51 10 700 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/20b6a705c96d1cd0d76c6ad13e98aaac.pdf f694b4626b1d71023545a1c4b620f34c PDF Text Text A survey on a petroglyph illustrating a watercraft at the hinterland site of Dehtal Mina Safah S iraz University Shadi Kalantar Tehran University Abstract: Dehtal is an important hinterland site, located 170 km away from the shores of the Persian Gulf in Bastak County, Hormozgan province. Dehtal is a petroglyph site possibly dating to the pre-Neolithic, according to various sources of evidence such as stone tools found within the Bastak area and the Dehtal plain. The petroglyphs themselves, however, more likely date to the 3rd millennium BC. According to historical written sources, the Bastak area was located on the road linking the so-called Silk Road to the East Asia-Persian Gulf maritime trade routes. One of these petroglyphs, which is located beside a seasonal river, illustrates a watercraft. The image shows a round-hull, double-ended craft with two masts and a long saturi (bowsprit). A long saturi is a characteristic feature of a “boom” ship. Booms were used for long-distance voyages within Indian Ocean and they are still in use today but now work with engines. Firstly, this article attempts to discern the shipbuilding details of the watercraft depicted in comparison with other ship illustrations as those found in the Maqamat al-Hariri and the vessel depiction uncovered by Whitehouse at Siraf. Secondly, we will discuss Dehtal as a passage from Persian Gulf to so-called Silk Road with a focus on archaeological reports and historical written sources. Introduction: This article firstly, introduces a hinterland rock art site named Dehtal dated back to a period from the Paleolithic Age to the Islamic era. This site took its name from the nearby village with the same name. Secondly, a petroglyph illustrating a watercraft that is situated within the Dehtal site �will be introduced and a typology of the craft will be discussed by comparing it with other similar watercraft illustrations. Regarding a long Saturi (bowsprit) showed in the watercraft illustration and due to this fact that such a long saturi is a characteristic of Boom ship, it is believed that the namely illustration shows a Boom ship. There is no evidence for dating the petroglyph, however, we will try to estimate it. Thirdly, the paper will discuss the reason why a Boom ship has been drawn in an inland desert. Rock Art site of Dehtal Not far from the ancient village of Dehtal in Godeh area, a rock art site of the same name has been located. Dehtal is in Bastak County at 170 kilometers north of the Persian Gulf and 110 kilometers south of Lar (Movahhed, 1970). The pictures of this site include all the categories of rock arts; human, animal, and plant motifs and symbols. Most of the motifs in the Dehtal site have been carved on circle or oval rocks made of limy sandstone with an average diameter of one meter and a height of half meter from the ground level using Petroglyph technique in an abstract style. Due to the climatic conditions of the area - high temperature difference between day and night, and extreme heat during spring and summer - some of the carved stones have been broken and divided into two halves. There has been no research done as to the makers of Dehtal petroglyphs. The measure of erosions and the repeat of drawings on over each other can be a sign of the importance of this site to the aboriginal inhabitants or being on the way of ancient roads for centuries. So, the scattered stones of Dehtal probably were a suitable bed for transferring the thoughts and rituals of inhabitants or recording observations by passengers. According to archeological findings and historical data derived from the Godeh area and Dehtal sites, the Dehtal �petroglyphs can be dated to a period between the Paleolithic Age to the Islamic era (Fig.1). Fig.1: A Landscape of the Dehtal site. (Authors) Bastak: History and historical Geography Dehtal is located in Bastak province, regarding this, we will have a look at the historical geography of Bastak in this part. It could help for understanding the land and marine trade roads which connected this site to the internal regions of Iran and shores of Persian Gulf as well as the probable role of the commercial caravans in making the figures of Dehtal. Bastak is one of the southern regions of Iran plateau placed between Bandar Lengeh, Hormozgan and Larestan. In fact, Bastak, as the gate of Fars to Persian Gulf, was on the way of commercial caravans from the past. So, it has had the considerable economic position. Also, Bastak always has involved in the trade and policy of the Persian Gulf. It has been the center of governing the extensive district between Lar province and Persian Gulf over the time, especially late three hundred years (Movahed, 1970). �According to the historical sources, like Farsnameh Naseri, Bastak is a new name for a bigger zone called Jahangireh (Fasaii, 1988). In fact, it was a part of the ancient Irahistan. It is a name recorded for Larestan within the sources of fourth to seventh H.D and encompassed the hinterlands between Siraf and modern Bandar Abas (Vosoughi et al., 2008). On the basis of the record of Farsnameh Ibn Balkhi, the rulers of Irahistan had never been the subordinate of the central government, unless there was a powerful governor in Fars (Ibn Balkhi, 1995). Bastak as a Carrefour: The ancient roads in Bastak and Irahistan region can be summarized as following: 1- A caravan road started from the nearby ports of Persian Gulf and after passing Kachouyeh, Kemshak, Tarakameh and Lamerd reached Jahrom and continued to Shiraz. This way has been used in flourishing of Kish Island. 2- The second road also started from the close ports of Kish Island and get to the Larestan with passing Jenah and Kouhaj. There are traces of caravanserais and reservoirs along this way. 3- The third road came from Lar to Tadrouyeh and finally ended to Ilud. Also the roads of Bastak to Bandar Lengeh, Lar, Faramarzan, Godeh, Rouydarat, Lamzan and Dezhgan are documented in 1970. All of these routes from Bandar Lengeh to Bastak and Lar, the similar caravanserais with a distance of three Farsang (6 myl) can be seen are mostly named Shah A'basi (Movahed, 1970). (Fig.2) �Fig.2: Three main ancient roads in Bastak and Irahistan region. (Authors) But Bastak is located on the most important route of the ancient world; the Southern route of the Silk Road and the Sea Route of the Spice Road (Adviyeh Sea Route). This south way separated from the east-west main route of Silk Road passing Rey and Isfahan, reached to Shiraz and finally after passing Irahistaan and Bastak regions ended at the port of Kish. Then, it joined the Sea Road of Spice, connected the east and the south of Asia through the Persian Gulf to the Europe and the Mediterranean's shores. During this route traded different goods such as silk, spice, pearl and so on (Reza, 1997). (Fig.3) �Fig.3: Route 1. Part of the South way of Silk Road. Route 2. Continuance of the Silk Road to the Persian Gulf. Route 3. Part of the Sea Road of Spice (Adviyeh Sea Route). (Authors) The important rivers of Bastak region are Shoor Galedar and Mehran. These rivers originates from around the Galedar desert and finally flows into the Persian Gulf (Movahhed, 1970; Vosoughi et al., 2008). The Shoor River streams into Godeh region, where the Dehtal site located in. This is a rich area in archaeological terms, containing prehistoric, historic and Islamic sites. Larestan and Bastak's regions are pointed during the Achaemenid period under the names of Yaoutiya, Tāravā and Praga/Forag in Daryush's manuscript at Biston (paragraph 5, 7, column 3) (Sharp, 2005). Yaoutiya was probably in the south-east of Fars, i.e. contemporary Larestaan (Fry, 2003). It is the territory that Vahizdata rioted and named himself Bardia. Finally, he