3 10 700 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/27cf3bd081e948e8cfcef96870a7cb1b.pdf 10669de99f677bc6e1bb4eb20d8dcc74 PDF Text Text We need to Listen and Watch! Indigenous Knowledge of Living in Concert with the Sea Abhirada Pook Komoot (Maritime Asia Heritage Survey, CSEAS Kyoto University) ABSTRACT The topic of this paper hopes to anticipate the discussion about the integration of traditions and sciences to ensure the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the sea in the sustainable development dialogue now and in the future. In light of the ‘Ocean Decade’, this paper is to realise the potential of indigenous knowledge as an opportunity for ocean literacy and to identify some issues revolving around the risk of losing such ability. There is a wealth of indigenous knowledge we can benefit from. For a long time, Western principles of science have dominated modern society and policy based on their observability, testability, quantifiability and generalisation. There exists a tension between Western epistemology and indigenous worldview. A question is therefore asked: How does indigenous knowledge help create the ocean we want? Coastal zones are vulnerable to natural disasters, including tsunamis, coastal erosions, storm surges, sealevel rise, and sudden floods. The current international ambition for sustainable marine resource development and improving coastal living quality has unavoidable effects on indigenous living. On several occasions, traditional knowledge has been proven efficient for friendly living with nature and risk reduction. The ability is, however, on the brink of fading away due to external forces (i.e. mass tourism, laws prohibiting the harvesting of forest resources, and an unsupported educational system). No one knows the sea better than those who have lived with and relied upon it. Keywords: Indigenous Knowledge, Thailand, Ocean Decade List of Abbreviations UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization List of Figures Figure 1 Fishing devices and techniques employed by indigenous and local fishermen in the South of Thailand. (A) fish trap, (B) squid trap, (C) beach seine, and (D) crab basket trap (photos by the author) Figure 2 Types of indigenous fishing vessels. (A) Rue Jaew or indigenous rowing boat, and (B) Hua Tong motorised boat (photos by the author) Figure 3 Bagad sites in the chain of islands in Krabi and Trang Provinces. (A) freshwater well, (B) bagad living ground, and (C) sacred rock (photos by the author) Figure 4 Scenes of grave cleaning ceremony or Tang Pleo at Sungka-U village, Lanta Island, Krabi Province (photos by author) OUR OCEANS To celebrate the ‘Ocean Decade’ as an integral part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (20212030), countries and individuals have engaged in schematic discussions worldwide to strengthen international recognition of the ocean's essential importance (Stacy Aguilera-Peterson, Clea Harrelson, and Howe-Kerr 2022). The promotion of the ocean-focused campaign intends to raise a serious concern about the global climate change that has been severely affected by human-induced activities for the past centuries. The ocean is the key component in relieving climate hazards. Ocean science gains priority to facilitate and support the restoration of oceans’ well-being and the resume of a healthy ecosystem. This paper aims to present another side of the coin of ocean science that should be broadly interpreted. H.E. Peter Thomson, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on the Ocean, has drawn our attention to the ‘Indigenous knowledge involved in those ancestral voyages is deeply humbling to those who came after’ (UNESCO 2021). Simultaneously, ‘Marine Cultural Heritage is not simply about archaeology, history, ecology, geography, natural science, coastal management or climate change; it is about all of these 1 �aspects and how societies can come together, negotiate and mediate these different approaches into real solutions’ (Henderson 2019). As learnt from field research in the south of Thailand, it is apparent that the traditional knowledge of shipbuilding, navigation, and sea-dependent living is deep-seated in people’s way of living as is transforming (Komoot 2021). It is a fortunate opportunity for the initiative of Ocean Decade to valorise the knowledge and give more significant support to the knowledge holders. The people-centred approach ensures that individual needs are addressed and fulfilled. By this means, it is to protect human rights at the core. Fundamental Practice of Ocean Exploitation and Protection The way we use and exploit the ocean today has conceptually developed chiefly by the modern perception of the sea. Mare Liberum was proposed by Hugo Grotius, the well-known Dutch naturalist lawyer, in defending the sea lane over the Portuguese in the 17th century (Borschberg 2006). He believed that the sea was so vast that there was no way anyone could claim sovereignty over it. Therefore, the sea should be navigated and exploited freely. However, at the founding stage of the concept, it was contested by the local rulers of Sulawesi and Maluku over the colonial manipulation of the spice routes (Andaya 1981; Stott 2017). The contestation among the colonial powers was also visible. The British lawyers proposed the idea of Mare Clausum (closed sea), as opposed to Grotius’, to allow the extension of sovereignty during the emergence of the British Empire (e.g. the case of the Bremen fishing negotiation) (Edmond 1995; Grewe 2000). In the 17th century, it was beyond imagination that marine and nautical technologies could advance to our current stage. Today, Grotius' conception of the freedom of the sea is at a crossroads. The wrestling of such concepts is presented even more widely today in international legal discourses. The UN Law of the Seas 1982 (UNCLOS) inherited the 17th-century concept of the sea and transformed it into a modern legal tool for settling disputes at sea and asserting rights to resource use. It integrates power and economic rationality. In the zones beyond national claims, the Area and the High Seas are free of sovereignty and free to deep-seabed operation, but the maritime community is concerned with the technological exclusiveness of some states that allows unequal exploitation of shared natural resources of humankind (Lothian 2021; Mickelson 2019). The environmental dimension of heritage is a vibrant and decade-long debate by multilateral partners, as resulted in the recent international agreement of the High Sea Treaty. Back in the previous century, there appeared to be little question that the cultural heritage of humankind should be protected and by what legal instrument. UNCLOS provides a vague acknowledgement of cultural heritage in Articles 149 and 303. Still, the implementation needs to be more specific and applicable for a complicated issue when rights are conflicting and commercial exploitation of such heritage is allowed. In 2001, a specialised international Convention Concerning the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage was codified and launched by UNESCO. Instead of settling the correct issues over the cultural materials in the UNCLOS, the 2001 Convention aims to combat commercial exploitation, notably ‘treasure hunting’ (Forrest 2002). The 2001 Convention sets scientific guidelines as standard practice to preserve material culture in situ (Manders 2008) and non-negotiable trade of the artefacts. By this law, tangible heritage is a stronghold. Due to such standards, science focuses more on ‘things’ than ‘peoples’. Indigenous maritime knowledge is not the focus of any of these legal tools. The 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention provides general guidelines to ensure the maintenance and continuation of traditional knowledge and that indigenous people are recognisable. Nonetheless, all six UNESCO cultural conventions are supervised by different departments, which are not always connected. The operational system of international laws is based on normative practice, often challenging the consensus. The sphere of cultural heritage is always far more complicated than implementing the ‘one size fits all’ policy. Indigenous knowledge regarding living with the sea is diverse due to their adaptability to their 2 �nature. The extent of the participation of the maritime community interconnected with the sea deserves case-by-case attention and specific consideration. Quite similar to Grotius’ mare liberum, the sea tribes do not assert rights to control land and water. They believe an individual or single community should not own natural resources but instead communally share and care. Some of the above elements are transferable to engage modern living and reduce natural disaster risks. The philosophical mindset of the maritime tribal group has not been well incorporated and taught in the formal setting. We need to be mindful, though, that the indigenous living with the ocean and the scientific agenda will be complex and challenging conversations in order to navigate the changes we want. Before we realise what needs to change, it is interesting to note that the culture, indigenous knowledge, and participation are not solely for an outside agenda, Frances Koya noted at the UN meeting (Majick 2019). Living in Concert with the Sea After the Tsunami hit the coast of the Indian Ocean in 2004, indigenous knowledge about disastrous warnings at sea became visible in modern mentality. Sea nomads like Moken and Urak Lawoi dwelling in the Andaman Seas were among the Tsunami survivors due to their ability to observe and understand the unusuality of the natural phenomenon. The deep-time story of the monstrous waves handed down from generation to generation informed them of the ancestral experience of the catastrophic incident. In minimising risks from the loss in natural disasters, many examples demonstrate the indigenous people's resourcefulness, such as, by observation, the movement of surface waves, a floating pattern of mangrove hypocotyl (seeding stem) or debris flows and changing the behaviour of fish schooling near shore. The indigenous people accumulate an ultimate body of knowledge from their ancestors. Nevertheless, living in concert with the sea requires sophisticated and advanced skills to decode and read nature. The case studies under consideration are the following information gained from Urak Lawoi in Krabi and Phuket and fishers on Samui island (all in Thailand) in 2022 and previous studies of other indigenous seafarers by anthropologists. Field data were collected by observation and informal interviews to contextualise the interaction between people, their surroundings, and their living ways from the indigenous perspective. The focus groups are the local fishermen. 3 �Figure 1 Fishing devices and techniques employed by indigenous and local fishermen in the South of Thailand. (A) fish trap, (B) squid trap, (C) beach seine, and (D) crab basket trap (photos by the author) Modern geopolitical speaking, the south of Thailand covers most of the peninsula that shares a border with Malaysia. The land is paralleled by the Andaman Sea on the west and the Gulf of Thailand on the other. Natural marine resources and seasons are relatively different between the two sides. The Andaman side is open to the Indian Ocean. It has deep water and strong currents. The Gulf of Thailand is a semienclosed basin. Water inflow from rivers draining into the Gulf creates a high rate of sedimentation and, at the same time, increases fertility. As a result, there is more marine catch on this side (Fisheries 2022). Fishermen in Samui have a nostalgic experience of easy fishing in the Gulf of Thailand. There were enough fish near the shore. What they needed were small boats and simple fishing gear. They never had to leave home for longer than one night and returned with a bunch of fish to feed the whole family for several days or even weeks. However, small-scale fishing is decreasing. The situation is much different today, with the significantly declining amount of fish due to climate change and over-exploitation. The change in the abundance of resources and modern living style discourages the younger generation from continuing traditional fisheries and carrying on life like the generations before them. It risks the disappearance of indigenous knowledge. Traditional living is more visible on the Andaman side, but a decrease in small-scale fishers is no better. 4 �Figure 2 Types of indigenous fishing vessels. (A) Rue Jaew or indigenous rowing boat, and (B) Hua Tong motorised boat (photos by the author) RESULTS From the survey, characteristics of indigenous knowledge on the coast of southern Thailand can be collectively summarised as follows: Indigenous fisheries are embedded in many societies around the world. It requires specific skills suitable for the area and local ecosystem. Urak Lawoi, the indigenous group on the Andaman coast, are efficient fishermen and sea readers. Fish species positively relate to the technology of fish traps and fishers’ ability to observe nature. Various fishing gear is being made and used on the coast for small to mediumscale fishing (Figure 1). An indigenous device is designed to trap a specific fish species. It causes less environmental damage because it generates less bycatch than industrial trawling. The technological diversity of boatbuilding demonstrates the dedication to sea voyages, which is the core of the indigenous economy thousands of years ago. Rue Jaew, the indigenous rowing boats are, per se, environmentalcomfort and sustainable forms of mobility using winds and human power before using the motorised Hua Tong boats (Figure 2). By observing the natural phenomenon, the indigenous people learn to utilise winds and currents concerning navigation and weather prediction. The east and west winds are mainly used, and two propulsion modes would be employed in the past – reversed rowing or sailing. In the dry season, the east wind blows in the morning, and the west is in the afternoon. Based on the propulsion technique, the west wind is suitable for sailing, while the east wind is good for rowing. Rowing is not recommended when the current or wind is too strong. 5 �Efficient fishermen should also have the essential skills of identifying the position of traps they laid by reading the surroundings and nature without any assistance from electronic equipment. They capture seascapes using either two or three-point coordination techniques to locate their fish traps. Rock piles and coral reefs are ideal for fish habitats Field (Somboonsuke, Prapruit, and Nissapa 2014). Running current provides an expectation of fish abundance. The flock of sea birds is indicative of a considerable fish accumulation. On the other side of the peninsula, the interview was carried on with the group of fishermen on Samui Island. A Chinese-descendant fisherman started his fishing career at a young age. Instead of following the North Star, he learnt astronavigation by observing the Crux constellation, a common navigational technique in southern Thailand. However, Venus is a reliable tool for celestial navigation used by the Moken group on the Andaman side (Arunotai et al. 2014 [2557]) In terms of maritime knowledge in modern times, another fisherman told us that Samui fishers use traditional skills and the capacity of new technology such as radio and radar. All of them still have basic knowledge of natural reading such as rain clouds, winds, fish behaviours and harvesting seasons, although being aided by modern equipment. Besides making a living, natural calamity observation is also a practical skill. For example, indigenous fishermen have the ability to predict storms and unusuality derived from their ancestral knowledge. They observe white-tip waves, murky sea horizons, and changing fish behaviours and characteristics of seawater from the normal situation. This knowledge was proven efficient when the monstrous waves of the Tsunami hit the Andaman shore in 2004. An advantage of living close to nature is that the indigenous people are first-hand learners of the ecological system. Their lives rely heavily on climatic conditions. They learn to use nature and remain harmonious with the environment. More than just a practice, respect for nature is a mindset that develops through generations and is deeply rooted in society. Concerning a healthy ecosystem, sea people in the past moved around during the dry season to allow spawning and rehabilitation. During the monsoon season, if winds and currents were too strong on one side of the island, they would move and seek supplies on the wind-protected side. Urak Lawoi develops an essential strategy of foraging trips or bagad suitable to the area and considers appropriately taking what nature can give. The resting season is as indispensable as the foraging season. It is in the way of natural resource management. With the slightest concern for cultural impact, the government forces them to make settlements permanently and implicitly live a modern lifestyle. An administrative policy of the national parks affected the livelihood of the indigenous coastal inhabitants in the south of Thailand. The communities have been transformed from semi-nomadic to settled communities. Indigenous housing made of local, natural materials such as bamboo, rattan and solid wood has been replaced by permanent buildings such as concrete or non-local material houses. After a long debate and negotiation with authority, at the very least, Urak Lawoi can maintain a part of their semi-nomadic lifestyle and conservation of ecological well-being. Bagad nowadays is performed as capacity-building to pass on knowledge to the younger generations. It is common that the whole family travels together to teach the young sea-living skills. The activities include freshwater searching, crab fishing, tide observing, coastal camping, and other necessary skills. The young children will have a chance to experience living on a simple bamboo hut and platform. They will learn to live a simple life without electricity and modern facilities (Figure 3). The indigenous people pay homage to their ancestors and have the highest respect for nature as their sacred environment. They perform the ‘Plajak’ festival or ‘Loy Rue’ twice a year. It is a floating ceremony of a decorative, symbolic boat built from ‘salak’ wood and carrying offerings to pay respect to their ancestors and to gain prosperity. The indigenous people keep themselves very close to the ancestral spirits. Figure 4 illustrates another meaningful ceremony known as ‘Tang Pleo’, or cleaning 6 �the graveyard, where families, even from distant villages and cities, gather to commemorate the dead relatives. Figure 3 Bagad sites in the chain of islands in Krabi and Trang Provinces. (A) freshwater well, (B) bagad living ground, and (C) sacred rock (photos by the author) The relationship between the indigenous people and the sea is complex and delicate. Unplanned changes cause a lot of social problems and worries. Land ownership disputes, fast-growing tourism and infrastructure put severe pressure on the livelihood of the indigenous people and society and risk of knowledge disappearing. A scattering of shipwrecks from the early centuries proves the long history of the continental coast as a prevailing destination for seafarers and local sea people. In fact, indigenous knowledge is an excellent source of ocean literacy and understanding of ocean living and conservation. From the observer’s point of view, this research offers practical indigenous knowledge that can educate us about ocean literacy and harmonious living. It is about the integration of the indigenous maritime knowledge that dominates the coastal society and scientific knowledge that is important for generating general policy and mechanisms (Shaw et al. 2008). Such integration will be an appropriate application to increase the resilience of coastal communities, but it needs to develop a way to communicate with both government and local people. No change can be achieved without genuinely understanding the relationship between people and their social beliefs. 7 �Figure 4 Scenes of grave cleaning ceremony or Tang Pleo at Sungka-U village, Lanta Island, Krabi Province (photos by author) Acknowledgements This paper can only be made a valid case with the support from the Suvarnabhumi Studies Center and Thammasat University. The funding scheme opens the opportunity to allow the firsthand experience of the indigenous communities in Thailand, which is not only valuable for the study of maritime history but also for the dynamism of the society in light of the global concern. Bibliography Andaya, Leonard Y. The Heritage of Arung Palakka: A History of South Sulawesi (Celebes) in the 17th Century. Leiden: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. 1981. Arunotai, Narumon, Paladej Na-Pombejra, Usa Kotsripetch, Kingkaew Buapetch, and Jeerawan Bantaotuk. Tak Sa Wattanatham Chao Lay (Sea Nomad Cultural Skills). Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, 2014. [2557]. Borschberg, Peter. “Hugo Grotius' Theory of Trans-Oceanic Trade Regulation: Revisiting Mare Liberum (1609)”, in IILJ Working Paper No. 2005/14. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.871752. 2006. Edmond, Gary. "The Freedom of Histories: Reassessing Grotius on the Sea." Law Text Culture 2: 179-217. https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol2/iss1/9. 1995. Fisheries, Department of. Marine Fisheries Management Plan of Thailand 2020-2022. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (Thailand). 2022. Forrest, Craig. "A New International Regime for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage." International & Comparative Law Quarterly 51 (3): 511-554. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/51.3.511. https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/newinternational-regime-for-the-protection-of-underwater-culturalheritage/3638AC9392D9FF933330CA3F4CF97DF3. 2002. Grewe, Wilhelm G. "Law and Dominion of the Sea: Mare clausum v. mare liberum." In The Epochs of International Law, 257276. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 2000. Henderson, Jon. "Oceans without History? Marine Cultural Heritage and the Sustainable Development Agenda." Sustainability 11 (5080). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185080. 2019. Komoot, A. B. “Maritime Connections in the Indian Ocean Worldduring the Late First Millennium CE: nrchaeological Study of the Phanom-Surin Shipin Thailand.” The University of Western Australia. DPhil thesis. 2021. 8 �Lothian, Sarah. "Forget Me Not: Revisiting the Common Concern of Humankind Concept in the BBNJ Context." Environmental and Planning Law Journal 38 no. 3, (2021): 189-203. Majick, Samantha. "Harnessing traditional knowledge of the oceans in a way that isn’t exploitative or tokenistic is emerging as a strong theme at a regional ocean meeting currently underway in Noumea." Pacific Community Workshop on the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030, 2019. Accessed 12 March 2023. https://www.spc.int/updates/blog/2019/07/harnessing-traditional-knowledge-of-the-oceans-in-a-way-that-isntexploitative. 2019. Manders, Martijn. "In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’." Museum International 60 no. 4/240, (2008.): 31-41. Mickelson, Karin. "Common Heritage of Mankind as a Limit to Exploitation of the Global Commons." The European Journal of International Law 30 no. 2, (2019): 635-663. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chz023. Shaw, Rajib, Yukiko Takeuchi, Noralene Uy, and Anshu Sharma. Indigenous Knowledge Disaster Risk Reduction: Policy Note.https://www.preventionweb.net/files/8853_IKPolicyNote.pdf?_gl=1*1vhh54l*_ga*MTc5MjM2MzkyMy4xN jgwMTAwNjA3*_ga_D8G5WXP6YM*MTY4MDEwMDYwNy4xLjEuMTY4MDEwMDY0Mi4wLjAuMA. 2008. Stacy Aguilera-Peterson, Clea Harrelson, and Lauren Howe-Kerr. National Science Foundation and the Ocean Decade. National Science Foundation (USA). https://www.iodp.org/docs/news-and-announcements/1164-nsf-and-the-oceandecade-a-resource-for-researchers/file. 2022. Stott, David Adam. "Integration and Conflict in Indonesia’s Spice Islands." The Asia-Pacific Journal 15, no. 4 (2017):11. UNESCO. "Indigenous knowledge in the Pacific Islands and the UN Ocean Decade." The Ocean Decade, The Global Stakeholder Forum, 2021. Accessed 20 March 2023. https://oceandecade.org/news/indigenous-knowledge-in-thepacific-islands-and-the-un-ocean-decade/.2021. International Conventions Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001. UNESCO. Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention 2003. UNESCO. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1982. United Nations. 9 � 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 We need to Listen and Watch! Indigenous Knowledge of Living in Concert with the Sea Description An account of the resource The topic of this paper hopes to anticipate the discussion about the integration of traditions and sciences to ensure the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the sea in the sustainable development dialogue now and in the future. In light of the ‘Ocean Decade’, this paper is to realise the potential of indigenous knowledge as an opportunity for ocean literacy and to identify some issues revolving around the risk of losing such ability. There is a wealth of indigenous knowledge we can benefit from. For a long time, Western principles of science have dominated modern society and policy based on their observability, testability, quantifiability and generalisation. There exists a tension between Western epistemology and indigenous worldview. A question is therefore asked: How does indigenous knowledge help create the ocean we want? Coastal zones are vulnerable to natural disasters, including tsunamis, coastal erosions, storm surges, sealevel rise, and sudden floods. The current international ambition for sustainable marine resource development and improving coastal living quality has unavoidable effects on indigenous living. On several occasions, traditional knowledge has been proven efficient for friendly living with nature and risk reduction. The ability is, however, on the brink of fading away due to external forces (i.e. mass tourism, laws prohibiting the harvesting of forest resources, and an unsupported educational system). No one knows the sea better than those who have lived with and relied upon it. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Abhirada Pook Komoot 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. Komoot, Abhirada Pook. 2023. “We Need to Listen and Watch! Indigenous Knowledge of Living in Concert with the Sea.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Abhirada Komoot. 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: Asia-Pac Session 3 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/a87f2e86f9fd917bc87bc3be80372224.pdf ff2d174625828b66b640412bbbd12ed5 PDF Text Text Regional Identity and Local Variety: Plank Configurations in Lashed-lug Boatbuilding of Southeast Asia Ligaya Lacsina (University of the Philippines) Abhirada Pook Komoot (CSEAS, Kyoto University) ABSTRACT This short paper is suitable for session 6. It is written to report the result of the recent survey of the lashed-lug boatbuilding technology in the Southeast Asian region. In addition to desk-based assessments, investigations were undertaken at Khlong Thom in the south of Thailand, Chau Tan remains in central Vietnam, and Butuan in the south of the Philippines. This project aims to observe the variety of the lashed-lug boatbuilding to better understand meaningful, technical connections. Keywords: lashed-lug boatbuilding, Southeast Asia nautical knowledge, ship comparison List of Figures Figure 1. Distribution of archaeological ship remains in Southeast Asia (illustrated by Abhirada Komoot) Figure 2 Diagram of plank configurations: A) Khlong Thom, B) Punjulharjo, C) Chau Tan and D) Ban Khlong Yuan (illustrated by Abhirada Komoot) Figure 3 Diagram of Butuan boat remains, from top: (A) Butuan 1, (B) Butuan 5, (C) Butuan 2, (D) Butuan 4 (illustrated by Ligaya Lacsina). Figure 4. Conjectural lug-lashing of Butuan 2 and other exclusively doweled planks based on the Punjulharjo boat lashing example that crosses planks (illustrated by Ligaya Lacsina). List of Tables Table 1. Khlong Thom wood ID (UAD report 2019) Table 2. Punjulharjo wood ID (Abbas 2010; Nugroho 2010) Table 3. Ban Khlong Yuan wood ID (UAD report 2019) Table 4. Butuan 1 Wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Table 5. Butuan 5 Wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Table 6. Butuan 2 Wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Table 7. Butuan 2 Wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Table 8. Plank Configurations INTRODUCTION Lashed-lug construction is a distinctive nautical technology that facilitated Southeast Asian regional networks from the early 1st to the late 2nd millennium CE. It refers to a boatbuilding technique in which the planks were cleated with lugs and assembled by individual stitching and/or wooden dowels. The seams of stitches, if any, were only visible inboard. The remains of lashed-lug vessels are distributed over coastal areas linking mainland and island subregions (Figure 1). Yet, each of the vessels reflect the unique personality of the boatbuilders. This paper thus hopes to highlight the techno-cultural diversity and links to realise the complexity that shapes the way our region is today. Plank features are the most prominent attribute for understanding hull assemblage. The details of the keel plank designs are focused and have been previously noted (Lacsina and Mochtar 2019). Regarding plank fastenings, an earlier hypothesis by Adrian Horridge (1982, 1; 32–33; 56–58) posited that the oldest plank-built boats were held by stitching or sewing without the use of edge dowels. He based this on the assumption that dowel holes could not be produced without the aid of metal tools, though it must be noted when he wrote this, no plank boat remnants had been found that predate the use of metals in Southeast Asia. Pierre-Yves Manguin (1993; 2021) and Sean McGrail (2001) surmised that edge dowelling was incorporated to supplement stitching, leading to dowelling supplemented by stitching, until stitching was set aside entirely for exclusive dowel fastening. The reason for shifting to an exclusive reliance on dowelling is unclear, whether this was the result of technological or arbitrary choices. Our observations thus present a review of this aspect by sharing the results of a preliminary 1 �comparison of the fastening methods in several examples. It hopes to contribute to the growing dataset of lashed lug boats and lead to greater insights into their construction. REGIONAL VARIATION OF PLANK CONFIGURATIONS This section provides information gathered from existing research and field survey in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Eight examples of lashed-lug remains were selected for this comparison. They are classified into two main categories – those with no edge dowels present and those with edge dowels. The utilisation of dowels is divided into three distinct methods, stitched-dowelling, pinned-dowelling, and exclusive dowelling. Illustrative diagrams are produced to present a schematic configuration of the lashed-lug planking. It should be noted that they are based on approximate measurements and authors’ observations (Figures 2 and 3). No Edge Dowels Khlong Thom (KT) The remains studied in this paper are based on the report written by the Thai Underwater Archaeology Division (UAD) during the 2019 investigation (Piromrak 2019). The timber fragments were removed from the sandy-clay bed of Khlong Thom, near Kuan Luk Pad archaeological site in Krabi Province, Thailand. Khlong Thom is a waterway giving access to the inner land from the Andaman Sea. Figure 2A illustrates how the planks feature a narrow face of about 20 centimetres in width and a thickness of about three centimetres. Lugs are almost the same width but double in thickness. The total thickness of plank ranges from 9 to 12 centimetres, including lug. Lugs were made at about 40 centimetres gap without a link, except for the keel plank of which the centre was carved into a longitudinal, narrow ridge linking with the rectangular ones. On the moulding face of the central ridge, there is an oval-shaped hole. The rectangular shape lugs have a pair of square holes diagonally chiselled near the upper edge. This differs from the lugs on the keel plank with round holes. The row of lugs seems to be carved off-centre. The base of the lug is longer than the plank on one side, suggesting a locking function. On either side of the lugs are a pair of rounded, L-shaped holes, not visible outboard. The cordage remaining in the holes indicates that planks were secured by stitching with a cross and 2 �Figure 1. Distribution of archaeological ship remains in Southeast Asia (illustrated by Abhirada Komoot). wrap pattern. A small wedge was hammered in to ensure the knots were tight. No indication of dowels are seen throughout. Between lugs, the remaining stitching exhibits cordage with a delicate braiding technique tightened by a piece of wedge. Table 1. Khlong Thom wood ID (UAD report 2019) Samples Descriptions 1 Wooden wedge 2 Caulking/ luting 3 Plank Species Mesua ferrea L. Payena acuminate (Blume) Pierre Hopea sp. With Edge Dowels and Stitches Punjulharjo The Punjulharjo boat is located on the northern coast of Rembang District, Central Java. It was accidentally discovered by local villagers during the rehabilitation of the salterns and was investigated archaeologically between 2008 and 2009 by the Yogyakarta Archaeological Center. An open building was built in place with an elevated floor to house the wooden remains after Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) impregnation treatment was done. A comprehensive diagram of plank configuration is drawn following the measurement conducted by Agni Mochtar (2018). Figure 2B demonstrates the hull of the Punjulharjo was assembled mainly by edge dowels and stitching. Tenon and mortise joints also appear in the mix. Mochtar (2018) reports that the keel plank is 15.6 metres long and has a maximum width of 56 centimetres. It was tapered on both 3 �Figure 2. Diagram of approximate plank configurations of: A) Khlong Thom, B) Punjulharjo, C) Chau Tan and D) Ban Khlong Yuan (illustrated by Abhirada Komoot). 4 �ends to receive wing-ends. The lugs are mostly flat and rectangular. The largest lug size is 40 by 25 centimetres at midship. Pairs of the rounded holes appear on lugs and next to lugs. On the edge, there are dowelling holes with uneven intervals. There are sets of several dowelling holes (3-4 holes) alternating with two pairs of stitching holes. There is no report on the length of dowels or dowel holes. For the purpose of this paper, the Punjulharjo’s dowel holes in Figure 2C are based on the finding in CT and BKY, but remain conjectural. Notably, the documented construction of the Punjulharjo boat depicts the lug-lashing that secured frames, stringers, beams, and other parts also fastened two adjacent planks to one another, supplementing the stitching and dowelling (see Manguin 2019, Figure 7a and 7c; Mochtar 2018, Figure 5-10). Table 2. Punjulharjo wood ID (Abbas 2010; Nugroho 2010) Samples 1 2 3 Descriptions Wooden dowels Plank Stringer Species Melaleuca leucadendron Palaquium gutta Scorodocarpus borneensis Chau Tan (CT) The Chau Tan ship remains were found by local fishermen off the coast of Quang Ngai, Central Vietnam. The remains were discovered by accident during a fishing activity in 2011 and are now kept in a shed at the house of a local collector, Mr. Lam. There is no scientific documentation of the original context of the site. A team of Japanese researchers processed post-salvage documentation of the recovered timbers and published their findings in 2017 and 2018 reports (Noriko et al. 2017). The reports reveal the ship date to be between 663 and 715 CE. This paper adds to existing information based on the authors’ survey in January 2023. The Chau Tan planks are relatively large, as seen in Figure 2C, and long. The keel plank measures 41 centimetres at the maximum width and about 22 metres in length. The width of the lugs is almost the same as the plank width, although the size of the lugs was carved with tapering ends. All holes are round and about 2.5 to 3 centimetres in diameter. The lug interval is about 40 centimetres, except for the midsection, where the break is about 150 centimetres. Lugs on the keel plank were connected to a narrow ridge of 14 centimetres maximum width. A pair of through holes are on the ridge at the interval of lugs. The fastening technique of the Chau Tan boat is stitching and dowelling. A pair of stitching holes appear on the sides of lugs, alternating with a row of dowels. Ban Khlong Yuan (BKY) Ban Khlong Yuan is located east of the peninsula, facing the Gulf of Thailand. It is under the administration of Chaiya District, Surat Thani Province. The boat remains were found buried in the terrestrial area, away from the sea. There are 84 pieces of boat remains that were recovered by the landowners during the reservoir construction in 2002. They are now transferred to the UAD office in Chantaburi for further analysis. The ship was reported with an approximate dating between 768 and 890 Cal CE (Rahotan 2019). The diagram (Figure 2D) shows that the broadest part of the keel plank measures about 30 centimetres. Lug thickness is about 2 centimetres, while the overall thickness of the plank is about 5-6 centimetres. Lugs were carved along the length with regular intervals of about 35 centimetres and linked by a 10centimetre wide ridge in the middle. Ligature and dowelling holes are round and about 1.5-2 centimetres in diameter. A pair of ligature holes present next to lugs alternating with rows of dowelling holes. Some dowels are still intact in the holes. 5 �Table 3. Ban Khlong Yuan wood ID (UAD report 2019) Samples 1 2 Descriptions Wooden dowels Plank Species Terminalia mucronata Craib & Hutch. Hopea sp. Pinned-dowelling Butuan 1 The Butuan boat 1 was the first of several lashed-lug boats found in Butuan City, north-eastern Mindanao, Philippines. It was discovered by salvagers in 1976. A site museum was constructed to house Butuan Boat 1 in 1980, where it remains to this day. A report states that the wood received Wolmanized treatment, a pressure treatment used for commercial lumber. The lugs of Butuan 1 are unique in known lashed lug boats to date. Figure 3A illustrates that they have three pairs of L-shaped lashing holes on relatively wide lugs. On the keel plank are also three pairs of lashing holes but on three sets of lugs. Plank fastening was by dowels, with roughly every alternate dowel locked in place with a wooden pin. The boat remains were measured at a maximum of 10.2 meters in length. The longest piece is the keel plank at 9.74 meters. Table 4. Butuan 1 Wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Samples Descriptions 1 Wooden dowel 2 Plank 3 Wing end Species Vatica sp. Petersianthus quadrielatus, Shorea sp., Vatica sp. Shorea sp. Butuan 5 Butuan 5 was first unearthed in 1985, and then recovered in 1986 as part of a regional training course on archaeological conservation organised by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN 1986). The final ASEAN report describes Boat 5 timbers as being so fragile that they could not be lifted in one piece. They were cut into fragments, which were reportedly labelled and soaked in a tank of fresh water in Butuan until PEG could be acquired. Unfortunately, when researchers visited to examine Boat 5’s timbers, they found the water had dried and the wood was warped and dissociated from their labels. Boat 5 also seems to have unique features, particularly in the lashing holes on the lugs, which run through the breadth of the lugs (Figure 3B). Its keel plank is also unique in that it does not have individual lugs, only a continuous ridge that runs the length of the keel plank through which lashing holes are also bored breadthwise. The hull parts are badly degraded and warped. When Butuan 5 was excavated, the remains measured 11.5 metres in length, the same as its keel plank. It was found with eight strakes on one side and seven strakes on the other. Like Butuan 1, some of Butuan 5’s dowels are locked with wooden pins driven from the inboard of the plank. Table 5. Butuan 5 wood ID (Lacsina 2016) Samples Descriptions 1 All hull parts 2 Frames 3 Wing ends 4 Dowel Species Pistacia chinensis Dimocarpus sp., Vitex parviflora Pterocarpus indicus Dimocarpus sp. Exclusive Dowelling Butuan 2 The Butuan 2 remains were found by pot hunters in 1977, several months after Butuan 1 was unearthed. The excavation was carried out by the National Museum of the Philippines in 1977. Butuan 2 was found 6 �Figure 3. Diagram of approximate plank configurations of: (A) Butuan 1, (B) Butuan 5, (C) Butuan 2, (D) Butuan 4 (illustrated by Ligaya Lacsina). within several metres of Boats 4 and 9, and reportedly Boat 3, though this has yet to be confirmed. It is currently in storage at the National Museum in Manila, where it was previously on display before the gallery that contained it was dismantled. The planks of Butuan 2 only show evidence of dowelling and no apparent locking feature to keep the planks from separating. Lacsina (2016, 208) has suggested that lashed lugs, as they were applied in the Punjulharjo Boat, might have also been used here to compress planks together, though this cannot be 7 �Figure 4. Conjectural lug-lashing of Butuan 2 and other exclusively doweled planks based on the Punjulharjo boat lashing example that crosses planks (illustrated by Ligaya Lacsina). confirmed due to limited evidence of ligatures in Butuan. The keel plank is the longest piece and measures 11.3 metres. It has two sets of lugs and two pairs of L-shaped holes (Figure 3C). Individual lugs on the planks also have two sets of L-shaped holes. Table 6. Wood ID of Butuan 2 (Lacsina 2016) Samples Descriptions 1 All hull parts 2 Wing ends Species Hopea sp. Pterocarpus indicus Butuan 4 Butuan 4 was found several meters from Butuan 2. A looter’s pit was extended by archaeologists in 2012 to find the remains of this Boat, half of which appear to be missing; the keel plank is sawn cleanly at this point. So far, the planks of Butuan 4 appear to only use dowels. There are two pairs of L-shaped lashing holes on the individual lugs. The keel plank lugs are connected by a continuous ridge running the length of it Figure 3D. Table 7. Wood ID of Butuan 4 Samples Descriptions 1 All hull parts Species Vatica sp. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION While its prominent feature is the protruding lug on the inboard planks, arranged in traversal rows for fitting and locking frames, our investigation conducts a comprehensive review of the characteristics of plank modification and assembling methods in several examples in Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. In closely observing lashed-lug boat remains of the currently documented examples, the result demonstrates a variety of planking techniques and configurations (Table 8). Keel plank configurations are notable as they are generally carved in different designs than the other planks (Lacsina and Mochtar 2019). The most common variation is an individual lug joined by a raised ridge. The greatest variation can be seen in the Butuan assemblage which include two and three sets of lugs, a raised edge with no lugs, and the aforementioned lugs joined by a ridge. No raised ridge is presented in the Punjulharjo’s keel plank. The size of keel planks range between 20 and nearly 40 centimetres. As presented, the Butuan boats’ planks and lugs are narrower compared to others. The keel 8 �plank on the KT is also narrow but lugs were uniquely carved to lock with adjacent planks. All holes were predrilled and mostly round, except for the KT remains. Lashing holes on the KT lugs feature square but ligature holes for stitching on the planks, are round. Lugs were transversely aligned to fasten the full frames. Manguin (2021) provides a technical proposition that lug lashing on frames, the increased edge dowels and pinning could be a compensation for plank stitching that disappeared completely from the lashed-lug vessels at the beginning of the 2nd millennium CE. Figure 4 presents a hypothetical illustration of the lug lashing based on a key surviving example. The evidence from the Punjularjo boat reveals cross-plank lashing, in contrast to ethnographic examples that show lug-lashing is isolated to individual lugs and planks (Horridge 1982, 15, 16). This fastening technique is believed to have assisted to strengthen the hull and would provide especially significant reinforcement to exclusively dowelled vessels. This paper also found that the lashed-lug vessels had the most configurative variation during the late 1st millennium CE. Exclusive stitching was used in the 1st century (KT), even as dowels were used to supplement stitching in other vessels (Manguin, 2019). An increased use of dowels as a main fastening occurred toward the second half of the 1st millennium. The use of dowelling appeared in the CT and Pubjulharjo in the 8th century and the BKY of the 9th century. Only the boats found in Butuan did not have stitching, only dowelling throughout the 8th and 10th centuries. This finding brings a question of regional variation: what could be a driving force for these differences? More inclusive approach to consider materials (i.e., type of wood) and plank modification (i.e., different lug shapes and size of plank) is necessary. The variations observed here need further study to learn about the technical performance and effectiveness of each. A closer observation of the elements of hull construction, scrutinising their characteristics for previously unnoticed qualities and, if possible, understanding the efficiency of each fastening technique should follow. In the future, it is hoped to better understand how the technical variety contributes to the understanding of technological development. Table 8. Plank Configurations Dates Sites Central ridge on keel plank 85-229 CE Khlong Thom Vertical ridge, standing up right Lugs/ligature holes Ligature holes on planks Narrow/square and Round round 660-780 CE Punjulharjo No ridge Round 663-715 CE Chau Tan Flat with 2 lashing Broad/round holes on every interval Round 715-940 CE Butuan 2 No. 2 sets of lugs Round - 768-890 CE Ban Khlong Yuan Flat with no lashing holes Broad/round Round 775-973 CE Butuan 4 777-971 CE Butuan 5 777-988 CE Butuan 1 Yes, with Round individual lugs Yes, no individual Round lugs No. 3 sets of lugs Round Round - 9 Plank assembling Special features 2 pairs of stitching holes and wedgedstitching 2 pairs of stitching holes alternated by a row of dowels 2 pairs of stitching holes alternated by a row of dowels Exclusively dowelled -Locking lugs - visible wedges Tenon and mortise 2 pairs of stitching holes alternated by a row of dowels Exclusively dowelled Pinneddowelling Pinneddowelling - Tenon and mortise (wing end) - - �ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our sincere gratitude is extended to Suvarnabhumi Studies Center under the auspices of the Thai Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation for funding this project. Our partners at the National Museum of the Philippines, and local authority in Vietnam and Indonesia are appreciated for their assistance. BIBLIOGRAPGHY ASEAN. Report on the third intra-ASEAN Archaeological Excavation and Conservation Butuan City, Philippines 16 November–10 December 1986. Manila: ASEAN, 1986. Horridge, Adrian. The lashed-lug boat of the eastern archipelagoes, the Alcina MS and the Lomblen whaling boats. Maritime Monographs and Reports. Greenwich: Trustees of the National Maritime Museum, 1982 Lacsina, Ligaya. "Examining pre-colonial Southeast Asian boatbuilding: An archaeological study of the Butuan Boats and the use of edge-joined planking in local and regional construction techniques." PhD diss., Flinders University, School of Humanities and Creative Arts, 2016. Lacsina, Ligaya, and Agni Sesaria Mochtar. ‘The Lashed-Lug Tradition Beyond the Commonalities: A Closer Examination of Variations in Keel Design within Southeast Asian Shipbuilding Tradition’. In Advancing Southeast Asian Archaeology 2019: Selected Papers from the Second SEAMEO SPAFA International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology, Bangkok, Thailand 2019, edited by Noel Hidalgo Tan. Seameo-Spafa, 2020.https://www.spafajournal.org/index.php/spafapub/issue/ view/136. Manguin, Pierre-Yves. “Trading ships of the South China Sea. Shipbuilding techniques and their role in the history of the development of Asian trade networks.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36, no.3 (1993): 253–280. Manguin, Pierre-Yves. Sewn Boats of Southeast Asia: The Stitched-Plank and Lashed-Lug Tradition. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 48(2), 2019, 400-415. doi:10.1111/1095-9270.12367 Manguin, Pierre-Yves. “The assembly of hulls in Southeast Asian shipbuilding traditions: from lashings to treenails”, in Giulia Boetto, Patrice Pomey & Pierre Poveda (Eds), Open Sea / Closed Sea: Local and Inter-Regional Traditions in Shipbuilding (Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Marseille 2018, ISBSA 15), Archaeonautica, 21, 2021, pp. 135–138. Mcgrail, Sean. Boats of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mochtar, Agni Sesaria. "The Seventh-Century Punjulharjo Boat from Indonesia: A study of the early Southeast Asian lashedlug boatbuilding tradition." PhD diss., Flinders University, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 2018. Noriko, Nishino, Toru Aoyama, Jun Kimura, Nokami Takenori, and Le Thi Lien. Nishimura Masanari’s Study of the Earliest Known Shipwreck Found in Vietnam. Asian Review of World Histories, 5, no. 2 (2017): 106-122. Piromrak, Napat. Report on the Survey of Lashed-Lug Remians in Khlong Thom Tai Subdistrict, Khlong Thom District, Krabi Province 2019, Research Unit, Underwater Archaeology Division, Fine Arts Department, 2019 (in Thai and unpublished). Rahotan, Wongsakorn. Preliminary Report on the Survey of Lashed-Lug Remains in Ban Klong Yuan, Surathani Province 2019, Research Unit, Underwater Archaeology Division, Fine Arts Department, 2019, (in Thai and unpublished). 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2023 Session 6: Lashed-lug boats: Emerging research from Southeast Asia and the Pacific Subject The topic of the resource Session 6 papers Description An account of the resource Papers presented at Session 6 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Regional Identity and Local Variety: Plank Configurations in Lashed-lug Boatbuilding of Southeast Asia Description An account of the resource This short paper is suitable for session 6. It is written to report the result of the recent survey of the lashed-lug boatbuilding technology in the Southeast Asian region. In addition to desk-based assessments, investigations were undertaken at Khlong Thom in the south of Thailand, Chau Tan remains in central Vietnam, and Butuan in the south of the Philippines. This project aims to observe the variety of the lashed-lug boatbuilding to better understand meaningful, technical connections. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ligaya Lacsina Abhirada Pook Komoot 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. Lacsina, Ligaya and Abhirada Pook Komoot. 2023. “Regional identity and local variety: Plank Fastening Techniques in Lashed-lug Boatbuilding of Southeast Asia.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, Ligaya Lacsina, Agni Mochtar, and Pierre-Yves Manguin. 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/1939 Asia-Pac Session 6 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/a04596c95094d335a8db86e0270d06c7.pdf 882271ff5bfeedde5a84e95df79fbd95 PDF Text Text Tracking environmental and historical footprints on Clarence: Comparative XRD analysis of clay-rich sediment samples from a 19th century wreck site in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia Adele Zubrzycka and Anthony J. Barham Archaeology and Natural History School of Culture, History and Language ANU College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University ACT 0200 Australia E-mail: a.zubrzycka@gmail.com Ulrike Troitzsch Earth Materials Group Research School of Earth Sciences ANU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences The Australian National University ACT 0200 Australia Abstract Little is known about shipbuilding in Australia in the early to mid 19th century. Under the Australian Research Council (ARC) funded Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) (www.ahspp.org.au), underwater excavations were carried out in AprilMay 2012 on the historic trading schooner Clarence, wrecked in shallow waters at Port Phillip Bay, Victoria in September 1850. During excavations, cores collected by lead investigator Peter Veth and principle investigator Vicki Richards were found to contain clay-rich sediment, thought to be ballast. This discovery stimulated investigations of the micro-sedimentary environments and taphonomy associated with the vessel, especially fine-grain sediment supply to the wreck and current and tidal influences on the stability of sediments lodged in and around the site. In order to address these questions, sediment samples were collected from the wreck, seabed and adjacent shorelines. Clay fractions were analysed at the Australian National University (ANU) using X-Ray Diffraction (XRD). Key objectives were to compare mineral signatures in the 'ballast' from clay-rich sources on the seabed and coastal foreshores possibly incorporated as the vessel foundered. Results successfully differentiate a) individual samples by seabed location and b) “ballast” samples in the wreck structure from sampled points around the wreck. The findings suggest that fine sediment within the Clarence shipwreck is likely to be clay ballast, emplaced at some point during the schooner's working life. The results also inform questions regarding the longer-term conservation of Clarence and similar wrecks located in Australian and Southeast Asian shallow-water settings. 1 �Key words: Clarence, Shipwreck, X-ray Diffraction, Sediment, Ballast, Schooner, Conservation. Introduction Clarence, one of Australia's best preserved carvel-built, two-masted wooden trading schooners (Gesner, 1985), was constructed on the Williams River in New South Wales by Sydney merchants Gordon Sandernais and Thomas Ayers in 1841 (Coroneos, 1991). At the time, the Williams River shipbuilding industry was in its early stages of growth, producing unique examples of early shipbuilding techniques in Australia (Taylor, 1977). Small wooden coastal trading vessels were integral to the survival and development of Australia in the early to mid-19th century before the adoption of steam transport (Taylor, 1977). For the next nine years, Clarence worked as a trade vessel, transporting goods and passengers to and from Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. On the 2nd of September 1850, the vessel foundered on a sand bank in Port Phillip Bay while transporting sheep and other goods from Melbourne to Hobart. The vessel remained partially submerged for a number of years until eventually retreating to the sea floor (Gesner, 1985). In the mid-1980s the wreck, now protected under the Victorian Heritage Act 1995, was rediscovered and its historical and archaeological significance acknowledged as a result of investigations conducted by the Maritime Archaeology Association of Victoria (MAAV) (Gesner, 1985; Harvey, 1986, 1989). These findings were subsequently reported to the Maritime Archaeology Unit (MAU) of the Victoria Archaeology Survey (VAS). In turn, an environmental monitoring program and report was compiled by Coroneos (1991). Today the wreck is located in shallow waters (4-5 m deep) where natural processes and small vessel anchorage are negatively impacting the vessel's structural preservation. In April-May 2012, in accordance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the first phase of excavation, reburial and in-situ preservation of Clarence was undertaken by the ARC funded AHSPP. During excavations, it was apparent that there was a shallow layer of loose marine sediment overlying a dense clay-rich unit (appearing to have retained marks possibly 2 �produced by bucketing of clay into the hold of the schooner) (Veth et al., 2013) lodged within the vessel structure on top of the schooner's ceiling timbers, between 30-50 cm in depth (Taylor, 2013). A number of finds including cask staves and lids; coir cordage; leather patches and other items were also found within the clay deposit (Veth et al., 2013). Chief investigators Peter Veth, Vicki Richards and project diver Mike Nash, collected cores of the deposit and sediment in and around the wreck. Although clay is proposed to have been a popular form of ballast material in the 19th century (Taylor, 2013), little contemporary or historic material exists regarding its use in Australia. This material makes it difficult to pinpoint particular locations in which clay was collected or how widespread the practice was. If clay-rich sediments are confirmed to be ballast, Clarence could be the first example of a clay ballasted vessel to be located and sampled in the country (Veth et al., 2013). This discovery and questions surrounding future preservation of the wreck stimulated investigations into micro-sedimentary environments and taphonomy associated with the site and the stability of sediments lodged in and around the wreck. Key objectives were to compare mineral signatures in the 'ballast' from clay-rich sources on the seabed and coastal Fig. 1 Short core and grab sample locations in the wreck of the Clarence. (A. Khan) foreshores to confirm the likelihood of clay-rich sediments being ballast. In order to address these questions, sediment samples were collected from the surrounding onshore landscape and analysed using XRD in March 2013 along with samples collected in April-May 2012 from the wreck and adjacent seabed at the Research School of Earth Sciences (RSES), ANU. This analysis was also undertaken to identify the extent of sediment preservation or damage within the wreck. XRD is considered a cheap, fast and relatively effective method for identifying and analysing clay minerals. Although some criticisms have been made in regards to its overall accuracy, if correct precautions are taken it can be a useful tool in identifying clay mineral variations in sediments (Kahle et al., 2002). 3 �Procedures and Methods Sample Sets and Sampling and Preparation Techniques. Initial XRD analysis was carried out on nine sediment samples collected by project divers as part of the Clarence excavations.  Set A: CLI1-0006-9. Samples retrieved as either grab samples or undisturbed cores from the wreck site. Locations are shown in (Fig. 1).  Set B: CLI2-0001-4 and CLI2-0010. Samples retrieved as either grab samples or undisturbed cores from the seabed surrounding the wreck. Locations are shown in (Fig. 1). XRD analysis was then carried out on 15 samples taken from offshore geography directly associated with Port Phillip Bay during a field trip to the area in March 2013. At the Clarence site, the major mechanism by which terrestrial-derived fine grain sediments enter the near shore zone will be run-off plumes after heavy rain. Cliff collapse and direct wave erosion of regolith at cliff bases will make minor contributions (Cardno, 2011). The bedrock and saprolites sampled also approximate the range of deposits likely to be forming seabeds around and beneath the locations where Clarence foundered. The following samples were collected based on the above assumptions.  Set C: SPA1-15. 50-200g of well sorted deposits were collected from five locations across the headlands of Port Arlington and St Leonards (Fig. 2) and stored in clear zip-lock bags. Samples were retrieved from exposures and sections along low cliffed shorelines and one low elevation intertidal clay-pan. Locations and sampling design aimed to produce representative examples of sediments in the complex weathered geology and regolith of Bellarine shorelines, which are actively eroding and releasing sediments into the near shore zone.  SPA1-5 and 12-15 were collected from eroding cliff sections.  SPA 6 and 7 were collected from an intertidal weathered outcrop.  SPA 8, 9 and 10 were collected from Edwards Point, where a salt-pan and mudflat are situated. This site was chosen and sampled as an example of a sediment sink where fine clay-silts have settled from an intertidal water column 4 �behind a bay bar sand barrier. These provide a first-order proxy for sediments/clay mineralogies likely to deposit out of the Port Phillip Bay water column.  SPA11 was sampled from St Leonards Beach, seaward of the adjacent mudflat at Edwards Point. Methods Analysed sediment from Set A was carefully removed from cores in order to avoid contamination of clay-rich deposits with overlying loose marine sediment. Analysed sediment from Set B was sampled at 2cm intervals in order to collect a representative sample of surface and underlying sediments on the sea floor. Therefore, XRD analysis on all Set B samples (except CLI2-0004 and CLI2-0010) Fig. 2 Locations of SPA1-15 sediment samples surrounding Port Phillip Bay. (Google Earth, 2013) was conducted twice per core and conducted on all aspects of the sample, including miscellaneous marine sediment. Analysed sediment from Set C was prepared in order to produce an accurate representation of coastal landscape formations. All remaining sediment from Sets A, B and C were retained in separate storage containers at the RSES, ANU. All sample sets were prepared and analysed using powder XRD and clay separation methods. Powder XRD was carried out with a SIEMENS D501 BraggBrentano diffractometer equipped with a graphite monochromator and scintillation detector, using Cu K-alpha radiation. Bulk samples were milled for 10 min in ethanol with a McCrone Micronizing Mill, and dried at 40°C. Samples were suspended on a side-packed sample holder and analysed from 2 to 70° 2-theta, at a step width of 0.02° 5 �and a scan speed of 1° per minute. Clay separation was performed by the settling method and samples prepared according to the Millipore Filter Transfer Method (Moore and Reynolds, 1997). Clay samples were analysed after Mg-saturation (scan range 242° 2theta, step width 0.02°, scan speed 1°/min), saturation with ethylene glycol (2-32°, 0.02°, 1°/min), and heating to 350°C (2-28°, 0.02°, 1°/min) and to 550°C (2-28°, 0.02°, 1°/min). Results were interpreted using the Bruker AXS software package Diffracplus Eva 10 (2003) for identification, and Siroquant V3 for quantification (using the bulk scan). Results Results are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and Fig. 3. Table 1 represents results from Set A, collected from within the wreck. Table 2 represents results from Set B, collected from the sea floor surrounding the wreck site. Table 3 represents results from Set C, collected from surrounding coastal geologies in Port Phillip Bay. Fig. 3 illustrates variations in mineralogical compositions in Sets A and B, specifically with regards to kaolinite, plagioclase and clinopyroxene quantities. Small quantities of vermiculite were present throughout all sample sets: Set A contained an average of 0.50 ± 0.03%, one sample in Set B contained 0.4% vermiculite and three samples in Set C contained traces of the mineral (SPA5, 0.1%, SPA7, 0.4% and SPA 14, Fig. 3 Mineralogical percentages of kaolinite, plagioclase and 0.6%). Calcite and aragonite clinopyroxene in Sets A and B. (A. Zubrzycka) were not well represented in Set A, however CLI-0009, contained 5.1% calcite and 6.2% aragonite. Quartz, likely to be associated with loose sand particles from the surrounding seabed, was abundant in Sets A (Mean (M) = 29.9 ± 6.0%) and B (M = 27.5 ± 1.0%). Sets A and B contained halite that can be attributed to trace levels of salt water retained in samples during preparation. Small quantities of illite/smectite were present in the 6 �majority of Set B samples (M = 0.4 ± 0.3%) while only one sample in Set A, CLI-0005, contained the clay mineral (5.6%). The presence of clinopyroxene was unique to Set A samples CI10008 (13.8%) and CLI10009 (7.7%), which were collected in direct association with clay-rich deposits in the wreck (Fig. 3). Large quantities of kaolinite were present in Set A (M = 43.7 ± 16.7%). In comparison, Set B samples were clay poor, containing only trace levels of kaolinite (M = 1.1 ± 0.2%) (Fig. 3). Plagioclase was present in both Set A and B with Set A containing an average of 6.8 ± 7.9% and Set B an average of 2.7 ± 0.5% (Fig. 3). Calcite and aragonite were found in abundance in Set B (M = 51.2 ± 2.5% and 13.5 ± 0.8%, respectively). All Set C samples, except SPA11 (beach sand), were clay rich and contained little to no traces of feldspars, such as plagioclase (0%) and K-feldspar, which was only present in SPA3 (1.8%). In comparison, Set A contained an average of 3.3 ± 2% K-feldspar. Only one sample in Set C, SPA10, contained aragonite (15.3%) probably associated with a midden deposit or activity associated with higher sea levels or storm surges. Clay fractions from SPA1 and 8 were dominated with illite/muscovite (27.4% and 32.9%, respectively). Clay fractions from SPA4 (74.3%), SPA5 (89.3%), SPA6 (85.6%) and SPA15 (87.8%) were dominated by kaolinite. SPA7 contained the largest quantity of kaolinite at 96.3%. Overall, the mean quantity of kaolinite within Set C was 40.1 ± 37.8% (as opposed to M = 43.7 ± 16.7% in Set A and 1.1 ± 0.2% in Set B). SPA2 was dominated by goethite (52.6%), which was not present in Set A or B. Set C contained a mean average of 24.8 ± 25.3% quartz. This average was reached by excluding SPA11, a sample of beach sand containing 97.7% quartz. Average quartz quantities in Set C including SPA11 is 29.7 ± 30.8%. Anatase was present in SPA4 (3.9%), SPA5 (4.6%), SPA6 (2.9%) and SPA 7 (2.7%), all collected from low lying cliff sections. Because a number of samples, especially those within data sets A and B contained halite and/or calcite inaccurate results relating to quantification of minerals and clays in the final stages of data analysis were present. In order to account for these irregularities total clays with and without these minerals have been included in all tables. 7 �Discussion The hypothesis that clay deposits accumulated in Clarence after becoming submerged in its present position as a result of slack water “fines settling” within the vessel is inconsistent with data accumulated from the XRD analysis of all samples. This can be observed by comparing mineralogical variability and clay quantities from all sample sets, especially those in Set A and B. Some of the most significant results came from samples CLI1-0008 and CLI1-0009, collected from clay-rich deposits thought to be ballast. These were the only collected and analysed samples to contain clinopyroxene. All samples in Set A contained high percentages of kaolinite, however, CLI1-0008 and 0009 contained significantly less kaolinite (21.1% in CLI1-0008 and 32.3% in CLI1-0009) than analysed samples collected from the wreck, which contained an average of 55.1 ± 6.5% kaolinite (Fig. 3). CLI1-0008 and 0009 also contained higher quantities of plagioclase and K-feldspar than other samples (see Table 1 and Fig. 3). Thus, clay-rich sediment, thought to be ballast, found near the schooner's ceiling planking contains a unique mineralogical composition compared to other sampled sediments within the wreck structure. The hypothesis that clay-rich sediments may have accumulated on the wreck over time, taking on the appearance of clay ballast, is also unlikely based on results from Set B. If clay rich sediments derived from the surrounding landscape had settled on the wreck via storm surges or tidal and current activity, it is likely that similar clay minerals would be present on the adjacent seabed. However, low quantities of kaolinite and a complete lack of clinopyroxene in Set B suggest that this is not the case (Fig. 3). XRD results from Set C also indicate that there is no mineralogical relationship between sediments collected from surrounding coastal geologies and clay-rich sediments found within the wreck. In regards to the stability of sediments within the wreck, comparing mineralogical data from sample Sets A and B indicates that bioturbation and damaging ocean currents have had minimal effect on what may be in situ clay sediments directly associated with the wreck. This can be observed via the presence of calcite in Set A where the mineral is only present in CLI-0009 (5.1%). However, biased sample 8 �preparation in the lab may be associated with this result, i.e. shell fragments and other material being removed from Set A and B samples prior to milling. Conclusion The wreck of the Clarence can provide researchers with valuable information on the history of shipbuilding and ballast use in Australia during the early to mid-19th Century. The location of the wreck also carries the potential to inform researchers of the detrimental effect environmental and anthropogenic activity may have on the survival of the Clarence and other wrecks in similar locations. The discovery of clay-rich sediment during the 2012 excavation gave researchers a unique opportunity to investigate both of these questions using identical methodologies. Results from XRD analysis successfully differentiated samples collected from the seabed adjacent to the wreck, clay-rich sediments collected within the wreck and sediment collected from the surrounding coastline. This suggests that clay-rich sediments are unlikely to have been transported to the wreck via factors such as storm surges or ocean currents carrying fine grained sediments from the adjacent coastline. Findings suggest that clay sediment within the Clarence shipwreck is likely to be clay ballast or another form of clay material, emplaced in the vessel at some point during its working life. Results were further emphasised due to the presence of clinopyroxene, plagioclase and kaolinite in samples directly associated with clay-rich deposits found near the hull of the vessel. The survival of clayrich sediment within the wreck suggests that although natural and anthropogenic activity can have a detrimental effect on the preservation of underwater cultural heritage, it is possible for archaeologically significant material to be well preserved within these contexts. In order to reach a more definitive conclusion on the likelihood that clay-rich deposits are indeed ballast, more data from Australian built wrecks and archival material is required. It is also suggested that further comparative analysis of clay-rich sediments found on the wreck and the surrounding landscape be undertaken using alternative analytical methods. 9 �References Cardno, 2011. Sediment Transport Modelling – Great Sands, Port Phillip. RM2271/LJ5518 Version 1.0. Report prepared for Port of Melbourne Corporation, 6 March 2011, Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd, Collingwood, Victoria. Coroneos, C., 1991. Historical Shipwreck, The Clarence (1841-1850) Conservation Plan. Unpublished report submitted to the Victoria Archaeological Survey, Melbourne, Victoria. Gesner, P., 1985. Clarence Report: Historical Documentation. Unpublished report submitted to the Victorian Archaeological Survey, Melbourne, Victoria. Harvey, P. 1986. A Pre-disturbance Survey of the Shipwreck Clarence in Port Phillip. Unpublished report submitted to the Victorian Archaeological Survey, Melbourne, Victoria. Harvey, P. 1989. Excavation of the Shipwreck Clarence: Port Phillip Bay, October 1987. Unpublished report submitted to the Victorian Archaeological Survey, Melbourne, Victoria. Kahle, M., Kleber, M. and Jahn, R., 2002. Review of XRD-based quantitative analyses of clay minerals in soils: The suitability of mineral intensity factors. Geoderma, Vol. 109 (3-4): 191-205. Moore D. M., and Reynolds, R. C., 1997. X-ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. 2nd edition, Oxford University Press. Taylor, P., 2013. Shipwrecks: A Practical Guide to Research and Discovery. Scuttlebutt Press, Australia. Veth, P., Philippou, C., Richards, V., Staniforth, M., Rodrigues, J., Khan, A., Creagh, D., Viduka, A., Barham, A., MacLeod, I., and Harvey, P., 2013. The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project 2012: First report on the background, reburial and insitu preservation at the Clarence (1841-50). Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 37: 1-19. 