intercourse with it." These islands are frequently mentioned in ancient chants and stories before the last Paao migration from Tahiti. Today they are called the "lost islands" or "islands hidden by the gods." At sunrise or sunset they may still be seen on the distant horizon, sometimes touched with a reddish light. They may lie under the sea or upon its surface, approach close to land or be raised and float in the air according to the will of the gods. They are sacred and must not be pointed at. 3 �The land of Kane-huna-moku (Hidden land of Kane) is one of these islands. Here live Kane and Kanaloa with other spirits who are Kane's direct descendants; such as, "Kane of the thunder," "Kane of the water of life," "Kane who shakes the earth," twenty of whom are listed by Rice. It is a middle land between heaven and earth where spirits enjoy all the delights of earth without labor and without death, and "in extreme old age return to earth, either in the bodies of men or as spirits," or "become gods and live in the clouds." Kepelino calls it the land where the first man was made. Here he lived until Kumuhonua transgressed the law of Kane and was driven from this good land. "There is no land to be compared to it in excellence." Hawaiians today say that this land had its birth from Niu-roa-hiki, a land belonging to Hawaii but which does not approach these islands, and that those who have kept thetapus may go there after death (Beckwith, 1976). Sacred places, those that “may lie under the sea or upon its surface, approach close to land or be raised and float in the air according to the will of the gods” have long been part of the cultural narrative of the Pacific. They include tangible and intangible resources. They are landscapes that reach out across space and time. They include natural resources, as indigenous peoples believe resources to have both biological and cultural value. Increased understandings of the cultures of the Pacific only serve to strengthen the field of maritime history. There is a need to share learning and education within the field. The Hawaiian concept put engaged here is “a`o aku, a`o mai,” the traditional Hawaiian process and value of reciprocal learning. This paper expresses both a need for shared learning as a means of building a stronger, more diverse discipline. “Makawalu” as a cultural value that can further inform and enrich an increasingly diversified range of inquiry. Makawalu literally means “eight eyes,” yet conceptually reflects an approach that integrates numerous ways of seeing or knowing. A makawalu methodology would be one that considers the many different ways a community can approach or see a resource. This enables an individual to see a resource for its biological and cultural value. This is a concept not only applicable to a new understanding of cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes, but a concept that may frame emerging ethical issues related to underwater heritage and use of resources discovered at historical sites. 4 �The approaches that come from a broadened understanding of heritage and resources offer not only opportunity to explore the world around us, but the world within us. As EpeliHau‘ofa wrote: “Oceania is vast, Oceania is expanding, Oceania is hospitable and generous, Oceania is humanity rising from the depths of brine and regions of fire deeper still, Oceania is us” (Hau‘ofa, 2008). The lessons, approaches and case studies offered herein demonstrate the potential of this time we share now. It is a potential to not only explore the world below the ocean’s surface, but opportunity to rediscover our own history and heritage, and through that rediscover our past commitment to conservation values that will sustain us into the future. An Evolution of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Hawai‘i: A Move towards an Integrated Cultural Seascape Approach Hawai‘i’s marine protected areas (MPAs) offer interesting examples in the potential challengesof different approaches to addressing emerging cultural heritage needs. Both located within the Hawaiian archipelago, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) and the Papahānaumokuākea National Marine Monument (Monument) both offer interesting and differing histories on the treatment of cultural heritage. Whereas the Sanctuary has focused on community-based deliverables that enrich current traditional practices and the ability of practitioners to enhance their own knowledge, the Monument has elected to pursue an approach to culture that keeps itself largely separated from other disciplines and stakeholder groups. The latter has also intentionally elected to keep cultural activities isolated within the Hawaiian community, referring to this approach as being “beyond integration” (Lewis and Bertelmann, 2013). These varying approaches offer communities across the Pacific valuable opportunities to assess the efficacy of differing approach to cultural heritage, providing occasion for Pacific Islanders to shape heritage activities in their own island communities. The hope is that through studying past activities; indigenous peoples can determine the most effective means by which to protect submerged resources within their regions. The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument was established by President George W. Bush through Presidential Proclamation No. 8031 on June 16, 2006 through authority delegated under the Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 431-433. Unlike the Sanctuary, which aims to develop an integrated approach to cultural resources and scientific activities, the Monument elected to largely separate these activities.The first of the Monument’s priorities under their Management Plan regarding culture and history was to “Identify and prioritize scientific and Native Hawaiian cultural research needs within 18 months”. Five years later, a comprehensive plan on this issue 5 �remains incomplete, compared to its natural resources science plan, which has exists for years. Conversely, the Monument caused considerable division in the Hawaiian community. In a letter drafted to President Bush in 2008, a group of Hawaiians wrote in opposition to the national marine monument in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI): “The Native Hawaiian communities have followed the progress of the Pew Foundation’s attempts to establish another national marine monument in CNMI with anger, trepidation, and despair. There strong and passionate emotions are universally felt by Hawaiians whenever the word ‘Papahanaumokuakea’ is mentioned. This is the name your administration picked for our islands. When you creased the national marine monument of Northwest Hawaiian Islands, it was done without the participation of the Native Hawaiian people” (‘Aha Kiole Advisory Committee, 2008). While there was a select group of Native Hawaiians involved in the establishment of the Monument, it would be impossible to deny that the process undertaken created considerable strain within the Hawaiian community, particularly among elders and fishermen. As a result, considerable hostility persists about marine protected areas, making it difficult for other programs to pursue conservation agendas. The Monument was awarded World Heritage designation in 2010. The inscription reads: Papahānaumokuākea is a vast and isolated linear cluster of small, low lying islands and atolls, with their surrounding ocean, roughly 250 km to the northwest of the main Hawaiian Archipelago and extending over some 1931 km. The area has deep cosmological and traditional significance for living Native Hawaiian culture, as an ancestral environment, as an embodiment of the Hawaiian concept of kinship between people and the natural world, and as the place where it is believed that life originates and to where the spirits return after death. On two of the islands, Nihoa and Makumanamana [sic], there are archaeological remains relating to pre-European settlement and use. Much of the monument is made up of pelagic and deep-water habitats, with notable features such as seamounts and submerged banks, extensive coral reefs and lagoons. It is one of the largest marine protected areas (MPAs) in the world(UNESCO). Even this nomination was met with opposition and highlighted how the lack of an integrated and inclusive program fueled conflict between community groups and conservation programs (Akana, 2010). As a result of this conflict and despite the overwhelming and documented 6 �benefits of protected areas and heritage designations (Heinemann et al., 2005), many Hawaiians remain resistant to embracing the opportunities available through marine protected areas.Comparatively, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was designated through an act of Congress by the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (“HINMSA” or “Act”) on November 4, 1992 (Subtitle C, P.L. 102-587, the Oceans Act of 1992) as a single-species sanctuary to protect humpback whales and their habitat, which lies within the shallow (less than 600 feet), warm waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands and constitutes one of the world’s most important humpback whale habitats. Section 2304 of the Act established the Sanctuary’s purposes as follows: (1) to protect humpback whales and their habitat within the Sanctuary; (2) to education and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment; (3) to manage human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the HINMSA and Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), as amended; and (4) to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. These purposes are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), which are to: enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management; support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, site-specific