defeated against the arm of Daryush in Tāravā and beside Praga, a town and mountain in Yaoutiya respectively (Sharp, ibid). Tāravā located at the east of Larestan on the commercial route of �Hormoz toward Kerman and Darab, and Praga is a region in the north of Taram, East of Larestan and North-east of Bastak most probably (Vosoughi et al., 2008). After the invasion of Arabs to this region, the name of Praga changed to Farag or Forag, while it has been recorded Praga in the geographical books of the initial times of Islam like Farsnameh Ibn Balkhi (Ibn Balkhi, 1995) Another historical name which could be adopted with the sphere of Bastak is Apostana. This name has been mentioned in the book of Aryan, as the anchorage of the navy of Nearchus, the admiral of Alexander at 325 B.C (Arrian, VIII, p. 38). We have to notice that the first part of the word "Apostana" can be "Ab" which means water and the second part is "stan" that means the place. So, Apostana can be "Abestan" which means the “land of water” with its native accent Bostaneh or Bostano. One of the features of this place mentioned in history of Aryan is being a center for hunting pearls (pearl diving). This indication directs us to two ports with the name of Bostano. One near the Asalouyeh port and another one close to Bandar Lengeh (Zarinkoob, 2008). The last one located at the east of Bastak, exactly beside the place of entrance of Shoor River to Persian Gulf. After this time, there is no exact data from the history of Bastak region until 656 H.D. But undoubtedly, the existent ports and roads in the sphere of this area have had an important role in the economy of governments over this gap. After the invasions of Mongols to Baghdad, some of Arabs emigrates to Bastak and its environs from Basreh and some Persian Gulf ports (Salami Bastaki, 1991). The rulers of Irahistan and Bastak didn't totally accept the obedient of the central government. Unless a powerful governor appeared in Fars, like getting power of A'zad dowlah Deylami and its campaign to Irahistan for �subduing the people of this region in the second half of fourth century (Ibn Balkhi, 1995). Also, the independent power of Larestan and Bastak have been overthrown by Shah A'bas Safavi at 1009 H.D, due to kicking out Portuguese from Gheshm and Hormuz Islands (Movahed, 1970). The tribe of Ghavasem or Al Ghasem converted to a power at Jolphar, contemporary Ras al-Khaimah, and started robbery of the ships on Persian Gulf at the end of Safavid period. For a while they suppressed by Nadershah Afshar. After his death Bani Moen, Mashayekh (ruler) of Gheshm and Hormouz, resisted against them, but finally they had to get help of the ruler of Bastak (Bani A'basiyan Bastaki, 1339: 125-127). Along 1161 and 1162 H.D, in the time of the reign of Shahrokhshah in Khorasan, the south part of Iran got into the invasion of robbers and revolt of nomads like other regions. In this condition, Mohamd Khan Bastaki, the ruler of Bastak, stood up against these attacks. Finally these conditions due to supervision of the governors of Bastak and Laar on the ports like Kong, Lengeh and Abasi, and even surveillance on far islands like Gheshm and Kish (Bani A'basiyan Bastaki, 1960). In the time of Karim Khan Zand (18th century) and with his sentence, a large area from the North shores of Persian Gulf, Bandar A'bas and Minab to Lar with some south islands ruled by governors of Bastak (Salami Bastaki, 1991). In the time of Qajar (18th -20th century), Bandar Lengeh became the most important port of Persian Gulf against the commercial stagnation of Bandar A'bas and Boshehr. So Bastak raised up and developed with locating on the way of the caravan road from Bandar Lengeh to Shiraz (Movahed, 1970). In the reign of Pahlavies (20th century), Bastak and its subsidiaries were still part of Larestan province �(Vosoughi et al., 2008, vol.1, p. 106). Gradually, Bastak separated from Larestan and changed its ranges in divisions of 1981 and 2004 (Ibid). The Petroglyph: The petroglyph depicts a starboard side of a double ended, almost belly shaped watercraft (Fig.4). Double-enders are the most primarily hull shape of the Western Indian Ocean crafts (Agius, 2008; McGrail, 2001). Early pre-historic watercrafts depicted on Mesopotamian and Elamite seals and seal impressions are double-ended as well.1 Also, dhows are still in use in the Persian Gulf, except Ghanja and Baghla, which are mostly double-ended (Al Bastaki; Paris, 1886). It can be said that prior to the 16th -17th century A.D, the transom stern was non- existent within Persian Gulf (Agius, 2008, Hourani, 1951). Fig.4: The petroglyph in situ on the right (Hamzeh Qobadian) and its drawing on the left. (Authors) The craft illustration shows two horizontal parallel curved lines on its hull, the three lines between the curved lines could be consider as planks, so, the craft is obviously timber-made not reef-bundled (Fig.4). Furthermore, the curved lines caused a perspective in the illustration of hull and makes it more tangible. Plus to the horizontal lines, there are two vertical lines on the outside of the hull that perpendicularly cut the horizontal lines which �probably showing that joint planks were used to make the craft. Since antiquity, Persian Gulf`s ship builders` ideal timber has being Saj (Tectona grandis), it can be bent and joined to the frames, following the curves of the ship`s sides and it is also long- lasting (Agius, 2008). The depicted craft, has two masts. According to Bozorg, 10th century AD, (Nakhoda Bozorg- Ibn-Shahriyar-e- Ramhormozi, 1969) 50 span of a hand of timber was needed to build a mast.2 Each hand span is about 23 cm. (Agius, 2008), so, we can estimate that a mast was more than 100 m. heighted. As it is mentioned above, this vessel is double- masted, if each mast be more than 100 m, then relative to the height of the masts, its hull – from bow to stern- must be approximately 100-150 m. so, she must be a seagoing ship not a boat! Undoubtedly, Bozorg exaggerates in recounting the stories but he is often honest in giving technical information. It is said that a medieval double-masted craft required crews of 200 (might be exaggerated) and modern ones draw about 240 kg with crews of thirty (Whitehouse, 2009). It can be noticed from the masts and jack- yards that the craft has lateen sails and it is believed that lateen sail is a characteristic feature of medieval watercrafts of the Western Indian Ocean (Hourani, 1951). Lateen rigs are triangular and set along the craft. It permits to sail fore and aft (parsa, 2012). The most characteristic feature of this craft is its long Saturi (bowsprit) which typically represents a Boom ship; the only water craft of Persian Gulf that has such a long saturi (about 4-5 m.) is the Boom (Agius, 2008; Eghtedari, 1966; Parsa, 2012). (Fig.5) The boom distinguishes to two different types: for voyage, or for fishing and pearl diving (Parsa, 2012). The voyage one is bigger with two or three �masts (Eghtedari, 1966). The hull of a Boom, just similar to namely petroglyph, is belly shaped and double ended which makes the craft safer against the waves of seas and oceans. Also, its long saturi and masts obviously show that a boom has giant rigs which makes the craft highspeeded (Parsa, 2012). (Fig.5) Fig.5: a modern double-masted Boom ship on the right (Ethnological Museum of Kong, Iran) and a Saturi of a modern Boom in Abadan, Iran. (Authors) Unfortunately, no more technical detail, such as being swan or nailed, rudder, deck, anchor and etc., could be obtained from the petroglyph. But, according to the characteristics discussed above (the long saturi, belly shaped and double ended hull, being timber- made and double- masted), it can be understood that the illustration represents a for- voyage Boom ship. The most famous and certain illustration of Boom ship is the ones in Maqamat-al-Hariri (13th century) which