10 �Biography Adele Zubrzycka is a Masters of Archaeological Science candidate at the Australian National University. Her Masters thesis examined built structures and material culture associated with the first Presbyterian mission station established in Vanuatu (1848). Her research interests lie in historical archaeology with an emphasis on the colonial period in South Asia, specifically the production and trade of indigo in India. Anthony Barham is a geoarchaeologist by training with a specific interest in landscape stratigraphy and archaeological site environments. His research spans Regolith and Soil Science, Quaternary Science and Archaeology. He has a long-standing interest in the Holocene geomorphological development and human occupation record of Australian tropical coastlines, especially regional syntheses of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental records in Torres Strait, and recently on the Kimberley coast of Western Australia (WA). Current research includes evaluating impacts of past tsunami events (and cyclone storm surges) in WA using archaeological data sets. Dr Ulrike Troitzsch is the X-ray Diffraction Laboratory Manager at the Australian National University, Canberra. Her thesis was based on the crystal structure and thermodynamic properties of titanite solid solution Ca(Ti,Al)(O,F)SiO4. Her research interests lie in experimental and metamorphic petrology, mineralogy, crystal chemistry, solid solutions, ceramics granites and migmatites crystal structure determination and refinement. 11 �CLI1-0005 CLI1-0006 CLI1-0007 CLI1-0008 CLI1-0009 Location Close to Near keelson, Centre ceiling stern end wreck planking near foremast stump of Close to Near ceiling ceiling planking, bow planking near end foremast stump Goodness of 2 fit X 3.16 3.80 3.31 4.09 3.55 Quartz 34.9 22.5 25.2 36.6 30.4 Plagioclase - 3.9 2.3 20.2 7.9 K-feldspar - 3.6 3.2 4.8 5.0 Halite 1.2 5.9 2.5 0.5 0.6 Calcite - - - - 5.1 Illite/smectite 5.6 - - - - Vermiculite - 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 Aragonite - - - - 6.2 Gypsum - - - - 2.1 Illite/muscovite 10.4 7.0 5.5 2.4 1.9 Kaolinite 47.9 56.9 60.6 21.1 32.3 Clinopyroxene - - - 13.8 7.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Total clay 63.9 64.1 66.8 24.1 35.0 Total clay w/out carbonates or halite 64.7 68.1 68.5 24.2 39.7 Minerals Table 1 CLI1 samples collected from the Clarence wreck site, April/May 2012. (A. Zubrzycka) 12 �CLI20001 0-2 cm CLI2CLI-0002 0001 2-4 cm CLI20003 0-2 cm CLI20003 2-4 cm CLI20004 CLI20010 Location Stern end, starboard side. Stern end, starboard side. Bow end, Stern starboard end, starboard side. side. Bow end, starboard side. Bow end, Bow end, port side. port side. Goodness of fit X2 2.76 2.55 2.52 2.43 2.47 2.29 2.38 Quartz 28.5 30.6 28.4 28.7 25.4 24.8 26.1 Plagioclase 2.5 3.0 3.8 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.2 Halite 1.3 0.6 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.9 1.1 Calcite 51.3 48.7 48.2 49.3 53.6 54.7 52.5 Dolomite 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 Aragonite 12.5 12.5 14.2 14.7 13.6 13.3 13.9 Vermiculite - 0.4 - - - - - Illite/muscovite 1.3 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.8 Illite/smectite - 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Kaolinite 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Clay 2.3 3.5 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.0 Total clay w/out carbonates and halite 6.9 9.4 8.8 7.1 8.3 8.6 9.6 Minerals Table 2 CLI2 samples collected from adjacent sea floor associated with the Clarence wreck site, April/May 2012. (A. Zubrzycka) 13 �SPA1 SPA2 SPA3 SPA4 SPA5 SPA6 SPA7 SPA8 SPA9 Goodness of fit X2 SPA1 SPA1 SPA1 SPA1 SPA1 SPA1 0 1 2 3 4 5 2.97 2.55 3.39 3.57 4.85 4.51 5.15 4.32 4.07 3.42 3.04 3.89 3.99 4.59 4.51 Minerals Quartz 44.1 28.1 64.9 - 0.5 0.3 - 14.9 13.9 25.9 97.7 74.4 55.4 17.6 8.4 K-feldspar - - - - - - - - - - - Goethite 10.7 52.6 - 1.6 3.4 7.4 - - - - - - 10.9 14.9 - Hematite - - - 14.8 3.1 - - - - 2.3 2.8 - - - Halite - - - 5.4 1.8 0.7 0.6 14.7 42.8 9.4 - - - - 1.9 Calcite 14.7 4.4 6.5 - - - - 1.8 - 11.0 - - - - - Aragonite - - - - - - - - - 15.8 - - - - - Gypsum - - 1.6 - - - - 1.3 3.7 1.5 - 1.1 0.7 - - Smectite - 9.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.6 - Vermiculite - - 1.8 - - Illite/ muscovite 27.4 3 20.8 - 0.30 - - 32.9 16.8 18.8 - - - 1.9 1.9 Illite/ smectite - - - - - - 17.5 10.6 7.5 - - - - Kaolinite 3.1 2.3 4.4 74.3 89.3 85.6 96.3 16.9 12.2 10.1 - 21.7 33.0 65.0 87.8 Anatase - - - 3.9 - Total 100 100 100 100 100 Total Clay 30.5 14.9 25.2 74.3 89.7 85.6 96.7 67.3 39.6 36.4 0.0 Total clay 35.8 15.6 27 w/out carbonates and halite 4.6 - 2.9 2.7 - - - - - - - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 78.5 91.3 86.2 97.3 80.6 69.2 57.1 0.0 100 21.7 33.0 67.5 89.7 22.3 33.0 67.5 91.4 Table 3 SPA samples collected from geology surrounding Port Phillip Bay, March 2013. (A. Zubrzycka) 14 - � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 7: Preservation and Conservation of Wet Archaeological Materials and Site Management Subject The topic of the resource Interview with Session 7 chairs Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter and links to the papers presented in the session. Description An account of the resource This session will focus on in-situ preservation and conservation management issues, conservation analyses and treatments, and applied conservation research of archaeological materials from freshwater, marine and wet terrestrial sites. The main purposes of this session are to encourage the exchange of ideas and practices as well as the development of conservation networks throughout the region. Presentations, posters and workshops are invited that address any of the following areas: • In situ preservation of marine archaeological materials, including reburial practices • Conservation management of shipwreck sites, including on-site monitoring • Conservation treatment case studies • Research into the analysis and treatment of wet archaeological materials • Review of the status of wet archaeological conservation programs in the Asia Pacific region • Development of collaborative conservation research and treatment programs Suggestions for additional topics are welcomed by the session organizers. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter 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 Tracking environmental and historical footprints on Clarence: Comparative XRD analysis of clay-rich sediment samples from a 19th century wreck site in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia Description An account of the resource Little is known about shipbuilding in Australia in the early to mid 19th century. Under the Australian Research Council (ARC) funded Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) (www.ahspp.org.au), underwater excavations were carried out in April- May 2012 on the historic trading schooner Clarence, wrecked in shallow waters at Port Phillip Bay, Victoria in September 1850. During excavations, cores collected by lead investigator Peter Veth and principle investigator Vicki Richards were found to contain clay-rich sediment, thought to be ballast. This discovery stimulated investigations of the micro-sedimentary environments and taphonomy associated with the vessel, especially fine-grain sediment supply to the wreck and current and tidal influences on the stability of sediments lodged in and around the site. In order to address these questions, sediment samples were collected from the wreck, seabed and adjacent shorelines. Clay fractions were analysed at the Australian National University (ANU) using X-Ray Diffraction (XRD). Key objectives were to compare mineral signatures in the 'ballast' from clay-rich sources on the seabed and coastal foreshores possibly incorporated as the vessel foundered. Results successfully differentiate a) individual samples by seabed location and b) “ballast” samples in the wreck structure from sampled points around the wreck. The findings suggest that fine sediment within the Clarence shipwreck is likely to be clay ballast, emplaced at some point during the schooner's working life. The results also inform questions regarding the longer-term conservation of Clarence and similar wrecks located in Australian and Southeast Asian shallow-water settings. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Adele Zubrzycka Anthony J. Barham Ulrike Troitzsch, 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 7 2014 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 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/b7b1391419a70bac218a8f9ba8b4f8e9.pdf a42b10714fe4e0a56cb571ac9d8d868d PDF Text Text Community Driven Marine Archaeology: NOAA Ocean Exploration Operations in the Pacific Basin 2024-2026 Philip A. Hartmeyer*1, Jeremy Weirich2, Hans Van Tilburg3, Adrienne Copeland4, Mashkoor Malik5, Frank Cantelas6, Sam Cuellar7, Kelley Suhre8, Kasey Cantwell9 1 Marine Archaeologist, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Director, NOAA Ocean Exploration 3 Maritime Heritage Coordinator, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 4 Grants Program Manager and Synergistic Team Lead, NOAA Ocean Exploration 5 Science and Technology Division Chief, NOAA Ocean Exploration 6 Science and Technology Division Advisor, NOAA Ocean Exploration 7 Expedition Coordinator, NOAA Ocean Exploration 8 Expeditions and Exploration Division Deputy Chief, NOAA Ocean Exploration 9 Expeditions and Exploration Division Operations Chief, NOAA Ocean Exploration 2 *Contact: phil.hartmeyer@noaa.gov ABSTRACT With priority placed on the exploration of deep waters, NOAA Ocean Exploration applies the latest tools and technologies to explore previously unknown areas of the ocean, making discoveries of scientific, economic, and cultural value. As both a valuable cultural resource and habitat for marine organisms, NOAA Ocean Exploration’s priorities include maritime archaeology and the discovery of our underwater cultural heritage (UCH). Between 2024 and 2026, NOAA Ocean Exploration and partners will conduct exploratory seafloor mapping and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) explorations in the Pacific basin. This article details the tools, technologies, and typical datasets collected by our program and opportunities for the Asia-Pacific community of archaeologists, historians, and resource managers to contribute to our UCH research prioritization and participate in our live, publicly accessible telepresence-enabled operations. Using this community-driven archaeology model, we ensure this exploratory work will have the greatest impact and provide a publicly accessible platform for sharing our common cultural heritage. List of Figures and Tables Table 1: File formats typically collected during seafloor mapping and remotely operated vehicle operations Figure 1: Remotely Operated Vehicle Deep Discoverer at the bow of Amakasu Maru No. 1 Figure 2: Telepresence-enabled exploration. Source: NOAA Ocean Exploration Figure 3: Foundations of the Explorer Model 1 �INTRODUCTION NOAA Ocean Exploration10 is dedicated to exploring the unknown ocean, unlocking its potential through scientific discovery, technological advancements, and data delivery. By working closely with partners across the public, private, and academic sectors, we are filling gaps in our basic understanding of the marine environment. This allows us, collectively, to protect ocean health, sustainably manage our marine resources, accelerate our national economy, better understand our changing environment, and enhance our appreciation of the importance of the ocean in our everyday lives. With priority placed on the exploration of deep waters, NOAA Ocean Exploration applies the latest tools and technologies to explore previously unknown areas of the ocean, making discoveries of scientific, economic, and cultural value. And, through live exploration video, online resources, training and educational opportunities, and public events, we share the excitement of ocean exploration with people around the world and inspire and engage the next generation of ocean scientists, archaeologists, engineers, and leaders. Since the program’s inception in 2001, NOAA Ocean Exploration has been a substantial source of U.S. public funding for the prioritization, discovery, and protection of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) that opens windows into the past to improve understanding of the history of human interaction with the ocean. These activities are executed through a host of mechanisms, including NOAA Ocean Exploration-led operations as well as partner operations supported through a competitive grant program, the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, and the NOAA Ocean Exploration Cooperative Institute, which includes Ocean Exploration Trust and its Exploration Vessel Nautilus, a partner vessel in exploration. Discoveries and technological advancements made through these mechanisms improve and enhance our understanding of the oceans. Through its support to and involvement of partners, NOAA Ocean Exploration makes it possible for them to discover and explore significant UCH sites (e.g., World War II maritime cultural landscapes11, outer continental shelf paleolandscapes12, historic shipwrecks13); improve UCH survey techniques (e.g., synthetic aperture sonars14, laser line scanners15, autonomous underwater vehicles16, photogrammetry for archaeological documentation17); and enhance community engagement, data sharing, and relationships with Indigenous communities (e.g., Deepwater Wonders of Wake Island18, Maritime Maya19) (Figure 1). 10 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ 11 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/23guam/welcome.html 12 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/22sunfish/welcome.html 13 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/19microbial-stowaways/welcome.html 14 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/development-partnerships/ex1904/welcome.html 15 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/development-partnerships/ex1904/logs/july31/july31.html 16 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/22shipwreck-detection/welcome.html 17 https://www.boem.gov/environment/virtual-archaeology-museum 18 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1606/logs/jul30/welcome.html 19 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/11maya/welcome.html 2 �Figure 1: Remotely operated vehicle Deep Discoverer approaches the bow of the Japanese cargo ship Amakasu Maru No. 1. (Source: NOAA Ocean Exploration) Input from the archaeological community is pivotal to the success of NOAA Ocean Exploration-led UCH operations, in particular. This input includes suggestions for UCH areas to explore, as well as guidance on best practices for archaeological documentation and data collection. Over the years, NOAA Ocean Exploration has successfully incorporated input from academic, public, private, local, and Indigenous partners in their exploration of UCH resources as well as the improvement of the technologies used for UCH surveys. This paper focuses on NOAA Ocean Exploration-led operations. It describes how members of the AsiaPacific archaeology community can engage with upcoming operations and contribute to a prioritization matrix for site selection in the region. NOAA Ocean Exploration Operations NOAA Ocean Exploration follows a nested approach to expedition planning that entails packaging individual weeks-long expeditions into a series of expeditions — and sometimes multiyear campaigns — forecasting operations three to five years out. This lead time ensures staff have enough time to plan expeditions and consider ocean science community priorities in the development of mission objectives and identification of areas of operation. Presently, NOAA Ocean Exploration is scoping priorities for a Pacific basin campaign between 2024 and 2026. Though subject to change as mission planning evolves, areas of operation under discussion include: Line Islands, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (Johnston Atoll, Wake Atoll, Howland Island, Baker Island), Marshall Islands, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Cook Islands, Palau, and Guam. As part of this upcoming campaign, NOAA Ocean Exploration will conduct operations in the Pacific basin including aboard NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer20 using four types of sonars to collect high-resolution seafloor and water column data (Table 1), a dual-body remotely operated vehicle (ROV) system capable of 20 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/about.html 3 �diving to depths up to 6,000 meters, and a suite of other instruments to help characterize the ocean, including a dynamic positioning system. Unlike many other ocean expeditions supported by NOAA, most of the scientists participating in NOAA Ocean Exploration’s expeditions do so from shore, thanks to telepresence technology21. Table 1. Data, and the respective file formats, typically collected during seafloor and water column mapping and remotely operated vehicle operations (adapted from Cuellar, 2023). File Type File Format Multibeam Echosounder (EM304) .kmall, .raw, .idx, .bot, .asc, .sd, .xyz Split-Beam Echosounder (EK60/80) .raw, .idx, .bot Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP; Teledyne Workhorse Mariner 300kHz and Teledyne RDI Ocean Surveyor 38kHz) .raw Sub-Bottom Profiler (Knudsen Chirp 3260) .xtf, .keb, .txt, .segy Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth (CTD; SeaBird SBE9-11 .asvp, .hrd, .hex, .xmlcon Plus and SBE32 Carousel With 12 10-liter Niskin Bottles) ROV High-Definition Video .mov ROV High-Definition Still Images .tiff, .jpeg, .jpg Geospatial Data .kmz, .shp, .tif, .kml, .txt Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) .xbt Event Logs and Dive Summaries .txt, .pdf NOAA Ocean Exploration uses a high-bandwidth satellite communications system capable of transmitting mapping and oceanographic data and real-time, high-definition video feeds from the ROVs through network connections to scientists on shore. Thus, a theoretically unlimited number of scientists can add their expertise to expeditions. At the same time, members of the public can also join in the excitement of ocean exploration and discoveries from their classroom, newsrooms, or home (Figure 2). 21 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/telepresence/telepresence.html 4 �Figure 2: With telepresence-enabled exploration, scientists and the public can participate in NOAA Ocean Exploration expeditions from anywhere in the world. (Source: NOAA Ocean Exploration) Sensitive Data Protection Many of the UCH sites explored by NOAA Ocean Exploration require sensitive data stewardship and protection measures. The United States has several laws and regulations in place to protect UCH sites and safeguard sensitive information and data from improper release. To meet federal preservation mandates applicable to sensitive data management, including the National Historic Preservation Act 22 (NHPA) and the Sunken Military Craft Act23 (SMCA), NOAA Ocean Exploration follows strict internal planning, acquisition, post-processing, and archiving protocols for all seafloor mapping, ROV, and location-bearing data collected on UCH sites. In addition, NOAA Ocean Exploration determines the eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places of every UCH site where data is collected. Should a site be determined eligible for listing, NOAA Ocean Exploration initiates a National Historic Preservation Act Section 304 consultation with the Keeper’s Office of the National Register of Historic Places and relevant UCH site partners with research, management, or jurisdictional interest, including partners who suggested exploration of the site.24 If the site is a sunken U.S. military craft, NOAA Ocean Exploration and NOAA General Counsel work with Defense Secretaries to protect sensitive data under the SMCA. Community-Driven Archaeology NOAA Ocean Exploration has adopted a unique model of community-driven exploration that serves broad community interests and addresses data gaps while being responsive to specific community, agency, administration, and global priorities and drivers. This “Explorer Model” brings together the ocean science and resource management communities to collaboratively plan expeditions and explore areas of the deep 22 achp.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/nhpa.pdf 23 https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/policy-and-resource-management/sunken-military-craft-act/smca.html 24 Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to withhold from public disclosure information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property if disclosure of such information may cause a significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic property, or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Section 304 is only applicable to UCH sites eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places. 5 �ocean where data are scarce (Cantwell et al. 2020) (Figure 3). NOAA Ocean Exploration is employing the Explorer Model in the 2024-2026 campaign in the Pacific basin. The Explorer Model also applies to UCH exploration planning. Input regarding archaeological priorities from all interested parties, including state, local, and tribal governments and Indigenous communities, is fundamental to ensuring that NOAA Ocean Exploration activities in the Pacific address priorities of the archaeology community and help meet the heritage management and research needs of partners. Figure 3: Foundations of the Explorer Model (adapted from Cantwell et. al. 2020). Archaeologists, historians, resource managers, and others who engage in and research UCH from all sectors are invited to submit UCH priorities directly to NOAA Ocean Exploration. These submissions usually contain sensitive information that may include geographic coordinates of known or potential archaeology material, literature reviews of after-action reports, eyewitness accounts, and other primary source material. Dataset sensitivity is prioritized by NOAA Ocean Exploration and exchanges of sensitive information are brokered through a non-disclosure agreement, with data access limited to NOAA Ocean Exploration and submitting partner(s). By signing this agreement, all parties agree not to share these sensitive data without explicit permission from the partner(s). Once data sharing agreements are in place, NOAA Ocean Exploration creates an internal document containing contextual maps, site summaries, and links to relevant remote sensing data to inform operations planning. 