marine resources; enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation and wise use of the marine environment; and facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, public and private uses of national marine sanctuaries. In 1997, the Sanctuary prepared and adopted a Management Plan in consultation with interested persons and appropriate Federal, State and local authorities, as required under Section 2306 of the HINMSA. Under 2306(a) of the HINMSA, the purposes of the Management Plan were to: (1) facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, 7 �cultural and religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their habitat; (2) set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibility, as jointly agreed by the Secretary and the State of Hawaii; (3) identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program with respect to humpback whales and their habitat; (4) identify alternative sources of funding needed to fully implement the plan’s provisions and supplement appropriations [under section 2307 of this subtitle] and section 313 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. § 1444); (5) ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State and County authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary; and (6) promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about conservation of the humpback whales, their habitat, and other marine resources. The 1997 Management Plan continues to further articulate coordination in the management of the Sanctuary through working relationships with appropriate Federal, State and county agencies to ensure the Sanctuary mandate through a cooperative management strategy. Acknowledgement of State jurisdiction over State resources was specifically illustrated through designation of the Sanctuary boundary. The Management Plan specifically states: The establishment of the Sanctuary in no way conveys, or intends to convey, to NOAA any title or ownership of Hawaii’s submerged lands. These lands, including those known as ceded lands, continue to be held in trust by the State of Hawaii. The Sanctuary will exist as a co-steward of the Sanctuary and its resources. Should the status of the submerged lands change at some time in the future (i.e., lands are conveyed to a sovereign Hawaiian nation), the Sanctuary will work with the appropriate entities to redefine its role if necessary. In 1998, the Compact Agreement for the Coordinated Management of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (“Compact”) was executed between the State of Hawai‘i (“State”) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) of the United States Department of Commerce for the purpose of clarifying the relative jurisdiction, authority, and conditions of the NOAA-State partnership for managing the Sanctuary. It clarified 8 �the State’s continuing authority and jurisdiction over its State waters, submerged lands, and other resources within the Sanctuary. The Compact further established provisions with respect to NOAA’s collaboration with the State of Hawai‘i on Sanctuary management issues. The purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(e) requires NOAA to periodically review and evaluate the implementation of management plans and goals for each national marine sanctuary. Accordingly, NOAA must revise management plans and regulations as necessary to ensure that national marine sanctuaries continue to best conserve, protect, and enhance nationally significant living and cultural resources. The current management plan review began in 2010, and this process will result in a new management plan for the sanctuary. The target for completing a draft revised management plan is 2013, and a final revised plan is targeted for completion in 2014. The management plan review process will help to evaluate gaps in existing marine conservation efforts in Hawai'i, and identify potential roles for the sanctuary in future management. Learning from the challenges with the Monument, Native Hawaiians engaged with the process early and successfully advocated for an increased commitment to cultural heritage within the sanctuary. Additionally, stakeholders from a range of disciplines worked together continuously to mutually educate each other and develop materials and guidance that acknowledged existing challenges which innovating solutions and ways forward. So although the sanctuary has considerably less resources than the Monument, it can be argued that the sanctuary has a more robust cultural heritage program as a result of its integrated and collaborative approach. The success of these changes that have occurred in the sanctuary rest on three key points: 1) A sustained and codified commitment to cultural heritage and resources integrated across the sanctuary program and activities; 2) Sustained and significant engagement with the Native Hawaiian community enhanced by community capacity building opportunities that enable Hawaiians to remain effectively engaged in the management of the sanctuary; 3) A strong partnership with the state co-managing agency that retains jurisdiction of state waters, submerged resources and cultural resources. As the Management Plan Review began, the Sanctuary focused on increasing representation of Native Hawaiians on the Sanctuary Advisory Council. Through a vigorous recruitment process, the number of Native Hawaiians on the Sanctuary Advisory Council increased from one (1) representative (of sixteen voting members) to seven (7) representatives (of eighteen voting 9 �members). This increased the percentage of Native Hawaiians on the Sanctuary Advisory Council from 6% to 38%. The Sanctuary also worked to improve cultural content and programming. A Native Hawaiian working group was formed to develop recommendations for the Management Plan. In December 2010, the Sanctuary Advisory Council (council) approved the formation of the Native Hawaiian Working Group for the purpose of developing recommendations, which describe the role of traditional perspectives in the future identity of the sanctuary, and provide a framework for those perspectives to guide appropriate management actions. In April 2011, a work plan for the working group was presented during a two-day meeting of the council. Accordingly, council members in attendance who were interested in participating in the working group had the opportunity to convene for the first time and discuss an appropriate way to conduct business. Members decided they preferred face-to-face interactions so initially working group discussions were limited to opportunistic conversations between individual members. In July 2011, the working group gathered for a full-day meeting on O‘ahu to discuss relevant background information and perspectives to inform the development of their management recommendations. Working group members were provided with scoping comments associated with Native Hawaiian issues. This first face-to-face meeting provided the foundation for the working group to define the direction and scope of their recommendations. A set of draft recommendations were developed from the initial meeting and in September 2011, the working group gathered for a second full-day meeting on O‘ahu to review and provide input. In November 2011, the working group met in a final face-to-face meeting to finalize their recommendations. The meeting was open to the public to allow comment and input before the management recommendations were finalized. The group worked for thirteen (13) months on the recommendations, contributed over 500 hours of professional volunteer time and produced a document containing four (4) goals, four (4) objectives, and thirty (30) policy recommendations. The recommendations were adopted at the Sanctuary Advisory Council meeting in January 2012. A standing Native Hawaiian subcommittee was established at the January 2012 meeting, thus codifying in the advisory council’s governing charter a permanent advisory role for Native Hawaiians into the 10 �management process. Public meetings were deferred until such time as a technical expert workshop could be convened jointly with the Native Hawaiian and research subcommittees. In January 2012, the Sanctuary Advisory Council also recommended that the sanctuary convene a workshop for experts to discuss incorporating Native Hawaiian cultural management practices and Western scientific knowledge into the sanctuary management plan. In July 2012, a group of technical experts gathered in Maunalua, O’ahu, to reflect on the implementation of aloha ‘āina (deep love for the land and sea) in an ecosystem-based management approach that has a strong basis in customary Native Hawaiian management practices and traditions. Workshop participants were invited based on their roles in their communities and relevant research or academic expertise in marine ecosystems or Native Hawaiian practices. Many of the participants represented experience in all of these areas. The Aloha ‘Āina workshop provided guidance that can be applied to a range of resource management entities and their respective kuleana (responsibility) to resources and communities, and this framework was presented to the Native Hawaiian and Research Subcommittees of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. After review by both standing subcommittees, the framework was presented to the entire Sanctuary Advisory Council in September 2012. The council voted unanimously and enthusiastically to send the framework forward to sanctuary management for consideration in the management plan review. Additionally, the council advised that the document be used as a basis for both a handbook and trainings for conservation managers. While cultural heritage should be led and informed by indigenous