will be discussed subsequently. (Fig.6) �Fig.6: Two Boom ships in two different versions of Maqamat of Al-Hariri, the one on the left is archived in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (Al-Hariri, 1237). The middle one archived in the Library of the Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg (Agius, 2008) and the right one is a graffito engraved in Siraf, Iran. (Whitehouse, 2009). On the left side of the scene, there is a man / woman depicted riding a horse (?). On the right, just under the hull of the ship, a fish can be seen. The depiction of horseman is not obvious because of the erosion, neither the fish (fig.4). The scratched lines of all described illustrations, ship, horseman and the fish are in a same color and it shows their concurrency (scratched lines of the petroglyphs in Dehtal turns darker over time). It seems that this scene aims to recount a story of voyaging on the seas to a port in South of Iran and then riding to a central city of Iran. Comparative Consideration: Maqamat Al-Hariri: There are two miniatures of two different versions of Maqamat which are believed to illustrate Boom ship (Fig.6), one at the National Library of France, Paris (Hourani, 1959) and one at the Library of the Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg (Agius, 2008). They both are obviously double �ended with a long saturi and they both are evidently timber-made just like what we see in the namely petroglyph. There is no doubt that the Maqamat`s miniatures are more detailed rather than Dehtal`s petroglyph, and the rudder, crews and even paddles can be seen but, the mutual features between Dehtal`s petroglyph depicting ship and Maqamat`s miniatures illustrating ships are firstly, the long saturi, secondly, being double- ended. Unfortunately, there are only a few pictorial evidences of medieval ships within Iran and archaeological evidences of Perso- Arabian ships are even less than pictorial evidences. One might say there are lots of illustrated ships between Iranian miniatures but we should keep this fact in our mind that these miniatures generally recount Iranian myths which are believed to have been happened in the past, so, the artists just tried to copy the antiquity depictions of watercrafts and rarely useful information of Iranian medieval ships could be driven from these miniatures; In fact, it is highly recommended to Iranian medieval artists to copy their ancestors (Beig-eAfshar, 1969). Furthermore, these miniatures were mostly done by royal artists who were inhabitants of inland Iran and so far away from seas and ships. Ship Graffito of Site “K” in Siraf: Another pictorial evidence of Iranian shipbuilding is the graffito that David Whitehouse engraved at site “K” of Siraf3 (Fig.6). This is dated back to the 10th -11th century and it is tree-masted. As it is mentioned before, a modern two-masted vessel of Persian Gulf draws 240 tonnes and requires crews of thirty (Whitehouse, 2009), so, a tree-masted craft must be even greater than a two- masted one! The ship shown in the graffito is doubleended as well as the other watercrafts that are so far introduced in this article, but unlike the others, nor saturi neither timber planks can be �recognized in this graffito because of the erosion. Furthermore, its hull obviously is not belly shaped! Belitung ship wrecked: Archaeological evidences of Perso-Arab ships are really rare. But, in 1998, a wrecked ship has been found in Belitung, Indonesia by local divers. The vessel was carrying the Changsha wares which were in operation during the Tang dynasty (618-907 A.D). Belitung ship is believed to have a length overall of 18 meters. Flecker (2001) deduced that Belitung ship was designed for carrying light cargo and she has not being deep-drafted! Unfortunately, no bowsprit could be recognized in Belitung wrecked, solely it is mentioned that its stern was vertical (ibid). So, it seems not to be much similarities between Dehtal ship petroglyph and Belitung ship wrecked. Dating of Dehtal Ship Petroglyph: Maritime trade since Neolithic era within Persian Gulf is proved but, archaeological and pictorial evidences show that the watercrafts that were used in pre-historic era have being reed-bundled not timber-made (Carter, 2006), so, pre-historical water crafts could not be comparable with Dehtal`s ship petroglyph. Furthermore, the Achaemenids (550- 330 B.C) adapted Phoenician ships which were totally different from the water craft that we discuss in this article4 (Hassan, 1928). According to Vosoughi (2016), the history of maritime trade between Iran, under the name of An-Xi and Far East goes back to the Parthian empire (247 B.C- 224 A.D). In that time, because of the unsecurity of the inland Silk Road caused by Central Asian tribes, Parthians decided to sail to Far East. During Sasanian period (224- 651 S.D), Iranians were named Possǔ �by Chines and they have been sailing from Persian Gulf to China and back (Whitehouse and Williamson, 1973). Archaeological evidences such as Sassanian glass vessels found in ports of Japan evidently proves maritime trade between Sassanians with Far East (Priestman, 2016). To conclude, we can`t date this petroglyph as early as pre-history, because it is obviously timber- made, on the other hand, while we have no pictorial or archaeological evidence of Partho- Sasanian ships, we can`t deduce that exactly since when Boom ships were used. The oldest evidences of Boom are the miniatures of Maqamat (13th century AD) and Booms are still in use but they work with engine! We can`t deduce that exactly since when Boom ships were used in Persian Gulf; so, it looks impossible to present a dating. Conclusion: As it is argued above in” The Petroglyph part”, namely illustration depicts a double-ended, belly-shaped hall watercraft which is timber-made and has two masts and jack-yard. But the most important feature of the depicted craft is its long saturi (bowsprit) which is the characteristic of Boom ships. So, it can be concluded that the petroglyph depicts a Boom ship. The oldest depiction of Boom are two miniatures in Maqamat AlHariri (13th century AD) and she is still in use in Persian Gulf but works with engine. Dehtal is an inland rock art site situated in Bastak province and Bastak was located 170 km. away from the sea on the passage that connected so-called Eastern-Western Silk Road to the Persian Gulf- Far East Maritime route. The petroglyph scene that is discussed in this article (including a ship and a fish under it on the write and a horseman on the �left), probably, recounts a story of a passenger who traveled from somewhere in the East to a port in northern shores of Persian Gulf, then maintained his/her way to the North by riding on back of a horse and on his/her way, passed from Dehtal. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that helps us with relative dating but forthcoming studies of the authors of this article on absolute dating of the lichens may be useful. Endnotes 1 For more information about watercrafts depicted on Mesopotamian seals and seal impression see: Qualls, C., 1981. Boats of Mesopotamia Befor 2000 B.C, PhD Thesis, Colombia University and Makela, t.t., 2002. Ships and Shipbuilding in Mesopothamia (CA. 3000-2000 B.C), MA Thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas 2 The height of the mainmast is a little bit less than the length of the craft (Eghtedari, 1966). 3 For more information about the dhow`s graffitos around the Persian Gulf see: Cooper et al., 2015. Boat and ship engravings at Al Zubareh, Qatar: the dhow exposed? Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 45: 35-48. 