6 �UCH recommendations are then added to an ArcGIS Pro 3.1.0 database and prioritized by historical and traditional significance, amount of community interest, environmental factors (estimated depth, existing data, substrate, confidence in existing coordinates), and potential hazards that affect probability of mission success. Expedition planners then correlate the recommendations with the planned operating areas of the ship and decide which UCH sites to consider for exploration. This process is exemplified by the following two case studies that showcase the Explorer Model and the importance of partner contributions to marine archaeology investigations. B-29 CASE STUDY The Explorer Model is best exemplified by the 2016 discovery and characterization of a B-29 Superfortress aircraft lost in the Saipan Channel (Cantwell et. al. 2020a). This site and the potentially 10 other aircraft lost in this area include 53 service personnel missing in action. As such, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency25 (DPAA), which is responsible for the repatriation of unaccounted for Americans, became intrinsically involved and was able to support the mission by providing subject-matter expertise and information on open aircraft case files for the area. Additional historical and archaeological data were provided by the B-29 Restoration Team, the Seattle Museum of Flight, aviation historians, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) University’s Nautical Archaeology Program, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, East Carolina University’s Maritime Studies Program, the United States Air Force, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the Cavanaugh Flight Museum, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Historic Preservation, and NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (Lickliter-Mundon et. al. 2018). The discovery of this resource furthered public appreciation for, and academic understanding of, the B-29s lost near the Tinian North Field and served as a case study for deepwater ROV characterization of aircraft wreckage. The investigation also resulted in a successful National Historic Preservation Act Section 304 consultation with the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. The Keeper concurred with NOAA Ocean Exploration’s determination that the B-29 was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A: Military through its participation in Pacific theatre World War II (WWII) combat operations off Tinian Island and C: Design/Construction as a rare, submerged example of a significant design advancement in aviation history (NPS 1990). Public release of B-29 location data was determined to introduce risk of harm by increasing the likelihood of looting or other disturbance. Partner collaboration on the B-29 was pivotal at every step, from submitting it as a priority target to site discovery, characterization, peer-reviewed publication of research, and sensitive data protection and stewardship. Only with the collaborative and collective research of the partners listed above was the eligibility determination possible. AMAKASU MARU NO.1 CASE STUDY The WWII Battle of Wake Island claimed an estimated 900 to 1,000 Japanese soldiers and 100 American soldiers during the 16-day siege. The bravery and memory of these Japanese soldiers are entombed in 21 aircraft, one submarine, and two destroyers lost during their attempted taking of Wake Island. The Americans also lost several aircraft during the island’s defense. On August 11, 2016, NOAA Ocean Exploration and partners from the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii, the Global Foundation for Ocean Exploration, and multibeam echosounder expert Gary Fabian investigated an anomaly thought to be the potential remains of the Imperial Japanese Navy Kamikaze-class destroyer Hayate. ROVs Deep Discoverer and Seirios provided the first glimpse of the hull, whose side markings, 25 https://www.dpaa.mil/ 7 �armament, and cabin structure revealed it was not Hayate, but the Japanese water tanker Amakasu Maru No. 1 (Figure 1). Amakasu Maru No.1 was sunk by the USS Triton on December 24, 1942, after sustaining heavy torpedo damage on the port side off Wake Atoll, now located in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The ship now sits upright and serves as a habitat for anemones, glass sponges, anglerfish, squat lobsters, and other animals. Its remains were fully documented by the exploration team, and the entire ROV dive was broadcast live to engage participating scientists ashore and to share this important UCH site with the public (Cantelas and Wagner 2016). Data from this dive became the subject matter for a master’s thesis that further characterized the site and its place in history (Yoxsimer 2022). Yoxsimer’s thesis exemplifies student-led products supported by NOAA Ocean Exploration-collected data and potential student engagement opportunities for upcoming missions in the Pacific basin. From beginning to end, UCH partnerships allowed NOAA Ocean Exploration to discover Amakasu Maru No. 1 and memorialize the sacrifices made by the sailors aboard. Now, Amakasu Maru No. 1 is known in the archaeological record and its story can be shared with the world. CONCLUSION Between 2024 and 2026, NOAA Ocean Exploration will continue its community-driven exploration in the Pacific basin. This presents an opportunity for the Asia-Pacific UCH community to participate in the planning, execution, and post-expedition data workup. While there are no guarantees on the amount, location, and frequency of UCH operations, NOAA Ocean Exploration is looking to the Asia-Pacific UCH community to help guide the Pacific campaign. This will lean heavily on partnerships, both familiar and new, including international collaborative efforts. Together, we can prioritize, explore, discover, and protect the important deep water UCH resources of the Pacific Basin and broaden understanding of our collective past. Information about how to participate in the Pacific basin campaign is available on NOAA Ocean Exploration website’s NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer: Get Involved26 web page and through the authors of this paper, who can facilitate participation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The processes and capacities discussed have been steadily built across the NOAA Ocean Exploration program and its partners over the past 23 years. This includes contributions and leadership from the program’s Outreach and Education, Expeditions and Exploration, Administration and Finance, and Science and Technology divisions. Special thanks to the Global Foundation for Ocean Exploration27 and NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aircraft Operations28 for helping execute our mission. 26 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/getinvolved.html 27 https://www.engineeringfordiscovery.org/ 28 https://www.omao.noaa.gov/ 8 �BIBLIOGRAPHY Cantelas, Frank and Katie Wagner. 2016. “NOAA Discovers and Explorers Japanese Cargo Ship, Amakasu Maru.” NOAA Ocean Exploration Website. Published August 14, 2016. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1606/logs/aug14/welcome.html. Cantwell, Kasey, Shirley Pomponi, Patty Fryer, Derek Sowers, Frank Cantelas, Amanda Netburn, Michael Ford, and Amy Bowman. “EX-16-05 Leg 3 Expedition Report: 2016 Deepwater Exploration of the Marianas (ROV/Mapping).” NOAA Ocean Exploration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. United States, 2020a. https://doi.org/10.25923/xy0q-0f35. Cantwell, Kasey, Brian R.C. Kennedy, Mashkoor, Malik, Kelley P. Suhre, Rachel Medley, Elizabeth Lobecker, Shannon Hoy, Caitlin Adams, Matt Dornback, and Megan Cromwell. “The Explorer Model: Lessons from 10 Years of Community-Led Ocean Exploration and Open Data.” Journal of Ocean Technology 15:3 (2020b): 67-76. Cuellar, Sam. “NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer FY23 Field Season Instructions.” NOAA Ocean Exploration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. United States, 2023. https://doi.org/10.25923/f06c-5x38. Lickliter-Mundon, Megan, Frank Cantelas, Wendy Coble, Jeremy Kinney, Jennifer McKinnon, Jeffrey Meyer, Andrew Pietruszka, Brad Pilgrim, James R. Pruitt, and Hans Van Tilburg. “Identification of a Deep-Water B-29 WWII Aircraft via ROV Telepresence Survey.” Journal of Maritime Archaeology, 13 (2018):167-189. (NHPA) National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. §300101 et. seq., 2021. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/201806/nhpa.pdf. NPS (National Park Service). “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” United States, 1990. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. (SMCA) Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004. 10 U.S.C. §113 note., 2021. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwaterarchaeology/policy-and-resource-management/sunken-military-craft-act/smca.html. Yoxsimer, Andrea. 2022. “Amakasu Maru No.1: An Analysis of a Remotely Operated Vehicle Survey on a WWII Japanese Requisitioned Shipwreck in the Pacific.” Master’s thesis, East Carolina University, 2022. 9 � 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 Community Driven Marine Archaeology: NOAA Ocean Exploration Operations in the Pacific Basin 2024-2026 Description An account of the resource With priority placed on the exploration of deep waters, NOAA Ocean Exploration applies the latest tools and technologies to explore previously unknown areas of the ocean, making discoveries of scientific, economic, and cultural value. As both a valuable cultural resource and habitat for marine organisms, NOAA Ocean Exploration’s priorities include maritime archaeology and the discovery of our underwater cultural heritage (UCH). Between 2024 and 2026, NOAA Ocean Exploration and partners will conduct exploratory seafloor mapping and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) explorations in the Pacific basin. This article details the tools, technologies, and typical datasets collected by our program and opportunities for the Asia-Pacific community of archaeologists, historians, and resource managers to contribute to our UCH research prioritization and participate in our live, publicly accessible telepresence-enabled operations. Using this community-driven archaeology model, we ensure this exploratory work will have the greatest impact and provide a publicly accessible platform for sharing our common cultural heritage. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Philip A. Hartmeyer Jeremy Weirich Hans Van Tilburg Adrienne Copeland Mashkoor Malik Frank Cantelas Sam Cuellar Kelley Suhre Kasey Cantwell 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. Hartmeyer, Philip A., Jeremy Weirich, Hans Van Tilburg, Adrienne Copeland, Mashkoor Malik, Frank Cantelas, Sam Cuellar, Kelley Suhre, Kasey Cantwell. 2023. “Community Driven Marine Archaeology: NOAA Ocean Exploration Operations in the Pacific Basin 2024-2026.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Veronica Walker-Vadillo. 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/1999 Asia-Pac Session 19 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/d6d06c5cd308ee2d0b0d10a3e719bced.pdf 9a6bbf05e603344fc0dff7ad07f302e2 PDF Text Text Lashing the loose planks: Making sense of the understudied “new” lashed-lug sites in Sumatra, Indonesia Agni Mochtar (Università di Napoli “L’Orientale”, Italy; National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia) ABSTRACT The topic of this abstract fits best within this Session 6 Lashed-lug boats: Emerging research from Southeast Asia and the Pacific because it presents new information about the understudied and/or unpublished lashed-lug boats/ships found within the last decade in the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. The case studies under consideration are the lashed-lug boat remains from sites in the provinces of North Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Jambi. The resources available to conduct the work include boat/ship timbers consisted of hull planks, wing ends, and other hull component, as well as rudders, kept in the artefact storages and museums. The research questions of this project are what new information can be obtained from a close examination of the boat/ship planks and other timbers, and how such information would contribute to the advancement of the knowledge about the lashed-lug boatbuilding. The result of the detailed documentation of the boat/ship remains is a comprehensive dataset which covers many variables including ones overlooked in previous research. This project is a part of the author’s doctoral research which expected result is the insights of variations within this particular boatbuilding and the factors causing the variations. Keywords: shipwreck analysis, hull catalogues, boat remains, and environmental context List of figures and tables Figure 1. Distribution map of the sites studied in the project. Figure 2. Plank fastening on a hull plank from Bongal site, North Sumatra Figure 3. Rudder from Cengal site, South Sumatra Table 1. Recapitulation of timbers documented in 2022–2023. Table 2. Preliminary grouping of hull timbers from Bongal site. INTRODUCTION The study of archaeological remains of the Southeast Asian lashed-lug boatbuilding tradition was initiated in the 1980s (Manguin 1989) and developed rather slowly in the following three decades. Fortunately, the last decade witnessed a more promising progress of this topic with new findings and more sites were being investigated closely. In Indonesia, archaeological missions to shipwreck or boat remains sites had been fluctuating throughout decades, with most missions conducted in response to accidental findings by local communities. Other times, the ship/boat timbers were discovered during excavation in areas not intended to investigate nautical archaeology, which resulted in preliminary documentation without further analysis. After the initial studies of general characteristics of the lashed-lug ship/boatbuilding, close examinations of artefactual data had provided essential information about the details of the construction and other related aspects such as raw materials and associated cargo. In the last decade, many findings were reported in Indonesia, especially in Sumatra (Akbar 2019; Indradjaja 2012; Intan 2017; Purnawibowo and Restiyadi 2020), but only limited detailed recording and in-depth analysis was performed. Sumatra had been one of the most important places in the history of maritime network within Indonesia, in Southeast Asia, as well as the Indian Ocean. However, it was unfortunate that ship/boatbuilding study was many times overlooked in the archaeological investigation of the region. This project attempts to closely examine the new findings of lashed-lug boat remains in Sumatra as well as to re-examine previous findings not analysed. The aim is to learn about how they can contribute to 1 �the discussion of the study of lashed-lug tradition. Emphasis is on the variations in the construction, to further the knowledge about the past seafaring in the region. CASE STUDIES The project presented in this paper investigated archaeological remains of lashed-lug watercrafts in three provinces in Sumatra, namely North Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Jambi (Figure 1). South Sumatra and Jambi were on the east coast of Sumatra and famous for their rich archaeological remains, especially the Buddhist artefacts and monuments, many associated to Sriwijaya Kingdoms, one of the largest kingdoms of pre-modern Indonesia (Degroot, Griffiths, and Manguin 2014; Utomo 2010). Major rivers, Musi and Batanghari, run as the vein of people’s activities since early times. Unsurprisingly, many lashed-lug sites were found along the riverbank of the two rivers and their tributaries (Sadzali 2019), also near the coastal lines (Rangkuti 2017). There are also sites located underwater, such as Tanjung Renggung (Adhityatama and Sulistyarto 2018) and Lingga (Flecker 2019), proof that the lashed-lug watercrafts were used in both inland and marine waters. The case study site in North Sumatra is located on the west coast, in Central Tapanuli Regency. In terms of archaeological remains, the regency was considered as one of the most important places in the history of Islam in Indonesia. The Barus site is the first point where Muslims came to Nusantara (modern Indonesia) in the ninth century CE (Guillot et al. 2008). However, the evidence of the initial landing, old harbour, or coastal settlement was almost non-existent. That was until the report in 2019 of archaeological findings from Bongal site, around 95km south of Barus. Surveys and excavations in the Bongal site reveal a likely harbour and settlement close to the Lumut river estuary. Artefacts from this site include ship and boat components, ceramics, beads, coins, and inscriptions. Radiocarbon dating results of one sample of timber and one sample of rope indicate the site was in use as early as the seventh century CE. Two centuries earlier than Barus (Purnawibowo and Mochtar 2021). Since the first report, the locals found more ship/boat timbers but, unfortunately, they were taken from the location without any documentation. RESOURCES Documentation for this project up to early 2023, included ship and boat timbers kept in different types of storage in three provinces. The storage varied from semi-permanent shed built near the site, a local government office, museum display rooms, museum storages, and an artefact storage building. Boat timbers in North Sumatra came from Bongal site, located in the western coast of Sumatra, on the rim of the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, those in both South Sumatra and Jambi came from several sites in the province. South Sumatra East coast 2 �Bongal Tulung Selapan Cengal Lambur Margomulyo Air Sugihan Figure 1. Distribution map of the sites studied in the project. In the last decade the national archaeological research centre in Indonesia, Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional (Puslit Arkenas) and the regional agency for archaeological research in South Sumatra, Balai Arkeologi Sumatera Selatan (Balar Sumsel) conducted surveys and excavations on the east coast of South Sumatra to study the wetland settlements in the area. During the missions the teams found components of lashed-lugs vessels which varied from keel planks, hull planks, rudders, to oars. According to the project reports and personal communication with the team members, larger timbers were left close to the site locations while some small to medium timbers were collected and kept in the offices for further analysis. During the author’s data collection in 2023, site visits were not possible due to the weather constraint thus the documentation of the ship/boat timbers from the east coast was conducted on those kept in the artefact storage in Balar Sumsel office. The recorded timbers include fragments of a keel plank, hull planks, a wing end, a rudder, and some paddles from Tulung Selapan site, Cengal site, and Margomulyo site. Inland Other boat timbers recorded during the data collection were found on the riverbank of Lematang River, a tributary of the Musi River, far inland around 200km from the coast. The locals who accidentally found the boat dismantled one of the extremities due to curiosity. The authorities then came and brought 3 �the timbers, which consisted of hull planks and a frame, to the artefact storage/display building of the Bumiayu temple complex. Jambi The timbers recorded during the data collection early this year were kept in Museum Siginjei, the regional museum of Jambi. Two fragments of hull planks, a wing end, and some rig components were displayed for the public. The museum storage housed one small vessel, possibly a canoe, with apparent lugs on the keel plank. According to the information from the museum employees, the canoe was found in Lambur Village, probably close to the recently excavated intact lashed-lug boat. Unlike the canoe, the provenance of the boat timbers being displayed was, unfortunately, unknown. North Sumatra The lashed-lug boat timbers from the Bongal site were kept in three locations namely, the semipermanent artefact storage building near the site, the local government office, and the Museum Abad 1 Hijriah in Surakarta, Central Java. The timbers in the storage and the office were documented in the 2023 data collection while those in the museum were documented last year. The timbers in the office were from the initial survey after the first report from the locals, they are generally small to medium fragments. Meanwhile, the timbers in the storage were mostly hull planks, the longest at over two meters and some planks were heavy with almost eight centimetres total thickness. FRAMEWORK The project presented in this paper was part of the author’s ongoing doctoral research project. It started last year and is expected to be finished by the end of 2024, titled ‘A technological study of lashedlugged, plank-built boats and vernacular boat building practices in Indonesia’. The project aims to investigate variations within the lashed-lug boatbuilding tradition through a close examination of archaeological remains found in Indonesia, with the aid of other data including ethnography and iconography. Variations within the lashed-lug boatbuilding were addressed previously (Manguin 2019; Lacsina 2019; Lacsina and Mochtar 2020) but with minimal investigation of possible influences. This project used a nautical archaeology approach to understand the correlation of attributes within one artefact, of one artefact to others, and of artefacts to other data. From such correlations the author synthesises aspects of the boatbuilding technology. Emphasis is on technique variations used in, among others, fastening systems, plank-shaping, bow and stern assembly, as well as to identify the possible variation influences. Due to the current non-intact stage, of the majority of the ship/boat timbers, the analysis was conducted by identification of the artefact attributes and their function and recorded in a database. RESULTS Documentation of timbers During data collection in 2022–2023 the author recorded 50 lashed-lug ship/boat components in various sizes and conditions (see Table 1). All the recorded timbers were first grouped into six types of components, namely keel plank, hull plank, bow/stern assembly, rudder, rig, and unidentified. The last category was to accommodate the timbers, which until this article was written, were still unidentified in 4 �terms of their position or function. The hull planks were, by far, the most oft recorded component. This was expected because in a complete boat or ship the number of hull planks are highest, compared to other components. Besides the verbal description, the author made manual drawings and/or photogrammetry of the timbers. The combination of recording methods was chosen to handle the different conditions of the data. Some timbers were waterlogged, and due to the time constraints, it was difficult to obtain detailed data. For example, the photogrammetry failed to record minor details such as the depth of the holes and the connections between lashing holes. In addition, close-up pictures were taken to record details, such as a fragment of rope inside a lashing hole. The author also recorded before and after photographs of all samples taken for radiocarbon dating and species identification. Table 1. Recapitulation of timbers documented in 2022–2023. No Ship/boat component 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Total Keel plank Hull plank Bow/stern assembly Rudder Rig Unidentified Qty 2 31 6 5 1 3 50 Keel plank and hull planks, preliminary analysis The initial stage of analysis was conducted on hull planks because they held many attributes related to the construction of the vessel. Macroscopic observation was performed on surfaces and the seams of planks to identify the dowel holes, lashing holes, and/or peg holes. Observation was also performed to see variables such as degree of degradation, shape of lugs, type of plank fastening, and type of joinery. Whenever possible, tool marks and other technological traces were observed and analysed. Every attribute on each plank was recorded in a database, which was further elaboration on the extensive database published by Manguin (2019). Whilst his database included both lashed-lug and non-lashedlug vessels found in Southeast Asia, the author’s database only covered lashed-lug vessels in Indonesia, with emphasis on the new and/or unrecorded findings. The database helped the author to identify the similarities and dissimilarities in the construction of the lashed-lug vessels represented by the hull planks. Plank fastenings The hull planks showed variations of the plank fastening. The majority was the combination of dowels and plank lashings. A particular case was found in the planks from Bongal site (Figure 2) where four types of fastening holes were identified: dowel holes, lashing holes, peg holes, and go-through holes. The last type of hole was possibly drilled for a long dowel that went through three parallel planks. A keel plank showed the use of only lashings for plank fastening, even though they were rather thick and heavy. 