peoples, the sanctuary’s inter-disciplinary approach effectively illustrates the potential benefits from a process that integrate both western and indigenous perspectives. Reciprocal learning and shared implementation of initiatives enhances multiple program outputs. Similar evolutions have occurred across the U.S. and the Pacific, all to benefit of indigenous peoples and cultural heritage programs. They are compared below, as they offer extraordinary opportunity for maritime heritage programs to expand in a manner that builds community support and alliances that benefit preservation. Discussion Across geographies and scales, diverse groups of experts are coming together to advocate for enhancing approaches to understanding and preserving cultural resources. In addition to the work undertaken in Hawai‘i, the National Marine Protected Areas Center engaged their Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group (CHWG) of the Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory 11 �Council (MPA FAC) to make recommendations to improve the comprehensive conservation of cultural heritage resources within the national system. From their resulting white paper: The evaluation revealed what tribal and indigenous peoples from many places have known for generations: the human family is an integral part of and has special responsibilities to many ecosystems. Cultural heritage resources offer records of these relationships and carry with them lessons for the future based on the wisdom and mistakes of the past. The group, which includes authors of this paper, recommended the Cultural Landscape Approach as a management framework because it offers the best available means to remember and learn from our past, and to understand human and natural influences on marine places and their ecosystems over time and into the future. This holistic approach integrates the complexities and power of contemporary science with historical, archaeological, and cultural knowledge and the human values of love of place. Adopting a Cultural Landscape Approach strengthens our will and enhances our capacities to steward wisely the world we inhabit (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, 2011). Similarly, countries in the Pacific worked together towards the preservation of cultural heritage through strategic and coordinated actions. These collaborations developed the Pacific 2009 Program (2000-2009) through several regional consultations and the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee Meeting was held in Christchurch in 2007 under the chairmanship of Mr. TeHeuheu, Paramount Chief of the NgatiTuwharetoa Maori people of Aotearoa (New Zealand). This success directly resulted in an increase in the number of Pacific state parties of the World Heritage Convention as well as the World Heritage Sites in the region. Following the Pacific 2009 Program, the Pacific state parties prepared and discussed the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan (2010-2015) at the 2009 Pacific World Heritage Workshop held in Maupiti. The Pacific World Heritage Workshop (Apia, 5-9 September 2011) reviewed progress in its implementation and updated the Action Plan by taking into account the outcome of the 2nd Periodic Reporting Exercise in Asia and the Pacific region. At the request of the Pacific member states, the Pacific Heritage Hub (PHH) was established at the University of the South Pacific in Suva in February 2013. 12 �Key points from the two documents are provided below. 13 �Comparative Analysis: Evolving Approaches in the U.S. and the Pacific Recommendations for Integrated Management Pacific World Heritage Action Plan 2010-2015 Using a Cultural Landscape Approach in the (UNESCO, World Heritage Convention in the Pacific) National MPA System, 2011 (NOAA, Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee) Vision Statement Achieving and maintaining healthy coastal and We share a dream that our Pacific Islands’ heritage is marine ecosystems requires a fundamental protected and enriched for future generations. understanding of the relationships between people and the environment. Cultural heritage, which belongs to all people, emphasizes these connections, whether that heritage takes the material form of, for example, maritime resources (such as shipwrecks), natural resources (such as marine species and habitats), or sacred places. Through the national MPA system, cultural relationships among people and historic, natural, and place-based heritage resources are preserved and perpetuated in ways that recognize and share multiple cultural voices and knowledge systems for the benefit of all. Preamble None We the people of the Pacific Islands offer a unique contribution to the World Heritage community, through the enormous wealth of cultural diversity, as well as of the island and marine biodiversity of our region, much of which is endemic, and covers one third of the earth’s 14 �surface. For us, indigeneity is inseparable from heritage. Our indigeneity has the following characteristics: Heritage in the Pacific defines our cultural identity and remains inseparable from our social, economic and environmental well-being, now and for future generations; Our heritage is holistic, embracing all life, both tangible and intangible, and is understood through our cultural traditions; There is an inseparable connection between the outstanding seascapes and landscapes in the Pacific Islands region, which are woven together by the rich cultural, historical and genealogical relationships of Pacific Island peoples; The region contains a series of spectacular and highly powerful spiritually-valued natural features and cultural places. These places are related to the origins of peoples, the land and sea, and other sacred stories; The Pacific is a region of distinct and diverse responses to oceanic environments; Protection of our heritage must be based on respect for and understanding and maintenance 15 �of the traditional cultural practices, indigenous knowledge and systems of land and sea tenure in the Pacific. Challenges The guiding principles and the integrated management approach proposed here for cultural heritage resources will help address the two important cultural heritage challenges: We recognise that the Pacific region continues to be the most under-represented region on the World Heritage List. In redressing this imbalance in representation and endeavoring to continue to build on the aforementioned achievements, the Pacific Island States face major Attracting existing MPAs that have cultural heritage challenges. These include: resources which meet national system eligibility Limited awareness of Pacific cultural and criteria to join the national system; and
Reducing natural heritage outside the region; uncertainties in recognizing cultural heritage resources within existing and potential MPAs. Lack of adequate representation of the unique and special heritage of the Pacific 
on the As integrated and adaptive management is increasingly practiced, the Cultural Landscape World Heritage List; Approach (CLA), as described below, will help MPA Large geographic area, isolation and managers nationwide to identify and adopt policies resource limitations that restrict access to 
 and practices that manage cultural and natural information and assistance and the ability of Pacific resources at the ecosystem and landscape levels. people to contribute to global 
forums; The protection of cultural heritage resources in marine areas is often separated from that of natural The character and scope of the resources. In practice, this divide is often UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention 
 administrative in origin. The effective ecosystemadministration for the Pacific region, which masks based management called for in the National some of the specific important 
 national and Ocean Policyand advocated by countless scientists regional heritage issues; and natural resource management professionals recognizes that the connections between living Some people are represented by States things and the physical environment are Parties outside the region (UK, France, 
 USA, 16 �multifaceted and often inseparable. Managing places using an ecosystem-based approach requires the simultaneous understanding of cultural and natural factors and resources. Indeed, as many indigenous cultures have known for millennia, and as the scientific community is increasingly recognizing, humans are an important part of the ecosystem, and the human dimensions of the environment must be considered. In contrast to previous cultural resource management paradigms, which approached resources individually for study and preservation, CLA uses cultural landscapes as an analytical framework to understand places and their associated resources. Analogous and complementary to ecosystem-based management, CLA examines the relationships among living and non-living resources, and their environment. An MPA may involve multiple ecosystems and resources, both cultural and natural, which span the land/sea boundary. A cultural landscape may extend far beyond the boundaries of an individual MPA, and may help identify ecological and cultural connections both within and between MPAs. The approach emphasizes cultural relationships to the environment, and highlights connections between human behavior and the condition of marine ecosystems over time. Adoption of the CLA by the national system would 17 Chile) which can limit their ability to have sites inscribed on the World 
Heritage List; Limited financial and human resources, skills and capacities within communities 
 and institutions to adequately manage the region’s cultural and natural heritage; A need for increased awareness within communities of the great value that World Heritage Convention contributes to the protection and vitality of cultural and 