4 For more information about iconography of ships of eastern Mediterranean ships see: Wachsmann, 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, Texas A&M University Press, London. References Agius, D.A, 2008. Classic Ships of Islam from Mesopotamia to the Indian Ocean. Brill, Leiden. Boston. Al- Bastaki, M.A., unknown date. Sailing Boats in the Gulf Area. RTA, Dubai. Arrian, 1996. Anabasis Alexandri, Indica. Translated by E.Iliff Robson, vol. 2, the Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge (mass) and London. �Bani A'basiyan Bastaki, M., 1960. Tarikhe Jahangireh va Bani A'basiyan Bestak. Bastak. Beig-e- Afshar, s., 1963. Qanun Al- Sover, Translated by Adel Qaziov, Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Republic, Baku. Carter, R., 2006. Boat Remains and Maritime Trade in the Persian Gulf During the Sixth and Fifth Millennia BC. Antiquity, Vol. 80:52-63 Eghtedari, a., 1966. The Persian Gulf. Sina Library Publication, Tehran. Fasaii, H. H., 1988. Farsnameh Naseri. Corrected and grazed by M. Rastegar Fasaii, vol 2, Amirkabir, Tehran. Flecker, M., 2001. A Ninth-Century AD Arab or Indian Shipwreck in Indonesia: First evidence for direct trade with China. World Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 3: 335-354 Fry, R., 2003. The ancient history of Iran. Translated by M. Rajab Niya, Sherkat Entesharat Elmi va Farhangi, Tehran. Hasan, h., 1928. A History of Persian Navigation, Methuen & Co., LTD, London. Hourani, G.F., 1951. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Ibn Balkhi, 1995. Farsnameh. M. Rastegar Fasaii (eds.), Bonyade Fars Shenasi, Shiraz. McGrail, S., 2001. Boats of The World from the Stone Age to Medieval times. Oxford University Press, New York. Movahed, J., 1970. Bastak va Khalij Fars. Tehran. Paris, V.A., 1886, Collection de Plans ou Dessins de Naviers et de Bateaux Anciens ou Modernes Existants ou Disparus. Impimeur-Libraire de Bureau des Longitudes et de L`Ecole Polytechnique, Paris. Parsa, A., 2012. Southern Sails: Sailing in Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Farhang-e Nashr-e No, Tehran. Priestman, S., 2016. The Silk Road or the Sea? Sasanian and Islamic Exports to Japan, Journal of Islamic Archaeology, Vol.3: 1-35. �Reza, A., 1997. The role of Iran in Silk Road until the end of Sassanian era. Iranshenakht, Vol. 5: 198-211. Salami Bastaki, A., 1991. Bastak dar gozargah tarikh. Bastak. Sharp, R.N., 2005. The inscriptions in Old Persian cuneiform of the Achaemenian emperors. Pazineh, Tehran. Shahriyar-e-Ramhormuzi, B., 1969. The Wonders of India. Translated by M. Malekzade, Entesharat-e Bonyad-e Farhang-e Iran, Tehran. Whitehouse, D., 2009. Siraf: History, Topography and Environment. The British Institute Persian Studies: Archaeological Monograph, London. Whitehouse, D., A. Williamson, 1973. Sasanian Maritime Trade, Iran, Vol. 11: 29-49 Vosoughi, M.B., 2016. Heritages of Iranian Sailors in China, Entesharat-e Miras Farhangi, Tehran. Vosoughi, M., et al., 2008. Tarikhe mofasale Larestan. Vol.1, Nashr Hamsayeh, Tehran. Hariri, A., 1236-1237.Les Makamat. Exemplaire orné de peintures exécutées par Yahya ibn Mahmoud ibn Yahya ibn Aboul-Hasan ibn Kouvarriha al-Wasiti, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Zarinkoob, R., 2008. Re-knowing an Achaemenid's port in Persian Gulf. Khalij Fars: Farhang and Tamadon, Moasseh Tahghighat va Tosee Olom Ensani: 270-276. Biography Mina Safa graduated with B.A. degree in Archaeology and with M.A. degree in History of Ancient Iran from University of Tehran. She received a Ph.D. degree from Shiraz University in History of Iran after Islam. Her initial interest in the field is around Art History of the Middle East, particularly around three thousand B.C. She follows the cultural, commercial, and political relations between neighboring civilizations and their roles in making a final format of artistic objects and thoughts. Until now, She worked on rock art of Homyan and Mirmelas (two ancient sites �of west Iran) and the Deh-Tal rock art site, as well as studying the artifacts of Jiroft (an old civilization of south Iran). Shadi Kalantar is a MA student of archaeology at Tehran University and at the moment working on a thesis titled “Identification, Classification and Typology of the Water-Crafts Illustrated on the Proto-Elamite and Elamite (3200 BC- 7th Century BC) Seals and Seal Impressions with a Focus on their Functions” and I benefit supervising and advising of Dr. Shahrokh Razmjou and Prof. Philip Castro. She is also a former member of Iran national Canoe/Kayak team. Because of this background, in her early undergraduate years, she was interested in ancient boatbuilding and subsequently, nautical archaeology. Soon after, Shadi started scuba diving and studying nautical archaeological methods. Her focus, currently is on pictorial evidences of watercrafts (rockreliefs, seal impressions, petroglyphs and miniatures) around the Persian Gulf and Western Indian Ocean as well as ethno-archaeological studies on boat/ship building. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 5: Iran's Maritime Cultural Landscape Description An account of the resource The country of Iran benefits from having a long coastline. Sea spaces and coastlines were attractive settlements for humans throughout history. These extensive maritime landscapes have resulted in interactions between human and sea along the northern (Caspian Sea) and southern (Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman) coastlines of Iran. Iran’s rivers and lakes contain a great deal of evidence of human habitation and interaction. Due to the country’s long history of maritime culture, we can also observe sea effects on coastal communities in Iran. Maritime archaeological studies in Iran, however, are at a nascent stage. In the 1990’s, a small group of archaeologists from the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR) investigated in the north of Persian Gulf to decode its unknown history. In 2000, the first coherent and planned activities of that group produced the "Underwater Surveys around the shores of Siraf Port in Bushehr Province". After that, the team surveyed "Bandar-e Rig"(Rig port), Portuguese castles in Siraf port, Southern Shores of the Bushehr Peninsula in the Persian Gulf. The team has worked on sites from "Shushtar’s Band-e Mizan"(Shushtar barrier), "Takht-e Suleiman" Lake, and the Amir Abad and "Zaghmarz" shipwrecks; the "TammÄ«sheh and Gorgān" Underwater Walls, and the "Ghorogh" and "Rudsar" shipwrecks. These projects were published in Persian by a domestic magazine. The team then prepared and distributed a booklet titled of "Iran, Underwater Cultural Heritage and It's Share in Maritime Archeological Studies" for the annual meeting of States Parties of The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2016. Next, UNESCO and ICHTO held "Training Workshop on Underwater Archaeology with a Focus on the UNESCO 2001 Convention" in Iran. These activities are continuing and we hope for some continued progress in maritime archaeological studies and international cooperation. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hossien Tofighian Research Institute of Cultural Heritage & Tourism (RICHT), Iran Ramin Adibi Higher Institute of Marlik University, Iran 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 A survey on a petroglyph illustrating a watercraft at the hinterland site of Dehtal Description An account of the resource Dehtal is an important hinterland site, located 170 km away from the shores of the Persian Gulf in Bastak County, Hormozgan province. Dehtal is a petroglyph site possibly dating to the pre-Neolithic, according to various sources of evidence such as stone tools found within the Bastak area and the Dehtal plain. The petroglyphs themselves, however, more likely date to the 3rd millennium BC. According to historical written sources, the Bastak area was located on the road linking the so-called Silk Road to the East Asia-Persian Gulf maritime trade routes. One of these petroglyphs, which is located beside a seasonal river, illustrates a watercraft. The image shows a round-hull, double-ended craft with two masts and a long saturi (bowsprit). A long saturi is a characteristic feature of a “boom” ship. Booms were used for long-distance voyages within Indian Ocean and they are still in use today but now work with engines. Firstly, this article attempts to discern the shipbuilding details of the watercraft depicted in comparison with other ship illustrations as those found in the Maqamat al-Hariri and the vessel depiction uncovered by Whitehouse at Siraf. Secondly, we will discuss Dehtal as a passage from Persian Gulf to so-called Silk Road with a focus on archaeological reports and historical written sources. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mina Safah Shadi Kalantar Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Mina Safah Shadi Kalantar Asia-Pac Session 5 2017 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Umi No Kodaishi: Higashi Ajia Chichukai Ko Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Minoru Senda Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Kadokawa shoten Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Minoru Senda Item Type Book ISBN 4047033367 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Extra External Resources: Find this item at Abebooks.com (Bookseller) Find this item at Biblio (Bookseller) Cite This Item Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ... Edition: Shohan. Language: Japanese (Show non-Roman characters) Geographic: East Asia -- History. Ajia (tobu) -- Rekishi Note(s): Includes bibliographical references. Class Descriptors: LC: DS511 Other Titles: Higashi Ajia Chichukai ko Responsibility: Senda Minoru hencho. More Records: Show record information Entry: 20020822 Update: 20080516 Provider: OCLC Library Catalog OCLC WorldCat FirstSearch Num Pages 209 Place Tokyo Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Kadokawa shoten Series Kadokawa sensho ;; 336; Short Title Umi No Kodaishi Title A name given to the resource Umi No Kodaishi: Higashi Ajia Chichukai Ko Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c1533cde635f46a15ced79111b4ae56d.pdf 68cbd8b6f8e30e8c16513cc98c636d6c PDF Text Text The Iron Grapnel Supposed to Belong to the Sinan Shipwreck and Other Anchors in East Asia Mitsuhiko Ogawa Asian Research Institute of Underwater Archaeology qq3a3qt9@poppy.ocn.ne.jp Abstract In 2016 an iron grapnel was shown in some special exhibitions marking the 40th anniversary of the Sinan shipwreck excavation in Korea. The grapnel 2.3m length has four arms, and it had been raised by a fisherman’s net in 1972 before the wreck was discovered. Around the Song Dynasty of China, stone anchor stocks composed of wooden shanks were generally used; their distributions ranged from the Primorsky region of Russia in the north to the south in Vietnam and the Philippines. In Korea and in Japan, crude stone anchor stocks modelled after Chinese anchors were widely used at that time. From the Takashima underwater site associated with the Mongolian invasion of Japan in the 13th century or during the early Yuan Dynasty, stone anchor stocks of separate type were frequently discovered. After the Ming Dynasty, iron grapnels started to be used in large, but at the same time wooden anchors were also kept in use on different styles from region to region. In Japan, iron four-armed grapnels were appeared in some art pictures after the Muromachi Period, and then during the Edo Period those grapnels became popular as the mainstream of Japanese anchors. The iron four-armed grapnel, which is considered to have belonged to the Sinan shipwreck, seems to have equipped on a Japanese vessel dated from the Edo period to early modern times as its characters are found among Japanese grapnels. However, the possibility that it still belonged to the Sinan shipwreck could not be denied completely, because the actual origin of Japanese grapnels is unknown; Chinese manufacturing technology of grapnels, which is known for the time being, was different from Japanese one, but another technology, which would have an impact upon both Japanese and the Sinan shipwreck’s grapnels, might have existed in China. Key words: Sinan shipwreck, Korea, grapnel, anchor �Introduction: The Iron Grapnel Believed to belong to the Sinan Shipwreck In 2016, an iron grapnel was displayed along with the reconstruction/restoration model of Sinan Shipwreck in a special exhibition that commemorate the 40th year anniversary of the Excavation of the Sinan Shipwreck in Korea. This iron grapnel displayed along with the restoration model was stated that it was a Chinese steel anchor from the Yuan Dynasty, and it belongs to ‘the Sinan shipwreck’ (National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage, 2016). The grapnel is 2.3m in length and has four arms. It was raised by a fisherman’s net in 1972, before the wreck was discovered (National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage, Korea, 2016). The author has observed iron grapnels at museums in China; these anchors were dated later than the Ming Dynasty. Also in Japan, iron grapnels were used from the Edo Period to modern era. The author only had a brief knowledge of iron grapnels that were widely used in China and Japan, and he never had conducted a research on it. Moreover, the author could not find any researches focused on iron grapnels conducted by other scholars. The author has observed an interesting point on these anchors that, about morphology-wise, the iron grapnel found near the Sinan Shipwreck site was very similar to Japanese type. In this paper, the author shares his comparative studies on iron grapnels that was believed to belong to the Sinan Shipwreck and other ones which were widely used in China and Japan. Chinese Iron Grapnels �Tiangong Kaiwu, a Chinese technical document at the end of the Ming Dynasty, described methods to manufacture ‘Iron anchor anchors’ (Song, 1639). To build an iron grapnel, individually made four arms were joined to a shank on after another at the end. For forging, materials from an old earth wall sieve were sprinkled on the forging areas. On the iconography that explain the forging processes, total 15 people were displayed, including who supported shanks and arms and who forging. From these iconographies, peculiar rectangle sectional shapes of the grapnel were not yet confirmed. Around this time, a ship carries 5 to 6 Iron anchors; the largest one is about 500 loaves, and it is used in emergency. In addition, it was described/instructed that Iron grapnels could not be used on the stone bottom area; it had to be used on sandy and mud seabed. Also, there is a description that a ship applied sudden stop by dropping a stern anchor to avoid collisions to ships in front. According to Guanzhuo Wang, a historian who studies ships in China, it is said that ‘stone anchor’, ‘wooden anchor’ and ‘Iron anchor’ coexisted simultaneously in the Song and Yuan Dynasties, while primarily ‘woodstone anchor’ was widely used (Wang, 2000). In Chiming Uekgo Picture of the Northern Song Dynasty, a ‘small iron anchor’ was depicted near the bow of the river ship. In Jilin City, Jilin Province in 1975, a small three-arm iron grapnel (22.5cm in length) dated the early in the Kim Dynasty was found. In historical written sources from the Song and Yuan Dynasties, these were descriptions on different types of anchors: ‘iron anchor’ and ‘iron anchor with four nails’ were widely used; in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, ‘iron anchor’ was used in the northern sea area of hard mud bottom; ‘wooden anchor’ was used in the southern deep sea of soft mud bottom, both are respectively used depending on the types of sediments; and for river ships ‘iron anchor’ was widely used. Regarding �archaeological examples of ‘iron anchors’, an iron grapnel was found on the Ming dynasty shipwreck during its excavation in the Songji River, Liangshan, Shandong Province, in 1956. This