5 �Figure 2. Plank fastening on a hull plank from Bongal site, North Sumatra. Lugs In general, the lugs are rectangular with two pairs of lashing holes. Some variations were noted on some planks with ridges, but the number of lashing holes was always the same. Apparent distinction is found on the canoe from Lambur, which had smaller lugs with one large hole through the width of the lug. Correlation between attributes The Bongal site had further in-depth analysis to understand the assemblage of hull planks, which attributes were varied and without information of the provenience. The grouping of the planks based on their attributes revealed a possibility of multiple vessels in one site. At this stage, the author put the planks into four groups based on the difference between the plank fastening system, the dimension of the plank, and the character of the wood such as the weight and the level of degradation (see Table 2). The last two variables might indicate different species, which were a weak evidence to support a possibility of different vessels, like those examples in the Butuan boat that used several different types of wood (Lacsina 2016) or in case of a repairment. However, combined with a significant difference in the plank thickness and the use of different plank fastening, it was difficult to imagine them to be from the same vessel. Table 2. Preliminary grouping of hull timbers from Bongal site. GROUP DESCRIPTION A Plank with scarf joints, 3cm thick Heavily degraded, 5cm thick Flat, heavy plank, rectangular cut joints, 3cm thick Thick plank, 7cm thick B C D LUGS DOWELS PLANK LASHINGS PEGS QTY Rectangle, 2 pairs of lashing holes Rectangle, 2 pairs of lashing holes Rectangle, 2 pairs of lashing holes yes no yes 2 yes yes no 2 yes yes no 4 Rectangle, 2 pairs of lashing holes yes yes yes 1 TOTAL 9 6 �Rudder The rudders documented during the data collection were found by local people without clear information of their finding process. Although they were different in dimension, all rudders due to their similar features could be easily identified as belonging to same tradition. The whole rudder, the stock and the blade, made from one solid wood. The stock was cylindrical and gradually flattens towards the mid part to form the blade. The interpretation of this type of rudder as one used in lashed-lug vessels was based on the rudders found in Bongal site and from the Cengal site. Despite the missing information about the actual location, the rudder from Bongal site was found in the same area with the hull planks and other ship/boat timbers and, to date, all the ship/boat timbers unearthed from the site belong to the lashed-lug tradition. Similarly, the rudder from Cengal site (Figure 3) was found during a survey where local people report the rudder with other lashed-lug hull planks. Further, during the excavation in Air Sugihan area in South Sumatra, the team unearthed some lashed-lug planks and a rudder in one context (Indradjaja 2012; Intan 2017). Further analysis During the data collection, wood samples were taken from selected timbers for radiocarbon dating and species identification. The author proposes the results from the analysis will correlate the variation within the construction with different periods and/or with different raw materials. Secondary sources about lashed-lug ship/boats from other places in the region would also be consulted to investigate whether the variations were due to the production of vessels in different workshops. CONCLUSION After the success of a previous study in synthesizing the general characters of the lashed-lug ship/boatbuilding traditions (see Session 6_Lacsina and Mochtar in this APConf 5 Proceedings), we now need the investigation of archaeological remains in detail, and to update the record of new findings throughout Southeast Asia. Indonesia played a significant role in the early days of this study because many lashed-lug archaeological remains were found. This became the primary data to understand the tradition, which previously was only in historic ethnographic research. However, the work of the author’s project was conducted to further the knowledge of the ship/boatbuilding tradition by closely examining details in the more recently discovered and/or understudied ship/boat timbers. The result from the preliminary analysis of the timbers highlights the variations of techniques used in the lashed-lug construction, even on the planks from one site. Such variations were noted in previous research but further study to understand them and the influencing factor behind such variations were scarcely done. As it progressed with the analysis on more timbers, as the radiocarbon dating and species identification results return, hopefully this project would provide more detailed insight. Meanwhile, from observations during data collection and preliminary post-fieldwork analysis, this project has documented new information regarding the lashed-lug ship/boatbuilding, such as propulsion of the vessels and the identification of a harbour site on the eastern rim of the Indian Ocean. 7 �Figure 3. Rudder from Cengal site, South Sumatra. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express gratitude to the institutions, who authorise all the data documented in this project, for the permit to access their collection: BRIN Sumatera Selatan, BRIN Sumatera Utara, BPK Wilayah V Jambi, BPK Wilayah VI Sumatera Selatan, Dinas Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Tapanuli Tengah, Museum Abad 1 Hijriah Surakarta, Museum Siginjei Jambi, as well as Museum Balaputeradewa and Museum Sriwijaya Palembang. The author would also like to thank Prof Chiara Zazzaro at Università di Napoli “L’Orientale” as the author’s tutor for this research for all the supports and supervisions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adhityatama, Shinatria, and Priyatno Hadi Sulistyarto. ‘Bukti Langsung Interaksi Perdagangan di Kepulauan Riau: Studi Pada Situs Arkeologi Bawah Air di Pulau Natuna dan Pulau Bintan’. Jurnal Segara 14, no. 3 (6 December 2018): 127–35. https://doi.org/10.15578/SEGARA.V14I3.7348. Akbar, Ali. ‘Laporan Akhir Pelaksanaan Kegiatan Penelitian Situs Perahu Kuno di Desa Lambur, Kecamatan Muara Sabak Timur’, 2019. Degroot, Véronique, Arlo Griffiths, and P.-Y. Manguin, eds. Kedatuan Sriwijaya: Kajian Sumber Prasasti dan Arkeologi. 2nd ed. Depok, Indonesia: Komunitas Bambu, 2014. Flecker, Michael. ‘Sister Ships: Three Early 12th Century CE Shipwrecks in Southeast Asia’. Current Science 10 (2019): 1654–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27138527. Guillot, Claude, M. -F. Dupoizat, U Sumaryo, D Perret, and H Surachman. Barus Seribu Tahun Yang Lalu. Jakarta: KPG & Ecole française d’Extrême‐Orient, 2008. Indradjaja, Agustijanto. ‘The Pre-Srivijaya Period on the Eastern Coast of Sumatra: Preliminary Research at the Air Sugihan Site’. In Connecting Empires and States: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, 32–42, 2012. Intan, M. Fadlan S. Air Sugihan: Jejak Sungai Lama di Lahan Basah. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak, 2017. Lacsina, Ligaya. ‘Examining Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian Boatbuilding: An Archaeological Study of the Butuan Boats and the Use of Edge-Joined Planking in Local and Regional Construction Techniques’. Flinders University, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/download/54800536/ThesisLacsina2016.pdf. ———. ‘The Same-Same Boatbuilding Tradition? Looking at Different Examples of Lashed-Lug Boats from the Southeast Asia Region’. In Past, Present, and Future of ASEAN Maritime Heritage, 38–53, 2019. Lacsina, Ligaya, and Agni Sesaria Mochtar. ‘The Lashed-Lug Tradition Beyond the Commonalities: A Closer Examination of Variations in Keel Design within Southeast Asian Shipbuilding Tradition’. In Advancing Southeast Asian Archaeology 2019: Selected Papers from the Second SEAMEO SPAFA International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology, Bangkok, Thailand 2019, edited by Noel Hidalgo Tan. Seameo-Spafa, 2020. https://www.spafajournal.org/index.php/spafapub/issue/view/136. 8 �Manguin, P.-Y. ‘Sewn Boats of Southeast Asia: The Stitched-Plank and Lashed-Lug Tradition’. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 48, no. 2 (2019): 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/1095-9270.12367. ———. ‘The Trading Ships of Insular Southeast Asia: New Evidence from Indonesian Archaeological Sites.’ In Proceedings of Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi in Yogyakarta, 4 – 7 Juli 1989. Ikatan Ahli Arkeologi Indonesia, 1989. Purnawibowo, Stanov, and Agni Sesaria Mochtar. ‘Boatbuilding Technology Analysis of the Seventh Century Boat Remains from Bongal Site on the West Coast of North Sumatera’. KALPATARU 30, no. 2 (30 November 2021): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.24832/kpt.v30i2.821. Purnawibowo, Stanov, and Andri Restiyadi. ‘Identifikasi Tinggalan Arkeologi Maritim di Situs Bukit Bongal, Tapanuli Tengah, Sumatera Utara’. Medan, 2020. Rangkuti, Nurhadi. ‘Teluk Cengal: Lokasi Pelabuhan Sriwijaya?’ Berkala Arkeologi 37, no. 2 (11 December 2017): 125–40. https://doi.org/10.30883/jba.v37i2.206. Sadzali, Asyhadi Mufsi. ‘Hulu ke Hilir: Jaringan dan Sistem Perniagaan Sungai Kerajaan Srivijaya’. Paradigma, Jurnal Kajian Budaya 9, no. 1 (2019): 61. https://doi.org/10.17510/paradigma.v9i1.276. Utomo, Bambang Budi, ed. Ekspedisi Sriwijaya: Mencari Jalur yang Hilang. Palembang: Balai Arkeologi Palembang, 2010. 9 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2023 Session 6: Lashed-lug boats: Emerging research from Southeast Asia and the Pacific Subject The topic of the resource Session 6 papers Description An account of the resource Papers presented at Session 6 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lashing the loose planks: Making sense of the understudied “new” lashed-lug sites in Sumatra, Indonesia Description An account of the resource The topic of this abstract fits best within this Session 6 Lashed-lug boats: Emerging research from Southeast Asia and the Pacific because it presents new information about the understudied and/or unpublished lashed-lug boats/ships found within the last decade in the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. The case studies under consideration are the lashed-lug boat remains from sites in the provinces of North Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Jambi. The resources available to conduct the work include boat/ship timbers consisted of hull planks, wing ends, and other hull component, as well as rudders, kept in the artefact storages and museums. The research questions of this project are what new information can be obtained from a close examination of the boat/ship planks and other timbers, and how such information would contribute to the advancement of the knowledge about the lashed-lug boatbuilding. The result of the detailed documentation of the boat/ship remains is a comprehensive dataset which covers many variables including ones overlooked in previous research. This project is a part of the author’s doctoral research which expected result is the insights of variations within this particular boatbuilding and the factors causing the variations. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agni Mochtar 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. Mochtar, Agni. 2023. “Lashing the loose planks: Making sense of the understudied “new” lashed-lug sites in Sumatra, Indonesia.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, Ligaya Lacsina, Agni Mochtar, and Pierre-Yves Manguin. 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/1942 Asia-Pac Session 6 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/99fa28cddc8bac103ef9f04b52d265c8.pdf ae2468f942b018da26c628be8e87d652 PDF Text Text The experimental reconstructions of the Punjulharjo boat from Indonesia: New insights for understanding the lashed-lug boatbuilding techniques. Chiara Zazzaro (Università di Napoli L’Orientale, Italy) Agni Mochtar (Università di Napoli L’Orientale, Italy; National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia) Luigi Ombrato (Università di Napoli Federico II, Italy) ABSTRACT The article presents the methodology applied for the re-investigation and for the experimental reconstruction of the Punjulharjo boat, the most complete Southeast Asian lashed-lug boat found to date. This work, based on archaeological data, ethnographic, and iconographic sources, brought better understanding of the boat and of the lashed-lug system. Archaeological data were gathered through direct observation of the Punjulharjo boat remains displayed on the original finding location and examination of photos taken during the excavation. The reconstruction approach was engineering and experimental, it consisted in producing hypothetical representations of the Punjulharjo boat, in digital, virtual and 3D print form. As a result, the team identified different lashing systems, hypothesized diverse uses of the lugs within the planking joinery and vertical structures, illustrated the complexity of the planking pattern and hypothesized the aspect and location (or relocation) of the beams, rudders, mast, and other superstructures. Keywords: photogrammetry, 3D modelling, hypothetical restitution, and land shipwreck List of figures Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of boat remains with lashed-lug joints, found in Southeast Asia. (Photo Agni Mochtar). Figure 2. Photo showing the location of the Punjulharjo boat exhibit hall. (Photo: Ahmad Ginanjar Purnawibawa). Figure 3. Adze mark (a). Saw mark (b). (Photo: Chiara Zazzaro). Figure 4. Agni Mochtar taking wood samples from the Punjulharjo boat. (Photo: Chiara Zazzaro). Figure 5. Ahmad Ginanjar Purnawibawa doing the photogrammetry of the Punjulharjo boat. (Photo: Chiara Zazzaro). INTRODUCTION The Punjulharjo boat belongs to the shell-first, lashed-lug construction, one of the boat building traditions in Southeast Asia. To date, over twenty sites with boat remains showing lashed-lug construction have been found in Southeast Asia, unfortunately, unless the Punjulharjo boat, most of them are fragmentary (Figure 1) (Manguin 2019; Shinatria 2018). The most prominent feature of this tradition is the protruding lugs carved out on the edge-joined hull planks, where the frames were placed on to and were lashed with ropes (usually Arenga pinnata, sugar palm). Plank fastening consists of ligatures, dowels, or a combination of both. Another characteristic of this type of construction is the use of a keel plank and wing ends, two or more overlapped wooden blocks on each extremity. The shell-first wooden construction and the use of the edge-joint dowels is still employed today in some boatyards in Indonesia, while the lashed-lug construction is more rarely attested (see Lamalera, East Nusa Tenggara, Barnes 1996). Comparable quarter rudders fittings, wing ends, and further construction 1 �Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of boat remains with lashed-lug joints, found in Southeast Asia. (Photo Agni Mochtar). features are attested in contemporary Indonesian boats, therefore the ethnographic method has been largely applied together with archaeological and iconographic comparisons for the reconstruction of the possible original aspect of the boat. After presenting the previous and current state of our knowledge on the Punjulharjo boat, the authors will discuss the methodology applied for the study of the environmental context and of the boat architecture, as well as methods and procedures employed for the analysis of the hull (distortions and species analysis), to understand the use and function of the boat and to achieve a preliminary hypothetical reconstructions of the original aspect of the boat. The final results will be presented in a comprehensive forthcoming publication. CASE STUDY The Punjulharjo boat is the most ancient complete wooden vessel known to date in Southeast Asia, found in the village of Punjulharjo, District of Rembang in 2008. The boat was buried below ca. 2 meters of intertidal soil, 500 meters from the actual shoreline, in an area today occupied by salters. Today, the boat is displayed in a semi-open building in its original finding location (Figure 2). After the initial finding, an excavation was conducted by Balai Arkeologi Yogyakarta in 2009. The excavation team found that the hull was still intact from the bow to the stern with only a few upper strakes missing, many internal strengthening components were also still intact. The team reported that 2 �Figure 2. Photo showing the location of the Punjulharjo boat exhibit hall. (Photo: Ahmad Ginanjar Purnawibawa). the boat was 15.6m in length, 4.6m in width amidship. The planks were fastened by dowels and lashings, while frames, stringers, and stanchions were fastened exclusively by lashings. The reports from the 2009 excavation provided us with remarkable information about the boat (Siswanto 2010). However, at that time the boat was not analyzed using nautical archaeological approach and thus, many technological aspects of the boat were overlooked. One example is that the drawing of the plan view is missing important information about the plank fastening, resulting in inconsistency. After the excavation, the boat was handed over to the heritage preservation office and later was subjected to a lengthy conservation treatment using Polyethylene Glycol 400/4000. For conservation purposes, the hull was dismantled. Upon the completion of the treatment, the timbers were re-assembled, and the final result is what we can see now in the exhibition hall. Unfortunately, aside from a few floor timbers, all the internal strengthening components were broken down into small pieces and could not be reassembled. During the last phase of the conservation, Agni Mochtar visited the site and re-examined the boat remains with a new perspective, using nautical archaeological approach for her master degree thesis (Mochtar 2018). The re-examination of the boat provided a better understanding of the building technique of the boat. Correction and addition were made to the previous drawings to offer a better representation of the actual boat. Mochtar has added all the ligature holes on the planks to show how the hull was fastened, she also notices that there is a pattern in the dowel and ligature holes on the seam of the planks: one set consists of a pair of ligature holes flanked by one dowel hole on each side, and in between two sets there is an additional dowel hole. From this analysis, it was concluded that even though the boat was rather medium in size, the hull was robust with sufficient fastenings and internal strengthening. The thickness of the plank and the rigid bow and stern assembly also contributed to this. Ligatures were the primary fastening, supported by dowels in the planks seam, and with an addition of mortise and tenon on the extremities. The ligatures provided strong fastening, but at the same time gave enough flexibility to make the hull more durable. 3 �Mochtar’s master thesis also recorded a different measurement of the boat from the survey and excavation reports, especially the width of the beam. However, a closer investigation of the reason behind this was beyond the scope of her thesis, other than merely suspecting an incorrect postconservation reconstruction process (Mochtar 2018). In February and December 2020, a team of the Università di Napoli “L’Orientale” and Universitas Indonesia including Ginanjar Purnawibawa, visited the site of Punjulharjo with the aim to integrate the current state of knowledge of the boat with new observations and surveys. This team conducted a close inspection of the hull and a photogrammetry survey to provide a permanent record of the current state of conservation of the boat and for further study aimed at the analysis and reconstruction of the original aspect of the boat. The team also took over 300 detail photographs of the boat, aimed at detecting/showing tool marks, details of the joinery, plank distortions etc., and photographed the materials associated with the shipwreck kept in the site storage, including jars and bowl fragments, and bones. In January 2022 a team of Puslit Arkenas, Balai Arkeologi D.I. Yogyakarta, now BRIN, Università di Napoli “L’Orientale” and Universitas Indonesia visited the site, once again, to take systematic sampling of the wood species and to sample the sediments associated to the context of finding of the boat for geoarchaeological analysis. METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE 2020 AND 2022 FIELD SEASONS The study of the environmental context Boats found in land context usually share similar issues related to their study and interpretative process, so as similar approaches to survey methods; they are either been intentionally buried, or stranded / beached, or have been buried for environmental changing (Delgado 2013). For the Punjulharjo boat the first case can be excluded, as there is no evidence of rituals or related findings, therefore the second two options can be considered. Preliminary geomorphological and geoarchaeological investigations about the area were conducted by Carlo Donadio and Andri Purnomo with assistance of the team on the field. Considering that the boat was moved from its original context and that the boat’s exhibit hall has been built exactly in the same place where the boat was found, the team had to examine the environment in the area around and select a suitable spot where to sample the sediments for sedimentary analysis. The area selected for stratigraphic sampling was 47 meters south of the boat’s current position, this was estimated not to be contaminated or disturbed by modern activities. Soil samples were taken from sediment layers which were estimated to have come from the same stratigraphy of the site at the time of the discovery of the Punjulharjo boat, based on photographic documentation of excavation activities carried out by Balai Arkeologi D.I. Yogyakarta in 2009. The position of the sampling area was recorded by GPS and a stratigraphic section was excavated using simple tools (trowel, meter). Three soil samples were then taken from three different layers, each sample contained ± 500 g of soil. The sediments were then analyzed in the laboratories of the University of Napoli Federico II. The results of the analyses, together with a comprehensive interpretation, will be presented later in the final report of this project. Further observation on construction features Main observations on the construction features of the Punjulharjo boats were already conducted by Agni Mochtar for her master degree thesis (Mochtar 2018). Further observations conducted on the site in 4 �2020 included an inventory of tool marks, and systematic dowels and lugs distance measurements. Despite almost all the original dowels were substituted with new one during the restoration process, it was still possible to measure their original location either on the site using a meter or on the digital 3D model in areas that were not physically reachable. The patterns of the dowels distribution is confirmed as described by Mochtar (2018), the distance of the dowels from center to center is ca. 9-11cm in average with larger gaps in proximity of the stitches. As for the lugs, the lugs size is slightly variable, distances among lugs are pretty regular: ca. 83-88 cm from center to center and wider, up to 1 m in between the VII and the VIII frame from the stern, therefore in the aft part of the boat (see also Mochtar 2018). A portion of the planking with the lugs was 3D print in scale in order to experiment the lashing and stitching system manually. As for the tool marks: it was not always easy to detect them, considering the conservation treatment which may have affected the aspect of the wood surface or marks that may have been due to postexcavation manipulations. Despite that, adze marks were detected on the planking outer surface and on the rudder beam. Some are deep and almost perpendicular to the wood surface, others are tangent to the surface, both belonging to a tool bearing a blade ca. 4cm wide. Saw marks were detected in correspondence of all the lugs on the sides facing stern and the stem (Figure 3a). Possible chisel marks were also observed to finish the fittings of the rudder beam (Figure 3b). Wood sampling The 2009 report on the excavation of the Punjulharjo boat reported the identification of wood species only from three different parts of the boat, namely from a hull plank, a dowel, and a frame. The aim of the new research was to obtain a comprehensive information on the boat’s construction materials based on a greater number of samples and a more controlled collection and analysis process (Figure 4a). Wood samples were taken from all hull planks, the beam, stanchions, and frames. They were carefully taken using a knife and/or drill in non-visible areas. For each sampled area of the boat, photographic documentation of the conditions before and after the sampling was carried out. The sampling position was then recorded and mapped on the orthophoto extrapolated from the three-dimensional survey of the boat. The following samples were collected: 26 samples from the hull planks, 7 samples from the frames, 1 sample of the rudder beam, 3 samples from the dowels. Wood samples are in course of analyses by the Anatomy and Quality of Lignocellulose Materials laboratory (http://xylarium.pustekolah.org), at the Forest Products Research and Development Center of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia (http://hasilhutan.litbang.menlhk.go.id/). The photogrammetry survey and further analysis Previous survey methods on the Punjulharjo boat were conducted for the first time during the excavation in 2009, before the boat was dismantled for conservative purpose. The result was a series of drawings including a plan view, a longitudinal section and 17 cross sections corresponding to each lug alignment (Siswanto 2010). Plans and sections were drawn entirely by hand, an automatic level was used to determine the z coordinates of a number of points noted on the plan. These drawings lack descriptive details about the aspect of the wood, actual shape and size of the different elements, and dowels pattern. This may have been partially due to the high number of difficult areas to reach, to the intrinsic complexity of the boat construction, the high number of corners, and the in situ condition. The difficulties to represent the details in the previous drawings, due to the high number of corners for the presence of the lugs, and the difficult areas to reach, brought the team to choose a detailed photogrammetry as the best survey method. 