biological diversity; Political instability and a lack of good governance, which are significant barriers 
 to heritage conservation in general, and World Heritage implementation in 
particular; Greater external challenges and threats in the Pacific than in most other regions 
of the world, with less capacity to respond to their impacts. Examples of these external influences include climate change, financial instability, globalisation of society and economy, technological development, commercialisation, energy supply and demand, natural disasters and tourism growth; Climate change is of particular concern because the Pacific region is especially vulnerable to its impacts and faces many difficulties in �represent an important step toward the meaningful integration of human culture and the natural environment in managing MPAs. As charged in Executive Order 13158,the national system, with its equal focus on natural heritage, cultural heritage, and living renewable resources has a unique potential to protect and conserve our natural and human environment in ways that simultaneously recognize the need to use, preserve, and respect our special marine places. The CHRWG recommends the following actions in order to move the national system toward fulfilling its charge. Goals, Actions [In relation to cultural heritage governance,] we and recommend that the national system partners: Recommendations Advance and, where practical, adopt integrated cultural heritage governance practices that advance the National Ocean Policy and embrace ecosystem-based management principles that recognize and protect maritime cultural heritage; Recognize that diverse cultural heritage management approaches exist at the local, state, tribal, and national levels, and accommodate flexible practices that best align local knowledge and circumstances with the principles embodied in the National Ocean Policy; and adapting to and mitigating its effects; The impacts on the environment and resources (both tangible and intangible) are widespread and sometimes difficult to monitor (e.g. spread of pests and diseases), which can limit our ability to protect heritage; In the face of these challenges, our goals are to strengthen the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Island region and increase local, regional and global awareness, recognition and support for the conservation of the unique cultural and natural heritage of the Pacific in a way that takes into account the traditions, aspirations, opportunities and challenges of its people. Main Actions 1. Encouraging dialogue between communities, agencies and organisations within and outside the Pacific region to identify, promote and protect the region’s outstanding cultural and natural heritage to the global community; 2. Enhancing local communities‟ awareness of the Explicitly recognize the place-based authority and benefits of preserving their cultural and natural heritage, rights of tribal and indigenous peoples in 18 �and encouraging community participation (particularly by youth and women) in all stages of the World Heritage [In relation to the MPA Inventory and National process. Systems Recommendations,] we recommend that the National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA 3. Supporting successful nominations for representation on the World Heritage list, by increasing in-country Center), in concert with national system partners: capacity to identify suitable potential sites and prepare Reanalyze the MPA Inventory using the expanded nomination dossiers that fully meet the requirements of cultural heritage definitions to identify cultural the World Heritage Convention. heritage resources both inside and adjacent to existing MPAs and develop a more comprehensive 4. Increasing in-country capacity at all levels, inclusive of census of heritage resources associated with indigenous people to develop best practices, management plans and arrangements to ensure effective MPAs; protection of Pacific heritage sites, in a way that takes into account and recognises traditional knowledge and Expand analysis of existing national system MPAs conservation practices for land, air and sea. to identify a greater diversity of cultural and natural resources that would benefit from additional 5. Assisting in the development of in-country heritage protection and management; expertise in the Pacific by supporting technical establishing and managing MPAs. Target outreach and assistance to MPA managers, particularly in tribes and indigenous groups, to encourage further inclusion of existing and potential cultural heritage MPAs in the national system; assistance, where requested, including the development of a network of partner institutions within the region capable of providing technical services in the area of heritage conservation in a coordinated and integrated way. Provide, improve, and coordinate MPA manager training programs and initiatives regarding cultural heritage resources, with additional attention given to tribal and indigenous knowledge and authorities; and 6. Building partnerships between communities, heritage agencies, regional organisations, educational institutions and non-government organisations in the region, including the promotion of multilateral, bilateral cooperation and twinning programs between World 19 �Expand educational and outreach ties to museums, Heritage sites and countries of the Pacific and beyond. schools, and cultural heritage programs. 7. Assisting communities to develop and implement In order to fulfill the intent of the EO, we further environmentally sustainable economic growth through heritage-related enterprises recommend that: DOC and DOI increase capacity for the updated inventory and evaluation of coastal and marine cultural resources. Specifically, resources should be provided to the MPA Center for cultural heritage staffing and programs necessary to implement these recommendations. 8. Sharing information and data bases related to heritage (through properly informed consensus), through regional strategies and communication networks that link island communities. 9. Supporting the development and implementation of effective policies and legislation for heritage by [In addition to a cultural landscape approach,] we Governments in the region, including access and benefits sharing within the larger development portfolio. recommend that national system partners: Adopt a cultural landscape approach as a means to 10. Establishing sustainable financing arrangements to protect cultural heritage resources and advance support the effective conservation of Pacific heritage and building on other available funding sources and in- kind ecosystem-based management of MPAs; contributions. Develop best practices to bring together all 11. Sustaining the ongoing consultative process by available knowledge of cultural heritage resources, bringing together the representatives of the Pacific including the incorporation of tribal and indigenous Islands States and Territories on a regular basis. sources; and Apply the expanded definition of cultural heritage resources embodied in CLA, which includes the National Register of Historic Places criteria, to manage MPAs. 20 �While the goals, challenges, and recommendations of the two regions are not identical, they are certainly complimentary. This illustrates the high potential for collaboration and exchange in helping to move these plans forward. Both regions have worked with their existing resources to implement their recommendations. These complimentary developments are critical as climate events continue to occur in the Pacific. While the United States has been largely disconnected from activities in the South Pacific and Oceania when compared to other industrialized nations like China, Australia or member of the European Union, the United States still nonetheless maintains a considerable interest in the area through Hawai‘i and the U.S. insular areas. The growing interest in cultural heritage by the U.S. MPA FAC thereby creates potential opportunity for more leadership from an alliance of industrialized nations to better support the protection of indigenous cultural heritage in the Pacific, particularly among small-island developing states (SIDS). Such support is already overdue, but as impacts of climate change continue to severely impact communities in Oceania, securing partnerships to effectively plan for and respond to these impacts is a necessity. Below is a range of case studies that provide valuable examples of how the different regions are operationalizing their programs. By engaging a range of different ways with different partners in implementation, heritage activities are enhanced and thereby become an issue around which community is built rather than divided. They offer multiple examples of how a range of local and regional partnerships can be developed, which help to protect and secure cultural heritage as local levels. Applying an Integrated Approach to Heritage Preservation: Emerging Case Studies from Hawai‘iand the Pacific Throughout Hawai‘i and the Pacific, groups have found innovative ways to use their limited resources to effectively implement heritage goals. One of the primary needs across both regions has been to build awareness about cultural heritage and cultural resources. The Fiji example highlights a successful mapping toolkit, which helps to build capacity in local communities, specifically helping to educate government agencies on intangible cultural heritage needs. The permit streaming project for Hawaiian fishponds illustrates how government agencies can help to empower communities to protect and preserve their cultural heritage resources. Finally, Lāna‘i’s heritage activities show the great potential of private partners in community heritage programs. 21 �Intangible Cultural Heritage in Fiji Cultural heritage in the Pacific consists largely of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), which includes traditional stories, songs, knowledges, practices, customs, craftsmanship and natural resource management. Over the last decade, Pacific Island nations have worked successful to protect these valuable resources. The cooperative brought together communities and stakeholders to develop mechanisms for identifying and protecting these resources. Critical to this effort was the implementation of capacity building programs that provided stakeholders, resource managers and decision-makers the ability to understand the resources from the community and cultural perspectives. The Pacific Intangible Cultural Heritage Mapping Toolkit was developed by SipirianoNemani, Policy and Planning Analyst at the Department of National Heritage, Culture and Arts in Suva, Fiji, and commissioned by the Human Development Program of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community.The toolkit is based on Mr.Nemani’s experience as part of a team that pioneered the development of a cultural mapping project whose goal was to determine and record the intangible cultural heritage or traditional knowledge of indigenous Fijians (or itaukei) and other peoples. In many cases, this cultural heritage is on the verge of disappearing, and requires urgent revitalization. Mr.Nemani was instrumental in formulating research strategies and a methodology for the mapping initiative, which has been widely appreciated and adopted as a best practice approach in some Pacific Island countries since its inception in 2004. As a result, many of the examples in the toolkit are derived from Fiji, although they can be applied to other Pacific Island nations.The project is part of the Government of Fiji‘s initiative to ensure that the intangible cultural heritage of Fiji’s indigenous people is safeguarded. While many people may see this as a top-down approach in data collection and archiving, the government sees it otherwise. In this regard, communities and elders are seen as key holders of knowledge systems, and their wishes were always respected when undertaking mapping and subsequent dissemination of the information they imparted. These knowledge holders generally have limited access to recording tools, which is why the government - which has the required resources became involved. It is important to establish a way that traditional knowledge can be stored and transmitted to the next generation before that knowledge becomes lost. The toolkit is written from the perspective of a government cultural agency that is the initiator of a cultural mapping project. However, this does not stop communities from using the 22 �mechanisms outlined in this toolkit, adapting them to their own situation, and initiating the project themselves should they have the available resources to facilitate data collection. Doing so would provide a sense of ownership of the initiative, boost the morale of local people in safeguarding their initiative and, in the Pacific way, revitalize and promote the transmission of cultural information (Ratunabuabua, 2012). Traditional Hawaiian Fishponds: Living Heritages Pre-contact Hawaii had the largest concentration and complexity of fishponds in all of Polynesia. Hawaiian aquaculture structures were found archipelago-wide, varying in type and scale, and included man-made and natural enclosures of water in which fish and other aquatic resources like crustaceans and edible seaweeds were raised and harvested. The evolution of sociopolitical complexity in Hawai‘i to a primary state created a massive shift in power, ownership, and stewardship of natural resources, including aquaculture: By the end of the 18th century, more than 300 fishponds were conspicuously owned by the high chiefs. Accessibility to these ponds and their products was limited to the elite minority of the native population – the chiefs and priests. Prehistoric ponds and pond products appear to have been taboo to the vast majority of Hawaiians and to have yielded them no direct benefit. However, indirect benefit came from ownership by the chiefs of exclusive food sources. Royal fishponds and their terrestrial equivalents, the royal gardens (Kō`ele), insured less demand on the commoners’ food production resources. Every fish taken from a royal fishpond left its counterpart in natural habitat available to lesser chiefs and commoners. Ownership of one or more fishponds was one of the ultimate, high-status symbols in the status-conscious Hawaiian culture. Prehistoric fishtraps, on the other hand, apparently were not as important economically since they were less reliable sources of protein. Fishtrap harvest was dependent on the tides, and fishtraps appear to have been of less religious and political significance than fishponds. This is evidences by the accessibility of fishtraps to commoners as well as to women. …fishtraps….are artifacts of the overall aquacultural practices ca. 1800. Molokai and Lanai Islands had massivefishtraps as well as fishponds (Apple and Kikuchi, 1975). The history of Hawaiian fishpond systems, lokoi`a, is rich and extensive. According to oral histories, Hinapukui`a, whose name translates to “Hina gathering seafood,” is the goddess of 23 �fisherman. She is the wahine (wife or mate) of Kū`ulakai, sister of Hinapuku`ai, Hina gathering vegetative foods, and mother to `Ai`ai. Hinapukui`a’s Kanaloa (husband or mate), Kū‘ulakai, is the god and kupuna of fisherman and is said to have built the first fishpond at Leho‘ula on the island of Maui. Kū‘ula, a name for which Kū‘ulakai was also known, was said to be kino lua, many bodied -- empowered with mana kupua, supernatural powers, and able to control all the fish in the sea. Kū‘ulakai and Hinapukui‘a lived in Alea-mai on East Maui. They made their residence near Kaiwiopele. It was near Kaiwiopele that Kū‘ulakai built the first traditional Hawaiian fishpond in Hāna. Kū‘ulakai would share his knowledge of fishing and fishing practices with maka‘āinānā (common citizens) across Hawai`i through his son, ‘Ai‘ai, identified also as a god of fishermen. Written sources and oral traditions tell of ‘Ai‘ai’s extensive travels throughout Hawai`i during which he established fishing altars, called kū‘ula after his father, and fishing areas, known as ko`a. Lokoi‘a were an important part of Hawai`i’s complex and sustainable natural resource management system. The full-scale development of lokoi‘a (fishponds) from mauka (the mountains) to makai (the ocean) dates back over 500 years. Cultivation and propagation centered on many different fresh and salt-water plants and animals, with the primary species being the prized ‘ama‘ama (mullet) and ‘awa (milkfish). An inventory in the early 1900s found 360 lokoi‘a in the islands and identified 99 active ponds with an estimated annual production total of about 680,000 pounds, including 486,000 pounds of ‘ama‘ama and 194,000 pounds of ‘awa. Lokoi‘a were extensive operating systems that produced an average of 400–600 pounds per acre per year, a significant amount considering the minimal amount of fishpond “input” and maintenance effort apparent by that time. Increasing immigration and western influences during the 19th and 20th centuries, coupled with industrialization and urbanization had a devastating impact on the traditional Hawaiian resource management systems. Most fishponds fell into disrepair. Hawaiian fishpond systems, lokoi`a, are some of Hawai`i’s most significant traditional cultural resources. They are biocultural articulations of Hawaiian innovation in the areas of engineering, education, hydrology, aquaculture and biology. They also illustrate how cultural sites were not isolated features but part of a larger cultural landscape that contributed to a historical narrative that spoke to the holistic living systems of indigenous peoples. They demonstrate traditional Hawai`i’s excellence in sustainability, food sovereignty and natural resource management. In 2011, in response to recommendations from its Sanctuary Advisory Council and the public, the 24 �Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary committed to support local communities in their efforts to increase the use of traditional knowledge in government activities. The initial focus of this commitment has been on restoring traditional Hawaiian fishponds. In June 2011, an aquaculture workshop was co-hosted by the sanctuary and the University of Hawai‘i Aquaculture Program, during which traditional fishpond practitioners advocated for an improved permitting process for the restoration of traditional Hawaiian fishpond systems. The sanctuary then hosted a meeting in March 2012 to facilitate discussions about the potential to streamline the permitting process for fishponds. The Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (DLNR/OCCL)and the Hawai‘i Department of Health participated in this meeting, along with fishpond practitioners and other agency representatives. A de facto team was formed among the NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office, the sanctuary and DLNR/OCCL, to continue the agency coordination effort. The team also supported a gathering of Hui Mālama LokoI‘a, an informal statewide network of fishpond practitioners, by securing funding through University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant. Recognizing the need for additional assistance to complete the necessary documentation and applications, Conservation International (Hawai`i Fish Trust) generously agreed to fund a consultant to assist in the process. This effort is critical to the preservation and practice of traditional ecological knowledge and cultural heritage