5 �Figure 3. Adze mark (a, left). Saw mark (b, right). (Photo: Chiara Zazzaro). For the photogrammetry the team used two types of cameras, a Canon M100, taking up to 712 photos and a Sony RX100 II, taking up to 1021 photos, and a Drone DJI Mavic 2 Pro, taking up to 72 photographs. This latter was used to survey both the site around the museum and to obtain orthophotos of the plan view of the boat, to have more details of the inner hull, otherwise difficult to reach (Figure 4b). A close-range photogrammetry of a beam element was also conducted. The beam was found near the stern of the ship and was interpreted as a beam for positioning the rudders. Photographs were then processed using the software PhotoScan Pro, to produce point cloud, mesh, a 3D model of the boat and orthophotos. The 3D model was used as a basis to understand and correct the distortion and to integrate the missing parts of the hull. Observations made on the site were combined and completed with those made on the digital model. By reflecting and overlapping a series of sections, the team could better estimate the level of asymmetry, distortions and anomalies among port and starboard side of the hull which is too much for being proper of the boat: it could be due to the wreckage or to the depositional process, or to the reconstruction process after the restoration. Sheer fractures and sheer stress, due to rotation, were also noticed. In this case, the team tried to estimate the flexions of the sheer and mediate the asymmetry among the two sides. The corrected sections were used to extrapolate naval lines, the hypothetical original shape of the boat. As an example, the team suggested a correction of the width at amidship from 3.50m, as measured on the site, to ca. 3.37m, after correction. From the 3D model the team could also extrapolate a shell expansion plan, in this, length and width of the planks are respected, and their original shape is reconstructed mediating among the gaps and worn parts. These parts were carefully observed and measured on the field in 2020, in order to distinguish traces of decay and/or distortions and to integrate them in the most accurate way. Rotation inboard or outboard and angles of distortion in the planks seams were also recorded. The planking pattern shows that the central planks are much longer than those at fore and aft. Here, planks have joggled edges and hook scarfs: an intricate system to fit planks together preventing longitudinal slippage. Boatbuilders were forced to use shorter planks at fore and aft, but at the same time they had to prevent longitudinal slippage, considering that all the fastening elements, ligatures/stitches, dowels and lashings run transversally and there is nothing else to ensure longitudinal strength/compactness. Concerning the beam, originally found near the stern, this was interpreted as possible rudder beam and it was relocated on the stern, although it was difficult to decide at which height of the hull it should be relocated. At this scope the team had to try different fittings manipulating the beam digitally and rotating 6 �Figure 4. Agni Mochtar taking wood samples from the Punjulharjo boat (a, left). Ahmad Ginanjar Purnawibawa doing the photogrammetry of the Punjulharjo boat (b, right). (Photos: Chiara Zazzaro). it according to the visible features, such as grooves, holes and cavities, until it could fit in the hypothetical right place on the hull. The reconstruction process The reconstruction process consisted in integrating data collected from the in-depth study of the boat and from the 3D photogrammetric model with the evidence from other archaeological remains and from iconographic and ethnographic evidence. The internal strengthening, the lashing and stitching system were modeled based on previous excavation photos, ethnographic comparisons, such as the lashed-lug system employed in contemporary boats from Lamalera (Barnes 1996; Dwyer and Akerman 1996), and using an experimental approach. This consisted in printing three 3D digital models of hull portions to experiment the characteristics of the internal construction and the various options and combinations of the lashing and stitching systems recorded. The last step of the reconstruction process consisted in integrating not attested parts of the boat, such the mast, the sail and the rudder. These parts were reconstructed using ethnographic data from Lamalera and from ethnographic accounts, but also using iconographic comparisons, e.g. the representations of ships in the Borbudur temple. The result is a hypothetic 3D virtual reconstruction of the Punjulharjo boat. Acknowledgements Tri Subekso (Dinas Kebudayaan, Kepemudaan, dan Olahraga Kabupaten Semarang) and Retna Dyah Radityawati (Dinas Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Rembang) accompanied during the visit. The fieldwork was conducted under the auspicious of the Indonesian Ministry of Research and Technology and of the Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional (Arkenas), and it was conducted in the context of a long-term joint research project of the Università di Napoli “L’Orientale”, Universitas Indonesia and Arkenas titled: Indonesian Endangered Boatbuilding Knowledge, started in 2019. This interdisciplinary project aims at investigating Indonesian ancient and contemporary boatbuilding practices documenting the archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence in selected areas of the country. 7 �BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnes, R. H. Sea Hunters of Indonesia: Fishers and Weavers of Lamalera. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996. Burningham, Nick. “Indonesian quarter-rudder mountings.” IJNA 29, no 1 (1996): 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijna.2000. 0271. Delgado, J. P. “Ships on Land.” In The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, edited by Ben Ford, Donny L. Hamilton, and Alexis Catsambis, 182–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Dwyer, D., and K. Akerman. “The Pelédang: The lashed-lug whaling craft of Lamalera, Lomblen (Lembata), Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia.” The Beagle: Records of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory 14 (1996): 123–147. Horridge, G. A. “The Lashed‐lug Boat of the Eastern Archipelagoes, the Alcina MS and the Lomblen Whaling Boats.” Maritime Monographs and Reports 54. London: National Maritime Museum, 1982. Lacsina, L. “Examining Pre-colonial Southeast Asian boatbuilding: An archaeological study of the Butuan boats and the Use of edge-joined planking in local and regional construction techniques.” Phd diss., Flinders University, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/download/54-800536/ThesisLacsina2016.pdf Manguin, P.-Y. The Boat Remains of Punjulharjo: A preliminary report. EFEO, 2009. Manguin, P.‐Y. “Sewn Boats of Southeast Asia: The stitched‐plank and lashed‐lug tradition.” IJNA 48 (2019): 400–415. Mochtar, A. S. “The Seventh-century Punjulharjo Boat from Indonesia: A study of the early Southeast Asian lashed-lug boatbuilding tradition.” Master diss., Flinders University, 2018. https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/5b8a6d45-1c8d-4a109647e24526ef1714/1/ThesisMochtar2018.pdf Nishino, N., T. Aoyama, J. Kimura, T. Nogami, and T. L. Le. “Nishimura Masanari’s Study of the Earliest Known Shipwreck Found in Vietnam.” Asian Review of World Histories 5 (2017): 106–122. Priyanto, Waluyo Agus. “Conservation Research and Treatment Programs: Case Study of Ancient Boat Site in Rembang Regency.” The MUA Collection, 2020. Accessed September 23, 2020. http://www.themua.org/collections/items/show/1263. Purnawibowo, S., and A. Restiyadi. Identifikasi Tinggalan Arkeologi Maritim di Situs Bukit Bongal, Tapanuli Tengah, Sumatera Utara. Balai Arkeologi Provinsi Sumatera Utara, 2020. Siswanto, and N. Abbas. “Ringkasan Hasil Penelitian Situs Perahu Punjulharjo, Kabupaten Rembang.” Varuna Jurnal Arkeologi Bawah Air, 2010. Suranto, Y. “Sumbangan Pemikiran Bagi Penanganan Perahu Kuna Punjulharjo Rembang.” Varuna Jurnal Arkeologi Bawah Air, 2010. 8 � 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 6: Lashed-lug boats: Emerging research from Southeast Asia and the Pacific Subject The topic of the resource Session 6 papers Description An account of the resource Papers presented at Session 6 of the 2023 Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Experimental Reconstructions of the Punjulharjo Boat from Indonesia: New Insights for Understanding the Lashed-lug Boatbuilding Techniques. Description An account of the resource The article presents the methodology applied for the re-investigation and for the experimental reconstruction of the Punjulharjo boat, the most complete Southeast Asian lashed-lug boat found to date. This work, based on archaeological data, ethnographic, and iconographic sources, brought better understanding of the boat and of the lashed-lug system. Archaeological data were gathered through direct observation of the Punjulharjo boat remains displayed on the original finding location and examination of photos taken during the excavation. The reconstruction approach was engineering and experimental, it consisted in producing hypothetical representations of the Punjulharjo boat, in digital, virtual and 3D print form. As a result, the team identified different lashing systems, hypothesized diverse uses of the lugs within the planking joinery and vertical structures, illustrated the complexity of the planking pattern and hypothesized the aspect and location (or relocation) of the beams, rudders, mast, and other superstructures. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chiara Zazzaro Agni Mochtar Luigi Ombrato 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. Zazzaro, Chiara. 2023. “The experimental reconstructions of the Punjulharjo boat: New insights for understanding the lashed-lug boatbuilding techniques.” Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, Ligaya Lacsina, Agni Mochtar, and Pierre-Yves Manguin. 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/1945 Asia-Pac Session 6 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/15d494d7b18aeee72a24fbc0d2e01176.pdf 51b4d2c4db8bfac50d93cfd0a902df2a PDF Text Text The Belitung Wreck Site After Commercial Salvage In 1998 Agus Sudaryadi Abstract The Belitung Shipwreck Site, located at 17 meters (m) depth in Belitung waters, Indonesia, is a shipwreck site containing Tang Dynasty (AD 618-906) cargo that was lifted by private salvage companies, Limited Corporation/Perusahaan Terbatas (PT). Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration Company in 1998. 1 The salvaging process was done without involving Indonesian State archaeologists. The shipwreck is an Arab or Indian vessel that includes 60,000 artifacts from the Tang Dynasty. In 2005, the artifacts sold to Singapore Sentosa Leisure Group. In 2010, the Office for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Jambi conducted the first underwater archaeological survey at Belitung Shipwreck site in order to find out the conditions of the site after the salvaging operation. The result shows that the site is extremely ravaged, with unidentified ceramic fragments spread out in a radius of ± 20 square meters (m²). It seems clear that the ceramic fragments have been removed by the company then thrown back into the sea because considered non-commercial. Meanwhile, the structure of the actual shipwreck was not found. It was only a big hole with 6 m wide and 15 m long, which seems to be where the ship may have settled. The remnants are now just a few small wood fragments and a sizable chunk of wood, this maybe the mast-step. The Belitung Shipwreck is recognized worldwide as an extremely valuable find in Indonesian waters. Preservation efforts are needed to remind future generations that the shipwreck site very important for underwater archaeology in Indonesia. Some preservation efforts that can be done are legal protection, site rehabilitation, and establishing a maritime museum in Belitung Regency. The last of which efforts have initiated two years ago with the aim to preserve artifacts from Belitung shipwreck site and other underwater sites in Bangka Belitung Province. Keywords: Belitung, Tang cargo, Shipwreck site, Preservation Introduction The Fantastic selling price of the cargo of De Geldermalsen salvaged by Michael Hatcher in Riau water has stimulated businessmen in Indonesia who want to try their luck to get treasure. It encouraged the government to form a National Committee, one of its responsibilities is to manage licenses, salvage, and exploitation. One of the salvaged shipwrecks is Belitung Wreck or popularly known as the Tang Cargo. The company which salvaged it was PT. Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration, a German company. The company carried out excavation work at the site in September and October 1998, and continued in April 1999 (Flecker 2001:335). The process of salvage was done without involving archaeologists or Indonesian researchers. The Belitung wreck is the first archaeological evidence for direct trade between the western Indian Ocean and China. A remarkable portion of the ship’s hull survived. The hull planks were stitched together, with no sign of wooden dowels or iron fastening. The keel is 15.3 m long, a keelson, stringers, ceiling planks, and thwart beams still in 1 The term salvage is associated to random removal of ship parts or cargo for their reuse or sale; excavation is the term used for scientific methodology in the removal of heritage objects �place. The majority of the surviving cargo consisted of ceramics from the Changsha kilns2 of China. Primarily bowls and ewers, but also a smattering of figurines and jarlets. Other significant finds from the wreck include white-ware from the famous Ding Kilns, and Yue wares3 from Zhejiang Province, several rare pieces of high-fired blue and white, lead ballasts, some pieces of resin which would come from Sumatra, pillowshaped silver ingots, and a number of gold vessels (Flecker 2001:336-345). How is the Belitung Wreck now? Only fragments of tile remain and useless cuts of wood on the site. They are scattered about the seabed in 17 m depth to the west of Belitung Island. The identified cuts of wood are not known from which part of the wreck, if at all, the may have originated. Potentially, a propped-up wood chunk is the maststep. A long sand pit indicates the site of the shipwreck where it was found by the salvagers. What should be done with the ruins? This shipwreck is the only known ship from the 9th century Anno Domini (AD) that has been found. It needs preserving. Belitung Wreck now The location of Belitung Wreck site is in the Western Belitung Island. Its geographical location includes Batu Itam (Black Rock) village area, Sijuk district, Belitung regency, Bangka Belitung Archipelago province. To get to the site, we can start from Batu Itam beach about 3 km (1.8 mile) or from Nusantara port in Tanjung Pandan city, from which the distance is 8.8 km (5.4 mile). The visibility is quite good at around 5-7 m. Figure 1. The Location of The Belitung Wreck (Google Earth) The result of the survey done in November 2010 shows that the salvaging of the Belitung Wreck left broken jar and bowl ceramics. The scattered fragments of jars and 2 3 Changsha kilns located in Hunan Province where the ceramics produced a porcelain that the ancient Chinese likened to snow because of its delicacy �bowls are in about 20 m2 surrounding the wreck site. It seems that the fragments were lifted then thrown away again into the sea because of their broken condition. Figure 2. Fragment of Jars and Bowls in Seabed (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) Meanwhile, the ship itself can not be found again. There are only some small wood chunks left. The sinking of the ship in the seabed left a trace in the form of 6 m wide and 15 m long hole with orientation South West – North East. In the hole, there are many small fragments of tile and a part of the ship which is identified as the mast-step (Manurung 2010:8). Figure 3. a small wood fragment (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) �Figure 4. The wood predicted as the mast-step (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) Preservation Efforts The condition of Belitung Wreck is unknown so far after salvaging in 1998. We have no data about its. As a consequence, there have not been any preservation steps taken. There are many factors that cause this, some of which are unavailable human resources (see Wahjudin this volume) and the preservation of underwater sites has never been done before in Indonesia. Due to that case, in my opinion, the preservation that can be done is legal protection, it becomes the collection of maritime museum and a site rehabilitation is needed. a) Legal Protection UCH protection in Indonesia is very neglected compared with land cultural heritage. The salvaging of De Geldermalsen (The Nanking Cargo) incident in Riau Archipelago waters by Michael Hatcher in 1985-1986 has stirred up government and society (Utomo 2008:20-21). The auction 140,000 tiles and 225 bars of gold was held by Christie’s in Amsterdam totaled US$18 million. The Government reacted by implementing Presidential Decree No. 43 of 1989 on the National Committee for Salving and Exploiting Valuable Objects Retrieved from Shipwreck (henceforth referred to as the National Committee). The National Committee’s duty is to manage the licensing of survey, salvage, and exploitation4. The laws which protected Indonesian culture heritage at that time was Monumenten Ordonnantie (Netherland Law) No. 19 of 1931 (Staatblad 1931 No. 238) then changed into Monumenten Ordonnantie No. 21 of 1934 (Staatblad 1934 No. 515). 4 Until now, The Indonesia Government has issued three Presidential Decree, Presidential Decree No. 43/1989, Presidential Decree No. 107/2000, and Presidential Decree No. 19/2007. Now the National Comitte Chairman is Ministry of Marine and Fisheries. �From the salvaging of Geldermalsen’s cargo, Indonesia got neither financial nor non-financial award. The result of the auction was not done clearly, meanwhile the process of lifting, packing, conservation, and auction did not involve Indonesian archaeologists at all. Thus, there was no data, documentation nor improvement of underwater archaeologists’ knowledge in Indonesia. One of the more horrendous consequences of the event is that an Indonesian archaeologist is considered dead, his body thus far not found, who was active in the investigation of locating the Geldermalsen. He was an alumni of an underwater archaeologist training course held in Thailand in 1985 and 1986 (SEAMEO Project of Archaeology and Fine Arts). That incident left deep pain for Indonesian archaeologists and a gap in the knowledge on Indonesian UCH. To replace the old ineffective law in the Law No. 5/1992 was issued concerning culture heritage objects. The weakness of Indonesian law has been exploited by the looter and the salvaging of UCH. The cargo which is known as Belitung Wreck has been desalinated, conserved, and researched in New Zealand. The cargo taken out of the country against the rule. The auction conducted by Christie’s with a total earnings of US$32 million. The agreement that obliged the salvagers to share half the value was broken with only US$2.5 million delivered in total (Rachel 2009; Sofian 2010:21). In 1999 salvaging by Michael Hatcher occurred again to a shipwreck in Gaspar straits which is known as Teksing Cargo. The major findings were blue and white ceramics about 18th – 19th century AD produced in Dehua Kiln in Fujian Province. Not only ceramics, from the cargo found cannon, objects of brass and copper, watches, china ink container, folding knife, and incense burner (Widiati 2007:35). They were shipped to Australia in 43 containers. All the cargo of the ship was sold by Nagel auction in Stuttgart, Germany in November 2000. It sold 350,000 ceramics at a total 7,2 million deutsch marks (DM). The Indonesian government got only 2 million DM and only 1,000 ceramics (Wahjudin 2003:17). The forming of National Committee did not reduce the illegal salvaging of UCH. During 2005 – 2011 there have been eleven cases. Meanwhile, survey and legal salvaging were only 26. Of all the incidents, there was only one successful archaeological excavation namely the Cirebon Wreck salvaged by PT. Paradigma Putera Sejahtera cooperate with Cosmix, Belgia. The process of salvaging was done systematically under the supervision of government officials. There were 500,000 ceramics, objects of gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, bottle, glass, beads, coin, and precious stones (Utomo 2008:35-60). Law protection toward UCH in Indonesia has changed by the issue of Law No. 11/2010 on Culture Heritage. This new law is more firm in managing the discovery of culture heritage in the water and the repercussions for bringing it abroad. There are heavy punishments for those who break the law. The explanation about that is as follow: Discovery Government is obliged to bring about discovering of objects, building, structure and location predicted as Culture Heritage. The discovery of culture heritage or predicted as culture heritage can be done individually by excavating, diving, and/or lifting in the land and/or in the water. The discovery as meant in Verse (1) and (2) can only be done through research with caring about belonging right and location authority. �Everyone is prohibited to carry out discovery of culture heritage or predicted as culture heritage by excavating, diving, and/or lifting in the land and/or in the water as meant in Verse (2), except with license from government or local government with its authority. (Article 26, Versus 1-4) Carrying Foreigners and/or law institution can not possess and/or dominate culture heritage, except foreigners and/or foreign law institution that live and inhibit in Indonesia territorial; Foreigners and/or foreign law institution as meant in Verse (1) is prohibited to carry Culture Heritage, either all or a part of it, out of Indonesia territory. (Article 14, Verse 1 and 2) Culture Heritage, either all or a part of it, can only be brought out of Indonesia territory for the sake of research, cultural promotion, and/or exhibition; Everyone is forbidden to bring Culture Heritage as meant in Verse (1), except by Minister Permission . (Article 68, Verse 1 and 2) Punishment Everybody without governmental license or local government bring about discovery of Culture Heritage as meant in Article 26 Verse (4) is punished by sending to jail at least 3 (three) months and the longest is 10 (ten) years and/or fined at least Rp. 150,000,000,- (one hundred and fifty million rupiahs) and the most is Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiahs). (Article 103) Everybody without ministry licence, bring Cultural Heritage out of Indonesia territory as meant in article 68 Verse (2) is punished by sending to jail at least 6 (six) months and the longest is 10 (ten) years and/or fined at least Rp. 200,000,000,- (two hundred million rupiahs) and the most is Rp. 1,500,000,000,- (one billion and five hundred million rupiahs). (Article 109) How is the law protection of underwater culture heritage in Indonesia? still a lot of shipwreck site is not determined yet. Whereas, in Law No. 5/1992 about Culture Heritage Objects Verse 11 states, “Government determines the finding of Culture Heritage Objects or objects predicted as Culture Heritage Objects as meant in Article 10 Verse 1 about the site with its border”. Government Regulation No. 10 of 1993 about the implementation of Law No. 5/1992 about Culture Heritage Objects Article 24 Verse (1) states, “ in conserving Culture Heritage Objects Government decides the site”. Meanwhile Law No. 11/2010 has changed the determining of Culture Heritage becomes national and local government’s responsibility. According to verse (1): Regent and mayor issue the determining of Culture Heritage status 30 (thirty) days the longest after the recommendation is accepted by experts team which states the object, building. structures, location and/or geographic space unit which is registered as Culture Heritage. Regency and municipality government convey the result of determining to Provincial Government and continued to the central government. (Article 35) Government and local government can bring about the ranking of Culture Heritage based on the importance to be national ranking, province ranking, and regency/municipality ranking based on recommendation from Culture Heritage Expert Team.(Article 41) The determination of Belitung Wreck site as a possible site is due to survey result data (Manurung 2010:8-9). It was done after 12 years since its salvage. Before that, the obstacle of determining the location of the underwater site was lack of survey, so there was no underwater site data available that could aide in its identification. �Legal protection of the Belitung wreck and other underwater sites would need to be followed by marking the protect sites, both on land and at sea. The sign is installed on land are information board. The board provide information about the history of the particular wreck and layout of the site, but will also carry a strong conservation message, stressing the legal protection, and the responsibilities of divers when visiting them. The board installed adjacent to the slipway at a harbor from which divers access to a shipwreck. While at sea, the location of shipwreck with an installed buoy. The buoy is moored with rope/chain which is bound around the cement block in the seabed. On the cement block, there is a bronze plaque of the writing relating its lawful determination. b) Maritime Museum Since two years ago the Indonesian government prepared to build a maritime museum in Belitung Island. At that time, there were 8 hectares of land available for development. The choosing of Belitung Island as the location of maritime museum is quite appropriate due to the amount of shipwrecks around the seawater territory of Bangka and Belitung Island. Noted since 1950-1878 43 ships sank in the Gaspar straits and surroundings, including Gaspar Island, Karang Coope, Karang Beldeveree, Karang Arang Marai (Pramono 2005:85; Tangkilisan 2009:10). Wreck site found by Arqueonautas from 2007-2010 include 27 sites located at a depth of 6 m to 53 m. Condition of the sites has been largely heavily disturbed and looted. Seven sites are European shipwreck from the 19th century AD. Two of them are believed to be the location of Alceste5 and Forbes6 (Mirabal 2008: 28; Mirabal 2011:30) Indonesia has 275 museum with only two categorized as maritime museums. They are the Museum Bahari in Jakarta and Museum Bahari in Ende, Flores. However, the museums do not have underwater heritage collections. Museum Bahari in Jakarta is Culture Preserve building inherited from the Dutch government. The building was used by Dutch government officials as storehouse to keep, choose, and pack Indonesian commodities. Museum Bahari of Jakarta was officially opened on 7th July 1977. The collection exhibited in the museum consist of various kinds of classic Vereenigde OostIndische Compagnie (VOC) boats, Indonesian traditional boat, and models of modern boat. It also includes the equipment of sailing such as navigation tools, anchors, lighthouse models, and many kinds of cannon. It displays sea biota collection (fish in Indonesia’s seawater), technology of traditional boat building, and folklore of Indonesian fishermen customs. The museum exhibits Indonesian Navy dimension, cartography, maritime kingdom heroes and figures, and photos of the voyage of Koninkelijitke Paketvaart Mattscappi KPM) ship. Museum Bahari in Ende collects sea biota in Nusa Tenggara area. The total collection amounts to 22,000 kinds. The Maritime Museum in Belitung must build a new building. Ideally, the architecture of the building reflects Indonesian culture, like the shape of the ship, Indonesian traditional building, history of Indonesian maritime, or Indonesia’s sea potential . However, based on the comparison of maritime museums in Osaka Maritime 5 The English ship was on voyage to China with a famous ambassador on board. The ship was wrecked on this reef which now bears its name, Alceste Cliff (Wells 1995:94) 6 Forbes is a English country trading ship which sank on November during its voyage from China to India (Ibid.) �Museum, Japan, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle, Australia and Maritime Museum of Chicago, USA, the maritime building in Indonesia needs to consider the concept of developing modern architecture. For the collection, museum needs to add the collection of (1) Indonesian Maritime History, (2) Indonesian Maritime Culture, (3) Sailing technology and safety, (4) Variation of water transportation, (5) Port and shipping (6) Various kinds of weaponry, tools and social material cultures related to territorial defense and security (Supardi 2009:8-13). Problems with the collection that came from the Belitung wreck is most of the objects have belonged to the Singapore Artscience Museum. Indonesian Government has only 39 ceramics which are in the National Museum. For that we need to do a good negotiation so that Indonesia government to get additional artifacts the Belitung wreck. Artifacts from Belitung Wreck will also be the collection the Museum Timah in Belitung but most of the ceramics is broken. Other ceramics are in private collections and their number is unknown. c) Site Rehabilitation As illustrated above the rest of the site is only the scattered fragments of ceramic jars and some unprovenienced wood. I think that site should be preserved in a way rehabilitated. According to Indonesia Big Dictionary, rehabilitation is the recovery to previous condition (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia 1990:737). So in this paper, rehabilitation means the recovery to condition before the salvaging. The consideration factors to do the rehabilitation of Belitung Wreck are : 1. Important underwater site as the proof of sailing in 9th century AD 2. The location is near Belitung island 3. It is located about 17 meters deep 4. It can be developed for under water tourism resorts and complete the maritime museum Site rehabilitation activity is the reordering of scattered objects on the seabed and the returning the land objects to the sea. The land objects are the fragments of ceramics in a villa which used to be a basecamp when the salvaging took place and the seizure of court given to the Museum Timah in Belitung. In addition, it is needed to make the imitation from the pieces of the ship and other objects. Belitung Wreck Site Rehabilitation is expected to support society’s curiosity after visiting the maritime museum. They conduct diving tourism to know the situation under the sea. There are two spots that can be diving tourism destination which are the location of sunken ship and the reef that cause the sunken ship. Conclusion Belitung Wreck is one of underwater site salvaged without involving Indonesian archaeologists. Since it was salvaged not many people has known the condition of the site. It is different from the objects exposed in permanent exhibition or travelling exhibitions. It causes amazement and also controversy as lifting is considered an infringement of the 2001 Convention. Belitung Wreck site can be an example of how salvaging is a loss of objects to National governments. More importantly the information of the site was lost due to there �being no report submitted to the Indonesia government on the salvage operations or any of the conservation or auction follow-ups. There were only pieces of ceramics and planks of wood left on the seabed. It would have been best if the shipwreck site had been approached as a research and preservation activity; with the inclusion of scientific considerations and the preservation/monitoring of in situ objects. In my opinion it is much better to excavate only some objects designated to be exhibited in museums while leaving the rest in situ. Bibliography Departemen Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata, 1990 Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1997 Flecker, M., 2001 Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Cetakan Ketiga, Balai Pustaka. Himpunan Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia tentang Benda Cagar Budaya Republik ”A Ninth-century AD Arab or Indian Shipwreck in Indonesia: first evidence for direct trade with China”, in World Archaeology, Vol. 32, February Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 34 Tahun, 1989 Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 107 Tahun, 2000 Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 19 Tahun, 2007 Monumenten Staatblad 1931 No. 238 Ordonnantie No. 19 1931 Monumenten Staatblad 1934 No. 515 Ordonnantie No. 21 1934 Manurung, Y. H.M., Laporan Survei Peninggalan BawahAir di Perairan Belitung, 2010 Provinsi Kepulauan Bangka Belitung, Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi, 2010 Archaeological Survey Report of Wreck Sites Located in The Mirabal, A., Areas of Baginda and Belvedere Reefs and Bangka and 2008 Belitung Island During 2007 Season, Arqueonautas Worldwide, Jakarta �Mirabal, A., 2011 Pramono, D., 2005 Rachel 2009 Sofian, H. O., 2010 Supardi, N., 2009 Tangkilisan, Y. B., 2009 UNESCO 2001 Undang-Undang 11 Tahun 2011 Utomo, B. B., 2008 Wahjudin, J., 2003 Wells, T., 1995 Widiati, R., 2007 1992 2010 Expedition report of the ”BUDPAR-Arqueonautas” Project in the Area of Babel During 2009-2010 Seasons (From 13/11/09 to 30/11/09 and 23/05/10 to 22/10/10), Arqueonautas Worldwide, Jakarta. Budaya Bahari, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta Curating The Oceans: The Future of Singapore’s Past; accessed October 12th 2011: http://idlethink.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/curating-theoceans-the-future-of-singapores-past/ ”Keadaaan Terkini Situs Arkeologi Bawah Air Belitung Wreck, Perairan Batu Hitam, Kabupaten Belitung”, Jurnal Arkeologi Siddhayatra, Volume 15 Nomor 1 November, Balai Arkeologi Palembang, halaman 20-23. ”Konsep Pendirian Museum Maritim”, Seminar Persiapan Pendirian Museum Maritim di Belitung, 23 Juli 2009. ”Belitung Dalam Lintasan Sejarah Maritim Indonesia”, in Seminar Persiapan Pendirian Museum Maritim di Belitung, 23 July. Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage No. tentang Cagar Budaya Kapal Karam Abad Ke-10 Di Laut Jawa Utara Cirebon, PANNAS BMKT, Cetakan Pertama, Jakarta ”Lelang Keramik di Stuttgart, Jerman”, in Buletin Cagar Budaya, No. 3, Januari, Jakarta "Shipwrecks &Treasure in Southeast Asia with over 450 wrecks including the Flor Do Mar", in Times Edition, Singapore. Katalog Peninggalan Bawah Air di Indonesia, Direktorat Peninggalan Bawah Air, Jakarta Act No. 5 Year 1992 on Cultural Heritage Act No. 11 Year 2010 on 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 The Belitung Wreck Site After Commercial Salvage In 1998 Description An account of the resource The Belitung Shipwreck Site, located at 17 meters (m) depth in Belitung waters, Indonesia, is a shipwreck site containing Tang Dynasty (AD 618-906) cargo that was lifted by private salvage companies, Limited Corporation/Perusahaan Terbatas (PT). Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration Company in 1998. The salvaging process was done without involving Indonesian State archaeologists. The shipwreck is an Arab or Indian vessel that includes 60,000 artifacts from the Tang Dynasty. In 2005, the artifacts sold to Singapore Sentosa Leisure Group. In 2010, the Office for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Jambi conducted the first underwater archaeological survey at Belitung Shipwreck site in order to find out the conditions of the site after the salvaging operation. The result shows that the site is extremely ravaged, with unidentified ceramic fragments spread out in a radius of ± 20 square meters (m²). It seems clear that the ceramic fragments have been removed by the company then thrown back into the sea because considered non-commercial. Meanwhile, the structure of the actual shipwreck was not found. It was only a big hole with 6 m wide and 15 m long, which seems to be where the ship may have settled. The remnants are now just a few small wood fragments and a sizable chunk of wood, this maybe the mast-step. The Belitung Shipwreck is recognized worldwide as an extremely valuable find in Indonesian waters. Preservation efforts are needed to remind future generations that the shipwreck site very important for underwater archaeology in Indonesia. Some preservation efforts that can be done are legal protection, site rehabilitation, and establishing a maritime museum in Belitung Regency. The last of which efforts have initiated two years ago with the aim to preserve artifacts from Belitung shipwreck site and other underwater sites in Bangka Belitung Province. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agus Sudaryadi Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 12 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/45e35d31ebd1df301685a5a566064d87.pdf f5aeb522b779eb3c9cc7a405410f6e4a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2021 Session 8: Underwater and Maritime Archaeology in South East Asia Subject The topic of the resource Session 8 papers Description An account of the resource Abstract South East Asia is an Asian Sub Region with 11 countries with an area of 8.94 million square kilometres, and its water areas covering the China Sea, the Java Sea, the Sulu Sea, the Philippine Waters, the Celebes Sea, the Banda Sea, the Flores Sea, the Arafura Sea, the Timor Sea, and the Andaman Sea. With a total area of 2.5 % of the surface of all oceans in the world, South East Asia is a large sub region in the world which its waters and coastal areas are very rich in underwater and maritime cultural heritage. Underwater heritage in South East Asia are diverse and come from various times, namely from ancient Southeast Asian kingdoms, the European colonialism period, to World War II, which consisted of traditional ships of the South East Asian countries, Chinese junks China, Spanish Galleons and Naos, ships from the Middle East, VOC and EIC vessels; historic ships, planes, submarines during World War II; and also the remains of human settlements in the past or submerged landscape. The session will explore the richness of maritime history and the legacy of underwater and maritime cultural heritage in the countries of South East Asia. This South East Asian Session also seeks papers to be presented on the current development of underwater and maritime archaeology in South East Asia including the latest results of researches, studies, and projects of protection, preservation, sustainable use of underwater heritage, and the development of innovation and technology applying in the fields of underwater and maritime archaeology in various institutions in South East Asian countries. Moreover, the challenges, current threats, and any shortcomings that are currently being hot issues facing by South East Asian countries regionally, such as massive plundering of historic wrecks, destructive activities on shipwreck sites, natural disasters affecting underwater and maritime heritage, lack of long-term site monitoring and inappropriate management of underwater heritage will also be the focus of discussion in this session. This South East Asian Session also encourages the presentation of studies or projects on community engagement and opening access for the public in managing a sustainable underwater heritage in South East Asian countries, where the role of the local community is significant and can assist in determining the sustainability or the destruction of underwater and maritime heritage sites. Session Organiser: Nia Naelul Hasanah Ridwan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Underwater and Maritime Heritage Discovered on the “Spice Route” Ternate-Tidore Islands, North Mollucas Description An account of the resource Ternate and Tidore in the North Mollucas Islands, Mollucas Province, Indonesian Archipelago have a critical role as the main sources of clove and nutmeg in the “Spice Routes” global trading network. These exotic and valuable commodities have attracted the Spaniards and Portuguese to find the sea routes to Ternate and Tidore in the 1500s and followed by Dutch and British. Underwater and maritime archaeological research conducted by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of Indonesia in 2019 and 2021 aimed to study underwater heritage sites and historical maritime heritage from 16-17 century AD located in Ternate-Tidore Islands. Survey activities include SCUBA diving to search for and observe shipwreck sites, a bathymetry survey to map the depth and the contour of the seafloor, and spatial mapping of maritime heritage located in the coastline. Of the survey, 2 underwater sites were discovered. Soasio site is located at 15-20 m deep and Tongowai site at a depth of 37-42 m. The underwater remains in Soasio consist of blue-white Chinese ceramic from 2 different imperial periods of the Ming Dynasty, earthenware jars and ewers probably produced in Thailand. Meanwhile, Portuguese cannons manufactured in Macao and earthenware jars were found in Tongowai Site. The findings of underwater heritage sites in Soasio and Tongowai and the presence of several historical landmarks in Ternate and Tidore including the landing site of Trinidad and Victoria ships of Ferdinan Magellan-Juan Sebastian Elcano Expedition of Circumnavigation of the Earth are the physical evidence of the essential role of Ternate-Tidore in the maritime history of Indonesia and international commerce network in the Spice Route and Maritime Silk Route. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nia N. H. Ridwan Wisnu A. Gemilang Ulung J. Wisha Guntur A. Rahmawan Onggo F. Nichita Agus Sudaryadi Laila A. Jalil Irwansyah Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Ridwan, Nia N. H., Wisnu A. Gemilang, Ulung J. Wisha, Guntur A. Rahmawan, Onggo F. Nichita, Agus Sudaryadi, Laila A. Jalil, and Irwansyah. 2021. “Underwater and Maritime Heritage Discovered on the “Spice Route” Ternate-Tidore Islands, North Mollucas.” Edited by Brian Fahy, Hans Van Tilburg, Bill Jeffery, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Riley Smith. In Proceedings of Fourth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Keelung,Taiwan, and Virtual, November 1-5, 2021. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology URL: https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/exhibits/show/apconf-muchproceedings/item/688 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/80f1e497584bc9fecc48c9026acf2bda.pdf 8f0df9b4e4facd3b90711aaf0cb39183 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2021 Session 8: Underwater and Maritime Archaeology in South East Asia Subject The topic of the resource Session 8 papers Description An account of the resource Abstract South East Asia is an Asian Sub Region with 11 countries with an area of 8.94 million square kilometres, and its water areas covering the China Sea, the Java Sea, the Sulu Sea, the Philippine Waters, the Celebes Sea, the Banda Sea, the Flores Sea, the Arafura Sea, the Timor Sea, and the Andaman Sea. With a total area of 2.5 % of the surface of all oceans in the world, South East Asia is a large sub region in the world which its waters and coastal areas are very rich in underwater and maritime cultural heritage. Underwater heritage in South East Asia are diverse and come from various times, namely from ancient Southeast Asian kingdoms, the European colonialism period, to World War II, which consisted of traditional ships of the South East Asian countries, Chinese junks China, Spanish Galleons and Naos, ships from the Middle East, VOC and EIC vessels; historic ships, planes, submarines during World War II; and also the remains of human settlements in the past or submerged landscape. The session will explore the richness of maritime history and the legacy of underwater and maritime cultural heritage in the countries of South East Asia. This South East Asian Session also seeks papers to be presented on the current development of underwater and maritime archaeology in South East Asia including the latest results of researches, studies, and projects of protection, preservation, sustainable use of underwater heritage, and the development of innovation and technology applying in the fields of underwater and maritime archaeology in various institutions in South East Asian countries. Moreover, the challenges, current threats, and any shortcomings that are currently being hot issues facing by South East Asian countries regionally, such as massive plundering of historic wrecks, destructive activities on shipwreck sites, natural disasters affecting underwater and maritime heritage, lack of long-term site monitoring and inappropriate management of underwater heritage will also be the focus of discussion in this session. This South East Asian Session also encourages the presentation of studies or projects on community engagement and opening access for the public in managing a sustainable underwater heritage in South East Asian countries, where the role of the local community is significant and can assist in determining the sustainability or the destruction of underwater and maritime heritage sites. Session Organiser: Nia Naelul Hasanah Ridwan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hydro-Oceanographic Modelling Use in Underwater Archaeological Research of Shipwreck Site Discovered in Abang Island Waters, Riau Archipelago, Indonesia Description An account of the resource In 2020, the Research Institute for Coastal Resources and Vulnerability (RICRV) conducted an underwater archaeological survey in Abang Island waters, Riau Archipelago Province, Indonesia. The wreck site location is 64.14 km from Batam Island, and the archaeological remains lie at a depth of 20 meters. The underwater findings consist of hundreds of earthenware storage jars and ewers produced in Thailand and some blue-white porcelain plates from the Ming Dynasty era. The hydro-oceanographic data and ocean dynamics back-tracing modelling in the 1600s, along with the sedimentation and bathymetry profiling has been used to predict the sailing route of the ship, sunk in Abang Island waters. The sailing ships in the past would have relied on nature-based generators such as waves, tides, currents, and winds. According to the hydro-oceanographic modeling result, the extreme current flow generated by tidal and winds in the South China Sea in the 16th century AD peaked at 1.3 m/s during the northeast monsoon. This state could be more weakened during the southeast monsoon. According to the tidal phase delay and asymmetry and the presence of cargoes originating from China and Thailand, the ship was possibly sailing from the north via the South China Sea and cut through the Riau Archipelago from Bintan, which passed through a group of islands, including Abang Island to sail whether toward the north Malacca Strait or Bangka Belitung and Java. Additionally, based on the sediment transport model, the possibility of unidentified artifacts buried by sediment at the depth 60 cm beneath the surface bottom was sufficiently high. An excavation is recommended to prevent the archaeological remains from local looting and natural erosion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ulung J. Wisha Nia N. H. Ridwan Widodo S. Pranowo Wisnu A. Gemilang Guntur A. Rahmawan Stanov Purnawibowo Agus Sudaryadi Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Wisha, Ulung J., Nia N. H. Ridwan, Widodo S. Pranowo, Wisnu A. Gemilang, Guntur A. Rahmawan, Stanov Purnawibowo, and Agus Sudaryadi. 2021. “Hydro-Oceanographic Modelling Use in Underwater Archaeological Research of Shipwreck Site Discovered in Abang Island Waters, Riau Archipelago, Indonesia.” Edited by Brian Fahy, Hans Van Tilburg, Bill Jeffery, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Riley Smith. In Proceedings of Fourth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Keelung,Taiwan, and Virtual, November 1-5, 2021. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology URL: https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/exhibits/show/apconf-muchproceedings/item/689