throughout Hawai‘i. Many communities have a renewed interest in the repair and operation of traditional Hawaiian fishponds for their cultural, economic and ecological value. However, due to their shoreline locations, unique ecosystems, engineering and complex biological functioning, Hawaiian fishponds are subject to a myriad of regulations and oversight by a host of different agencies. As a result, community organizations and traditional fishpond practitioners have struggled for decades to maintain and restore fishpond systems. The difficulty of Hawaiian fishpond revitalization is compounded by the unique, fragile, and sometimes rugged environments in which they exist. The end result is that obtaining the necessary permits and approvals to restore, repair, maintain and reconstruction fishponds is both costly and time-consuming. Many restoration efforts have been stymied by this permitting process. Currently, the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), through their Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is pursuing a State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) from the federal government that will allow the State to streamline the permitting process by using a single application process for the restoration, repair, maintenance and 25 �reconstruction of loko i’a. Fishponds are identified as valuable cultural and ecological resources with benefits for coastal ecosystems and their adjacent communities. These activities will not only protect and preserve the cultural heritage associated with these historic features but stimulate traditional Hawaiian cultural activities and provide social and economic benefits. The project also highlights the benefits of an integrated strategy. By working across agencies and disciplines with an approach that embraces both ecological benefits and cultural heritage, the effort to restore traditional Hawaiian fishponds has reached new heights and unprecedented potential. Lāna‘i: Restoring Cultural Heritage, Uplifting Community Lāna’i is a meaningful case to turn to in understanding cultural and community sustainability in regards to environmentalism. While all of Hawai‘i maintains its livelihood (pre-contact) through sustainable practices and harvesting from only the archipelago and the surrounding oceans resources, Lāna’i’s small size and dry environment elevates the significance of aquaculture sustainability. The island has gone through many transformations over the last 200 some years. First entirely inhabited by the indigenous population, later turned into a ranching island (late 1860s). From 1922-1992 James Dole’s Hawaiian Pineapple company employed most of the island for pineapple production, earning the name, “The Pineapple Island”. Although these changes have significantly altered the landscape of the island itself the indigenous population’s cultural identity and reverence towards this majestic island have remained relatively unscathed. This can be seen through the care in passing on and protecting hundreds of traditional names associated with particular sites on the island while also documenting the islands ahupua’a (districts) that are host to the main irrigation systems that fed the lo’i (gardens) and loko (ponds) and were responsible for the cultivation of all the resources needed for survival. The island itself is approximately 13 ¾ miles long and 13 miles wide, with a land area of 140 square miles (being a little over 90,000 acres). It is sixth (of 8) in size of the main Hawaiian Islands, with its highest point, Lāna‘ihale, being 3,379 feet above sea level. The name of the island may be literally translated as Lā (day) [of] Na‘i (conquest), being associated with the day the chief Kaululā‘au vanquished the evil ghosts from the island. Hawaiians have 26 �lived on the island of Lāna‘i for close to 800 years. Their culture, beliefs, and practices mirrored the natural environment around them. They learned to live within the wealth and limitations of their surroundings. Indeed, archaeological evidence indicates that more than 6,000 people lived sustainably by growing and catching all they needed from the island up until western contact. A significant component to this sustainable practice was the implementation and use of Loko I’a. One of these significant loko i’a being Waia’ōpae. The loko i’a at Waia’ōpae consists of a low stone wall of approximately 1,500 feet as was traditionally integral to sustaining the life of the community in the immediate area. Hawaiian Fishpond Study conducted in 1990, Waia’ōpae was classified as a Type V fishpond. Described as a Loko I’a ‘Ume’iki , the Type V is identified as a fishtrap with various combinations of inward and outward leading lanes.In his field notes, Bishop Museum archaeologist Kenneth Emory described his findings of Waia’ōpae as follows: Leaving the south side of the sandy point at Waiaopae, the ruins of an ancient fish trap run out onto the shallow mud flat, follow the shore two to three hundred feet out, and return at a point 1,472 feet from where they left. The wall is now so depleted by wave action that only now and then are parts visible even at low tide” (Emory, 1924). With the support of the islands new owner, who purchased 98% of the island in 2012, a new preservation program has been instituted that looks to restore and revitalize the cultural heritage of the island. Resources from the new owner are allowing for archaeological work to take place at the fishpond, including educational programs for children and community members that introduce them to all forms of maritime chlidren heritage, including fishponds and shipwrecks. It is a promising progam poised to serve as a regional and global model of the role private partners can play in protecting cultural heritage in island communities. Conclusion Maritime Underwater Cultural Heritage offers a unique opportunity to integrate proven technology and research methods with a new commitment to biocultural resources and historic properties. Technological advancements make the world beneath the ocean’s surface increasingly accessible. As heritage sites become more accessible, this access simultaneously creates opportunity for exploration as well as destruction. Valued resources can be more easily retrieved, posing a threat to in situ preservation. For those who seek to protect these resources for their inherent historic and cultural significance, conferences such as these present 27 �opportunities to forge alliances. These alliances must be built across specializations and geographic regions. We all have a great deal we can learn from one another. Whether it is the history of a particular landscape or a new technology, coming together benefits us all and the heritage resources we collectively value. The strategic planning documents created in the Pacific and the U.S. illustrate that these groups know what needs to be done; it is a matter of implementing these plans. As our case studies show, that implementation is occurring in many places thanks to the support of local government and private partners. The potential for these new relationships to engage local communities and associated disciplines and to address biocultural conservation needs is great, particularly for indigenous communities in Hawai‘i and the Pacific who are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to plan for and protect their resources from climate change and other environmental threats. By integrating indigenous cultural landscapes and their related biocultural resources into a dynamic paradigm on underwater cultural heritage, the field looks make considerable gains across stakeholder groups and develop its relevancy for younger generations, thus helping to ensure long-range traction for the preservation of all underwater heritage resources. Our challenges can be defined. They are finite. They are surmountable. Conversely, our potential, as a community and as an evolving field of discovery, appears limitless. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contributions of our four primary authors, Trisha Kehaulani Watson, William J. Ailā Jr., Kepa Maly, and AdiMeretuiRatunabuabua. In addition we are grateful to the organizations and agencies they represent: Honua Consulting, State of Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources, PūlamaLāna’I, and University of the South Pacific. In addition, the authors recognize the indigenous peoples of Oceania as the main stakeholders and partners in biocultural conservation in the Pacific. References ‘Aha Ki‘ole., 2008. Letter to President George Bush opposing the establishment of a national marine monument in the three islands north of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Available online at: http://marianasconservation.org/pdf/hawaii_ahakiole_letter_to_bush.pdf. 28 �Akana, R., 2010. Hawaiians Lost Control of a $5 billion Trust Asset. Ka Wai Ola, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Anders, G.C. 1987. Native Hawaiian Rights in a Regulated Fishery: An Exploratory Analysis, Pacific Islands Development Program, East-West Centre, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Apple, R.A. & Kikuchi, W.K. 1975. Ancient Hawaiian Shore Zone Fishponds: An Evaluation of Survivors for Historical Preservation.National Park Service, Honolulu. Alcorn, Janise.,2010. Indigenous Peoples Conservation White Paper Series. n. pag. and Conservation. Macarthur Foundation Annual Report 2011/2012 United Nations Development Programme, The Sustainable Future We Want. Rep.N.p.:n.p., n.d. Bath, UK and Burrows, C.K.P.M. 1989.Hawaiian conservation values and practices, in Conservation Biology in Hawai’i, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone, Eds., pp. 203-213, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Batiste, Marie ed. 2000. Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Batiste, Marie. 1998. Enabling the Autumn Seed: Towards a Decolonized Approach to Aboriginal Knowledge, Language, and Education. Canadian Journal of Native Education 22(I):16-27. Beckwith, M. 1976.Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 29 �Beltran, J., and A. Phillips. 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines, and Case Studies. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-TheWorld Conservation Union, Berkes, F. 1999.Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia and London, UK. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. eds. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications10:1251–1262. Berkes, Fikret. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis Press. Blythe, J, and McKenna Brown, R. eds. 2004. Maintaining the Links. Language, identity and the Land.Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages, Broome, Australia. Cajete, G. A. 1999. Igniting the Sparkle: An indigenous science Education Model. Skyand NC: Kivaki Press. Capitini, C.A., B.N. Tissot, M.S. Carroll, W.J. Walsh and S. Peck,2004.Competingperspectives in resource protection; the case of the marine protected areas in West Hawai’i,Society and National Resources, vol. 17, no. 9, pg 763-778. Carroll, Matthew S., Keith A. Blatner, Patricia J. Cohn, and Todd Morgan. 2007. Managing Fire Danger in the Forests of the US Inland Northwest: A Classic ‘Wicked Problem’ in Public Land policy.Journal of Forestry 105 (5): 239-44 30 �Chapin, M. 1992. ‘The Co-existence of Indigenous Peoples and Environments in Central America’, map insert, Research and Exploration, vol 8, no 2, Revised and reprinted as ‘Indigenous Peoples and Natural Ecosystems in Central America and Southern Mexico’, map insert, National Geographic Magazine, February 2003. Emory, K. P. 1924.The Island of Lāna‘i, A Survey of Native Culture. 1969 reprint of the 1924 Bulletin 12, B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. Friedlander, A.M., K. Poepoe, K. Helm, P. Bartram, J. Maragos, and I. Abbott, 2002. “Application of Hawaiian traditions to community-based fishery management,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, pp. 813-815. Hall, Budd L. 2000. Breaking the Educational Silence: For Seven Generation, an Information Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In Indigenous Harmon, D. 2002. In light of Our Difference: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes us Human, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC Hau‘ofa, E. 2008.We Are the Ocean. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act. Rep. N.p.: n.p.,n.d. Print. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement / Management Plan. Hawaii. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Print. Johannes, R.E..“Traditional conversation methods and protected marine areas in Oceania, “ Ambio, vol. 11, no. 5, pp.258-261, 1982. 31 �Jones, S. “A long-term perspective on biodiversity and marine resource exploitation in Fiji’s Lau Group,” Pacific Science, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 617-648, 2009. Lewis. N and Bertelmann, P. 2013. ‘Ike ‘Āina: Native Hawaiian (Indigenous World Views) – Moving Beyond Integration. Forum. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Lizarradle, M. 2001. ‘Biodiversity and Loss of Indigenous Languages and Knowledge in South America’, in Maffi 2001, pp265-281 MacKenzie, M.K. 1991. Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook, Hawaiian Native Legal Corporation and Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Maffi, L. 1998. ’Language: a resource for nature’, Nature and Resources: The UNESCO Journal on the Environment and Natural Resources Research, vol 34, no 4, pp12-21 Maffi, L. 2005.‘Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity’, annual Review of Anthropology.vol 29. Pp599-619 Maffi, L. 2007. ‘Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability’, in J. Pretty, A. Ball, t. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer and H. Ward (eds), Sage handbook on Environment and Society, pp267-277, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore. Maffi, L. (ed.) 2001.On Bicultural Diversity: linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Maly, K. and O. Maly, He Wahi Mo’olelo ‘Ohana No Kaloko me Honokōhau ma Kekaha o Na Kona—A Collection of Family Traditions Describing Customs, Practice, and Beliefs of the Family and Lands of Kaloko and Honokōhau, North Kona, Island of Hawai’i. Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawai’i, USA, 2002. Maly K. and Maly O., 2004.Ka Hana Lawai’a a me nā Ko’a o nā kai ‘Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Island, Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawai’i. 32 �Manne, L. L. 2003. ‘Nothing Has Yet Lasted Forever: Current and threatened levels of Biological and Cultural Diversity’, in B. Von Droste, H. Plachter and M. Rossler (eds), Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy, pp25-37, Fischer Verlag and UNESCO, Jena and New York, NY Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. 2011. Recommendations for Integrated Management Using a Cultural Landscape Approach in the National MPA System. Available online http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpafac_rec_cultural_landscape_12_11.pdf McGoodwin, James R. 2001. Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities. A Key to Fisheries Management and Food Security.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. McNeely, J. A. and Keeton, W.S. 1995. ‘The Interation between Biological and Cultural Diversity’, in B. Von Droste, H. Plachter and M. Rossler (eds), Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy, pp25-37, Fischer Verlag and UNESCO, Jena and New York, NY Menzies, Charles R. 2001. Reflections on Research with, for, and among Indigenous Peoples. Canadian Journal of Native Education 25(I):19-36 Moore, J. L., Manne, L. Brooks, T., Burgess, N.D., Davies, R. et al. 2002. “the Distribution of Cultural and Biological Diversity in Africa’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol 269, pp1645-1653 Morrison, A.E. and T.L. Hunt, 2007. “Human impacts on the nearshore environment: an archaeological case study from Kaua’i, Hawaiian Islands,” Pacific Science, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 325-345. Mosha, R. S. 1999. The Inseparable Link between Intellectual and Spiritual Formation in Indigenous Knowledge and Education: A case Study in Tanzania. In What is Indigenous 33 �Knowledge? Voices from the Academy. L. Semali and J.L. Kincheloe, eds. Pp. 209-225. New York: Falmer Press. Nemani, S. 2011. Pacific Intangible Cultural Heritage Mapping Toolkit, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Nietschemann, B. Q. 1996.The interdependence of Biological and Cultural Diversity, Occasional Paper, No 21, Center for World Indigenous Studies, December. Ostraff, Melinda. 2003. Contemporary Use of Limu (Marine Algae) in the Vava’u Island Group, Kingdom of Tonga: An Ethnobotanical Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Oviedo, G., Maffi, L. and Larsen, P.B. 2000.Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity, WWF-International and Terralingua, Gland, Switzerland Painemilla, Kristin Walker. 2010. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation: From Rights to Resource Management. Arlington, VA.: Conservation International. Pannell, S. 2006.‘Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? Lessons from the World Heritage List’, Report No. 48, available at www.rainforest.crc.jcu.edu.au/publications/nature_culture.htm Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Management Plan, vol. 1-4, Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA, 2008. Payoyo, P.B., Ed., Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas, United Nations University, New York, NY, USA, 1994. 34 �Poepoe, K.K., P.K. Bartram, and A.M. Friedlander, 2003. “The use of traditional Hawaiian knowledge in the contemporary management of marine resource,” in Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work, pp. 328-339, Fisheries Centre Research Report , University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 2003. Posey, D. A. (ed.) 1999.Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, Intermediate Technology Publications and UNEP, London and Nairobi Pukui, M.K. and S.H. Elbert, 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Pukui, M.K. 1893. ‘Ōlelo No’eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetical Sayings, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Ralson, C. 1984. “Hawaii 1178-1854: some aspects of maka’aina response to rapid cultural change,” The Journal of Pacific History, vol. 19, pp. 21-40. Rapport, D. J. and Maffi, L. 2010. “The Dual Erosion of Biological and Cultural Diversity. Implications for the health and eco-cultural systems’, to appear in J. Perry and S. Pilgrim (eds.), Nature and Culture: Revitalizing the Connection, Earthscan, London Ratunabuabua, A. M. 2012.Introductory Note, in Pacific Intangible Cultural Heritage Mapping Toolkit, S. Nemani, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Shannon, M. A. 1992. “Foresters as Strategic Thinkers, Facilitators, and Citizens.” Journal of Forestry 90 (10): 24-27. Shindler, B., and K. A. Cheek. 1999. “Intergrating Citizens in Adaptive Management: A Propositional Analysis.” Conservation Ecology 3 (1): 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art9/. 35 �Sillitoe, Paul. 1998. The Development of Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied Anthropology. Current Anthropology 39(2):223-252. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Maffi, L. and Harmon, D. 2003.Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity and map The World’s Bicultural Diversity: People, Language, and Ecosystems, UNESCO, Paris Slovic, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk.Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Springer, Jenny, and Janis Alcorn. 2007. Strengthening WWF Partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Key Findings and Recommendations. Rep. N.p.: n.p. Stevens, Stanley, 1997. Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas, Island PressWashington, DC. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Paris, November 2, 2001. 41 I.L.M. 40. Usher, Peter. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management. Arctic 53(2):183-193 Watson, T.K. et al., 2012. Aloha ‘Āina: A Framework for Biocultural Resource Management in Hawai‘i’s Anthropogenic Ecosystems, Proceedings from a Technical Expert Workshop, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Available online at http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/council/council_aloha_aina_guidance.html Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2006. “Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 699-722. Wilcox, B. A. and Duin, K. N. 1995. ‘Indigenous Cultural and Biological Diversity: 36 �Overlapping values of Latin American ecoregion’, Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol 18, no 4, pp49-53 Wilkie, D., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J. Starkey, M., Telfer, P. and Steil, M. 2006.Parks and People: Assessing the Human Welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation, Conservation Biology 20(1): 247-49. Williams, N., and Graham, Baines.,(Eds.),1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University. Wolf, Erica R. 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. World Heritage Convention.Pacific World Heritage Action Plan, 2010-2015. UNESCO. Wyban, C.A. 1999.Tide and Current Fishponds of Hawai’i, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Biographies Trisha Kehaulani Watson, J.D, PhD is from Hawai‘i. She was born and raised on the island of O‘ahu to which she has long ancestral ties. She obtained her degrees from Washington State University and the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa. Her legal background is in environmental law. Her PhD studies focused on indigenous epistemologies and traditional natural resource management. She previously worked in administration at the University of Hawai‘i on special projects related to culture and research issues. She currently runs her own consulting company, Honua Consulting (www.honuaconsulting.com) that focuses on biocultural resource planning and management in Hawai‘i. William Ailā Jr. is the Director and Chairman of the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. Before Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointed him to the post, Ailā was the Wai‘anae Boat Harbormaster and an active community organizer, focusing on environmental and 37 �Hawaiian cultural issues. He is a widely recognized and respected traditional Hawaiian fisherman and cultural practitioner. Ailā was born in Wai‘anae and earned a BA in General tropical agriculture from the University of Hawai‘i. He is a member of the MPA Federal Advisory Council and its Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group. Kepa Maly was raised on the islands of O‘ahu and Lana‘i, and as a youth, learned the Hawaiian language and cultural practices and values from native kūpuna (elders). In 1975, Kepa participated in an ‘uniki, as po‘o pua‘a, of Halau Hula o Ma‘iki, and is a ho‘opa‘akumu hula (instructor of traditional chant and dance). Over the last thirty-five years, Kepa has continued to learn and document Hawaiian traditions and practices fromkupuna from Hawai‘i to Ni‘ihau- learning from native Hawaiians who have lived their culture as handed down by their elders before them. Kepa and his wife Onaona formed Kumu Pono Associates LLC in 1995, their on-going work has included researching and writing historical documentary studies; conducting detailed oral history studies; developing–site preservation plans, cultural resources management plans, and contributing to the development of integrated resource management plans; and writing interpretive plans for projects across the state of Hawai‘i. They are presently residing on the island of Lāna‘i, working with the community in the development of a museum and heritage center, the Lāna‘i Culture and Heritage Center, and developing plans for long-term management of cultural and natural resources of Lāna‘i. He is the Senior Vice President Culture and Historic Preservation for PūlamaLāna‘i. AdiMeretuiRatunabuabua is an indigenous Fijian Chief. Her formative years were spent in Asia and Europe at British Army postings. She is currently the Pacific Heritage Hub Manager for UNESCO World Heritage activities in the Pacific, seconded from her post with the Fiji Government as Principal Cultural Development Officer in the Ministry of Culture. She serves on the Governing board for Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) Category 2 Centre for the AsiaPacific region and in 2012 was a consultant examiner for the ICH intergovernmental Committee for UNESCO; is Chair of the intergovernmental Pacific Regional Culture Strategy; President of the Pacific Islands Museums Association and an executive founding member of ICOMOS Pasifika. 38 � 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 10: Indigenous Cultural Landscapes and Biocultural Resources in Hawaii and the Pacific Subject The topic of the resource Video interviews with Session 10 chair Dr. Kehau Watson and panel participants William J Aila Jr. and Kepa Maly, and links to the papers presented in the session. Description An account of the resource Responding to the effort to protect both natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, state and federal resource management agencies have been re-examining their cultural resource preservation mandates. New understanding of cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes is beginning to emerge. It is clear that “all traces of human existence that lie under water and have a cultural or historical character” (UCH) includes much more than simply shipwrecks and aircraft. The potential for these new definitions to engage local communities and associated disciplines and to address biocultural conservation needs is great, particularly for indigenous communities in Hawaii and the Pacific who are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to plan for and protect their resources from climate change and other environmental threats. By integrating indigenous cultural landscapes and their related biocultural resources into a dynamic paradigm on underwater cultural heritage, the field looks to gain allies across stakeholder groups and develop its relevancy for younger generations, thus helping to ensure long-range traction for the preservation of all underwater heritage resources. Participants in this session will focus on policy and research issues in indigenous cultural landscapes, and the dynamic nature of cultural heritage management in Hawai‘i and across the Pacific. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Kehau Watson 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 Kanehunamoku: Indigenous Cultural Landscapes and Biocultural Resources in Hawai'i and the Pacific Description An account of the resource Responding to the effort to protect both natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, state and federal resource management agencies have been re-examining their cultural resource preservation mandates. 2 New understanding of cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes is beginning to emerge. It is clear that “all traces of human existence that lie under water and have a cultural or historical character” (UCH) includes much more than simply shipwrecks and aircrafts. The potential for these new definitions to engage local communities and associated disciplines and to address biocultural conservation needs is great, particularly for indigenous communities in Hawai‘i and the Pacific who are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to plan for and protect their resources from climate change and other environmental threats. By integrating indigenous cultural landscapes and their related biocultural resources into a dynamic paradigm on underwater cultural heritage, the field looks to gain allies across stakeholder groups and develop its relevancy for younger generations, thus helping to ensure long-range traction for the preservation of all underwater heritage resources. Participants in this session focus on policy and research issues in indigenous cultural landscapes, and the dynamic nature of cultural heritage management in Hawai‘i and across the Pacific. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Trisha Kehaulani Watson William Ailā Jr. Kepa Maly AdiMeretui Ratunabuabua, 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 5/15/2014 Asia-Pac Session 10 2014 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Kao-tsung (reign 649-83) and the empress Wu: the inheritor and the usurper Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Denis Twitchett Howard J. Wechsler Denis C. Twitchett Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Cambridge University Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Section Zotero Author Denis Twitchett Howard J. Wechsler Editor Denis C. Twitchett Item Type Book Section Book Title Sui and T’ang China Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979 Pages 242-89 Place Cambridge Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Cambridge University Press Series The Cambridge History of China Title A name given to the resource Kao-tsung (reign 649-83) and the empress Wu: the inheritor and the usurper Volume 3 China