anchor was 1.36m long and had inscriptions on the surface, and it said ‘Hongwe 5th made’ and ‘85 loaves of heaviness’. Another archaeological example was found from Quanzhou, Fujian, in 1981; it was an iron grapnel which was 2.68m long and 758.3kg. The author also visited and observed a few iron grapnels; he visited the sea castle in Penglai City in Shandong Province, the Quanzhou Bay Old Ship Museum in Quanzhou City, Fujian Province, the Guangzhou Museum in Guangzhou City in Guangdong Province. Additionally, there are reported documents about iron grapnels excavated from the Penglai Sea castle (Chen,1989) (Fig. 1). The author analysed and studied characteristics of those iron grapnels from these materials, but since the amount of information is too big to share in this paper; therefore, detailed descriptions of individual materials shall be reported in another occasion. Fig. 1 (left): Iron Grapnel Excavated from Penglai Sea Castle. (Chen, 1989) �Chinese iron grapnels were built by forging individually forged arms to the shank; in many cases, the joint points between arms and the shank displayed peculiar shapes of remnants created by the forging (Fig. 2). Additionally, there were examples that used/forged steel sheets on the joinery points as a reinforcement. The cross-sectional shapes of the shank and arms have irregular circular shape or irregular square shape; there are no examples of clear rectangle shapes that can be seen on iron grapnels found in Japan. The anchor ring had a small circular shape, and its inner diameter was relatively small. It indicates that the end of the shank was molded to make a hole. In many cases, those forging marks were conspicuous. Also, there were examples that wood leaf-shaped fluke were attached at the tip of arms. The shape of four arms formed a ‘+’ shape when it was seen from the crown side (Fig. 3). �Fig. 2 (left): Iron Grapnel of the Ming Dynasty at the Dengzhou Museum. Fig. 3 (right): Iron Grapnel of the Qing Dynasty at the Dengzhou Museum. Japanese Iron Grapnels Ishii Kenji, a scholar who studied history of ships in Japan, explained weights of the ‘the first anchor’ of the Bezai ship. He also studied transition/evolution of Japanese anchors (Ishii, 1983). His studies on history of Japanese anchors started with ancient simple stone anchors that composed of a rope tied to a natural stone. On the ships traveled to Tang (China), as well as on ships used between Heian Period and the Medieval Era in Japan, wooden anchors were commonly used. The wooden anchors used on these ships composed of a flat stone sandwiched by two branches of hook-shaped trees. Based on iconography that ‘iron grapnel’ and ‘wooden anchor’ were depicted in the Scroll ‘Jinguu Kougou Engi Emaki’ in 1443, he believed that iron grapnels �might be used on Daimyo's warships and other large ships around the 15th century. Yet, Ishii indicated that there must be technical difficulties to forge iron grapnels if Japan tried to build it domestically around that time; and the its cost for mass-production must be another problem. Therefore, he suspects that the iron grapnels in the 15th century were imported from China. In the 16th century, use of iron anchors become popular among warships. Yet, wooden anchors were often depicted with merchant ships in the first half of the 17th century; the beginning of wide spread uses of iron grapnels might need to wait until the middle of the 17th century. Other Japanese scholars agree with Ishii 's theory about date of its beginning and wide distribution of iron grapnels. Matsui analyzed 49 iron grapnels found mainly northern area (Hokuriku) in the main island of Japan, and he concluded that the transition to iron grapnels occurred sometime in the 18th to the 20th centuries based on morphological analysis on anchor rings and attached rings (Matsui, 2013). Ishihara restudied researches on wooden anchors conducted by Wang, Ishii, Tamura, and several other researches, and he concluded that transition from wooden anchors to iron grapnels were caused/triggered by shipworms which ate wooden products in the sea (Ishihara, 2015). Ninomiya examined the maritime traffic in Tokyo Bay and the Sodegaura fishery industry based on literature/historical sources; also, he descrived the perspectives of trading and distribution of iron grapnels in the Edo Period in Japan (Ninomiya, 2017). Tamura, a folklore scholar, conducted folklore investigations on ‘anchor blacksmith’ in Fukuyama City, Hiroshima Prefecture. Tamura noted that iron grapnel was forged by superimposing plate-like steel called ‘Yao’ (Tamura, 1978). He also described the �manufacturing process of the iron grapnels: each part, such as four parts of arms, a shank, an anchor ring and an attached ring were individually prepared first, and then the arms and anchor rings were forged onto the shank, and arms were spread into form 4 arms, then the loop of anchor ring was expanded. His investigation was very important to conduct a comparative study of manufacturing methodology of different anchors; therefore, his research is especially important for the author’s researches In Japan, at least 50 iron grapnels are known to be exist. The author studied characteristics of these anchors; however, its information may be too detailed to share in this paper, so that he has to wait to share such detailed information until other opportunities. In general, Japanese iron grapnels were composed/welded of separately built plate-shaped steels, so that the cross-section of the shank and arms display a clear-cut rectangular shape (Fig. 4). Fig. 4: Iron Grapnel Raised up off Suzu City, Ishikawa Prefecture. Although sometimes it displays slight lamellar traces and forge contact traces due to forge weld, surfaces of Japanese iron grapnel are flat. �Nonetheless, there are no examples in Japanese grapnels that shows wrapped steel sheets reinforcements on arms alike Chinese grapnels. The arms of Japanese grapnels were forged into the shank, and then the arms were expanded after; henceforward, many of the (side-profile) shapes of anchors showed a gentle ‘J’ shape (Fig. 5). And the shape of the four arms from the crown exhibited a ‘X’ shape (Fig. 6). Although the anchor ring displayed a large almond shape; the introduction of the electric hammer in the modern period has made it smaller and the crosssectional shape tends to be circular. Fig. 5: Iron Grapnel at Fukuura Shika Town, Ishikawa Prefecture. �Fig. 6: Iron Grapnel at Fukuura Shika Town, Ishikawa Prefecture, from its Crown Side. Anchor of the Era before and after the Yuan Dynasty Regarding the small iron grapnels, the first evidence appeared in the North Song and Kim Dynasties. Although, the word/noun of ‘iron anchor’ and ‘iron anchor four nails’ appeared in literatures of the Song Dynasty, the first archaeological evidence of iron grapnel had to wait until the beginning of the Ming Dynasty (Wang, 2000). Anchors that widely used in the Song Dynasty were ‘wood-stone anchor’ with ‘mono style stone anchor stock.’ Regarding Yuan Dynasty, wood-stone anchors with ‘separate style stone anchor stock’ were main archaeological evidence found from the underwater site at Takashima Island, Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan; this site is also known for the Mongolia Attack to Japan in 1281. Contrarily, mono style stone anchor stocks were rarely found in this site (Takashima Town Board of Education, 1996). In the Takashima Island site, however, a mono-style stone anchor stock was cut in half and �converted as ‘separate style stone anchor stock’. This may indicate that the both types had been coexisted, or it was at their transition period (Ogawa, 2008a and 2008b). Those wood stone anchors with this ‘separate style stone anchor stocks’ was also used at Penglai Sea Castle in Shandong Province and Quanzhou Bay in Fujian Province (Li, 1998). Afterwards, ‘wood-stone anchor’ with ‘mono style stone anchor stock’ had shifted into ‘wooden anchor’ with wooden stock. Iron grapnels appeared at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, yet it did not mean that wooden anchors disappeared due to the appearance of iron grapnels. An iconography from Qing dynasty displayed sea boats using both wooden anchor and iron grapnels. Therefore, for the Sinan Ship dated the middle of the Yuan Dynasty, there is a possibility that Sinan Ship used wood stone anchors (or wooden anchors) and iron grapnels at the same time. Conclusion The cross-section of the shank likely belonging to the Sinan shipwreck is rectangular in shape, and a part where the arms as well as the anchor ring are attached to the shank is pounded to connect by a flat piece of iron. The arms curve gradually inward and make a figure of ‘J’. The crosssection of the arm is flat rectangular. The anchor ring is large, narrowly long and almond like shape. Moreover, the cross-section is flat rectangular. There features obviously resemble the futures of Japanese iron grapnel; based on those reasons, the author believed that the grapnels that believed to belong to the Sinan shipwreck was most likely belonged to the iron grapnels of the Japanese vessels dated from the early modern period to the modern period. �In the current state, however, it is difficult to establish precise dating of the Japanese style iron grapnels due to lack of the data and information for establishment of manufacturing. On the other hand, there is another possibility for the iron grapnel from the Sinan shipwreck to seek its origin in China. There might be some manufacturing techniques in China that would become the origin of Japanese grapnel manufacture later. This possible original manufacture technique has not been found/confirmed yet in China; however, it could be possible that Sinan shipwreck had carried Chinese iron grapnel that produced by Chinese manufacturing techniques that would be taught to Japanese later was onboard the Sinan shipwreck of the Yuan Dynasty. Nonetheless, the author concludes that, under these circumstances, it was most likely that the iron grapnels that is believed to belong to the Sinan shipwreck was a Japanese iron grapnel from the early modern period to the modern period. Acknowledgements The detailed data on the four-armed iron anchor that believed to belong to the Shinan shipwreck has been shared by Dr. Hong Soon-Jae and Dr. Park Ye-Ree of the National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage. Mr. Yuichiro Tashiro also helped me greatly for the related articles on the webpages. I deeply express my gratitude toward them. References Chen, T.,1989. Penglai Old Ship Belongings Analysis: Penglai Old Ship and Dengzhou Old Port. Dalian Maritime College Publishing House, Dalian (in Chinese). Ishii, K., 1983. Zusetsu Wasen Shi Wa, Zusetsu, Nippon Kaiji Shi Wa Sosho, Vol.1. Shiseido, Tokyo (in Japanese). Ishii, K., 1995. Wa Sen I, Mono to Ningen no Bunkashi, Vol. 76, Hosei University Press, Tokyo (in Japanese). Ishihara, W., 2013. Ikari No Bunka Shi, Book Series of Bukkyo University, Shibunkaku Publisher, Kyoto (in Japanese) �Li, G., 1998. Ancient Chinese anchors: their rigging and conservations. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 27(4): 307-312. Matsui, H., 2013. Yotsuzume tetsuikari no kisoteki kenkyu: fune ni kakawaru mono no keishiki gakuteki kosatsu. Bulletin of Archaeology (Department of Archaeology University of Kanazawa), Vol.134: 27-52 (in Japanese). National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage, 2016. http://blog.naver.com/seamuse1994/220889730348 National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage, 2017. http://www.seamuse.go.kr/seamuseweb/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle.do? nttId=1155&bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000249&pageIndex=2&searchtitle =&searchcont=&searchkey=&searchwriter=&searchWrd=&searchCtgryY n=A&mn=KO_02_04#link Ninomiya, T., 2017. Yotsu zume ikari ni tsuite, Study of the History of Sodegaura City, Vol.18: 69-79 (in Japanese). Ogawa, M., 2008a. Kaiiki ajia no ikariishi koroshi. In Y. Yokkaichi (Ed.), Mono Kara Mita Kaiiki Ajiashi, Kyudai Ajia Sosho, Kyushu University Press, Fukuoka: 1-37 (in Japanese). Ogawa, M., 2008b. Higashi ajia kaiiki ni okeru chugoku sutairu ikariishi no Kkenkyu. Proceeding of the First Korea-Japan Underwater Archaeology, Korea: 103-144 (in Japanese and Korean). Song, Y., 1637 (1969). Tiangong Kaiwu (in Chinese), Trans. K. Yabuuchi, Toyo Bunko, Vol.130, Heibonsha, Tokyo (in Japanese). Takashima Town Board of Education, 1996. Takashim Kaitei Iseki III, Takshima-cho Bunkazai Chosa Hokokusho, Vol. 2. Takashima Town Board of Education, Takashima-cho (in Japanese). Tamura, Z., 1978. Tomo no ikari to kugi. In Hiroshima Prefecture (Ed.), History of Hiroshima Prefecture: Folk Custom, Hiroshima Prefecture, Hiroshima: 709-716 (in Japanese). Wang, G., 2000. Chinese Old Ship Graphic Chart. SDX Joint Publishing Company, Beijing (in Chinese). �Biography Mitsuhiko Ogawa was bone in Ishikawa Prefecture in 1968. He received MA degree in Archaeology from the University of Kanazawa in 2005. He is majoring in underwater archaeology, especially, in anchors and stone anchor stocks as well as in Chinese ceramics. He became a member of the Kyusyu Okinawa Society for Underwater Archaeology in 1992 and has been a senior research associate of the Asian Research Institute of Underwater Archaeology since 2011. He has excavated many underwater archaeological sites such as Takashima Island, the Maegata Bay or Ojika Island (Yamami), and has also involved in the survey of underwater cultural heritage around the Japan Sea. He has published many papers related to underwater archaeology in East Asia. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 6: History and Current Trends of Underwater Archaeology around East Asia Description An account of the resource East Asia is extremely rich in underwater cultural heritage, such as conventional shipwrecks under the sea, submerged settlement sites on the bottoms of inland lakes and rivers, or prehistoric shell mounds along coastal zones. For instance, the medieval or post-medieval aged wrecks and their cargos have recently been discovered one after another in the waters, or the underwater cultural heritage or seascape of stone tidal weir is a common cultural trait to the Ryukyu archipelago, western Japan, southern Korea, mainland China, and Formosa, which surround the East China Sea or a northern part of the Asian Mediterranean. No East Asian nation has ratified the UNESCO 2001 Convention, partly because it does not exactly correspond with oriental philosophy, it does not properly resolve the controversial issues upon sovereign immunity of warship wrecks, and so forth. Occasionally, the principle of preservation in situ in the convention has not been the first choice as Asian waters have poor water clarity generally. Nevertheless, each country has already moved forward with its own underwater archaeological policies and projects both on governmental and grassroots levels. Some activities are in close cooperation with foreign institutions or universities. In East Asia, document-based historical study or terrestrial archaeology has a long tradition, which has had a noteworthy impact upon underwater archaeology and its methodology. Even in this region as well as in other Pacific areas, contrariwise, the technological advancement in underwater survey has remarkably been made recently; using remote-sensing with satellites, robotics for ROVs or AUVs, or 3D photogrammetry by computer software mitigates or cancels the limitations regarding accessibility and working time caused by underwater environment. The tie between such modern technologies and archaeology has minted new applications and perspectives of underwater cultural heritage study. The multi-disciplinary or holistic approaches are increasingly more and more necessary among Asian researchers. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akifumi Iwabuchi Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan Kotaro Yamafune APPARATUS, LLC, Japan 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 Iron Grapnel Supposed to Belong to the Sinan Shipwreck and Other Anchors in East Asia Description An account of the resource In 2016 an iron grapnel was shown in some special exhibitions marking the 40th anniversary of the Sinan shipwreck excavation in Korea. The grapnel 2.3m length has four arms, and it had been raised by a fisherman’s net in 1972 before the wreck was discovered. Around the Song Dynasty of China, stone anchor stocks composed of wooden shanks were generally used; their distributions ranged from the Primorsky region of Russia in the north to the south in Vietnam and the Philippines. In Korea and in Japan, crude stone anchor stocks modelled after Chinese anchors were widely used at that time. From the Takashima underwater site associated with the Mongolian invasion of Japan in the 13th century or during the early Yuan Dynasty, stone anchor stocks of separate type were frequently discovered. After the Ming Dynasty, iron grapnels started to be used in large, but at the same time wooden anchors were also kept in use on different styles from region to region. In Japan, iron four-armed grapnels were appeared in some art pictures after the Muromachi Period, and then during the Edo Period those grapnels became popular as the mainstream of Japanese anchors. The iron four-armed grapnel, which is considered to have belonged to the Sinan shipwreck, seems to have equipped on a Japanese vessel dated from the Edo period to early modern times as its characters are found among Japanese grapnels. However, the possibility that it still belonged to the Sinan shipwreck could not be denied completely, because the actual origin of Japanese grapnels is unknown; Chinese manufacturing technology of grapnels, which is known for the time being, was different from Japanese one, but another technology, which would have an impact upon both Japanese and the Sinan shipwreck’s grapnels, might have existed in China. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mitsuhiko Ogawa Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Mitsuhiko Ogawa Asia-Pac Session 6 2017 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Uma" No Bunka to "fune" No Bunka: Kodai Nihon to Chugoku Bunka Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mitsuji Fukunaga Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Jinbun Shoin Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Mitsuji Fukunaga Item Type Book ISBN 4409540505 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996 Library Catalog OCLC WorldCat FirstSearch Num Pages 343 Place Kyoto-shi Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Jinbun Shoin Short Title "Uma" No Bunka to "fune" No Bunka Title A name given to the resource "Uma" No Bunka to "fune" No Bunka: Kodai Nihon to Chugoku Bunka Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/d63fdde43cca0fac3b8bbf220158f42a.jpg d1bacc7acaa443452d481bb8ee3e98eb Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 3181 Height 2247 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource They Have Stories to Tell - Poster Description An account of the resource A shipwreck is like a book from the past, waiting to be opened and interpreted for the enjoyment of all humanity. Each object has an important story to tell, which can only be read if its location relative to other objects in the wreck is scientifically analyzed. Indiscriminate excavation displaces objects, preventing us to read the secrets each item wish to divulge. So, let us preserve them in situ until we have adequate resources to discover their secrets. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Montakarn Suvanatap Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Asia Pacific Regional Capacity Building Programme on Underwater Cultural Heritage UNESCO Bangkok Field Office Email: m.suvanatap@unesco.org www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Poster https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/36d43570201ddb65e7c0ce99fb9036af.jpg 51b160796dc8a19b39de2abda1e49ed0 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 3181 Height 2247 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Keep It Safe - Poster Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage can only be safeguarded if we acknowledge it to be our shared heritage, not a treasure to be looted and sold. The 2001 Convention offers an opportunity for countries to cooperate in protecting underwater cultural heritage wherever it is located in the open seas. Without international cooperation, our common legacy continues to be at risk. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Montakarn Suvanatap Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Asia Pacific Regional Capacity Building Programme on Underwater Cultural Heritage UNESCO Bangkok Field Office Email: m.suvanatap@unesco.org www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Poster https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/31f0710f184369d94b0f8a75476a0866.jpg f579583b10f8061ab9b16bb23f3542cd Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Width 2247 Height 3180 Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Let Us Not Desecrate It - Poster Description An account of the resource Many ships were sunk with loss of lives. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions destroyed and submerged coastal settlements and entire cities, together with their inhabitants. Underwater archaeological sites are therefore significant, not only for their archaeological and historical contexts, but also for the respect and veneration that are due them as resting place of those who perished and who may be our ancestors. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Montakarn Suvanatap Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Asia Pacific Regional Capacity Building Programme on Underwater Cultural Heritage UNESCO Bangkok Field Office Email: m.suvanatap@unesco.org www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Poster https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/037e9dc1dc71edc16c2a7236b1eb78c2.pdf 93470beb85bb48c855b9ebe16eb43edc PDF Text Text Intangible Heritage Approach of Safeguarding Underwater Heritage: A Trans-disciplinary Perspective Montakarn Suvanatap 38 Navatanee, Serithai Road, Kannayao, Bangkok, Thailand Email: m.suvanatap@dunelm.org.uk Abstract This paper presents the advantages of incorporating Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) disciplines in the protection of underwater sites. The integrated safeguarding approaches can enhance professional capacity and can lead to a knowledge pool that involves more peoples and gives greater meanings to underwater heritage. The paper critically investigates contemporary policies that redefine “cultural heritage” and raises examples of local and international initiatives that link traditional knowledge to the conservation of heritage sites. Good case studies exist not only in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, but also in the continents. These successful examples imply that intangible aspects of heritage can provide more profound interpretations of value and integrity of tangible heritage, including maritime sites. Despite that, there have been very few works directly addressing intangible heritage among UCH professionals. Main works on underwater heritage protection today are still archaeology-heavy and technology-heavy, as the concern has been to keep pace with looters, environmental change and industrial threats. Managerial professionals have overlooked that understanding the existing community’s cultures can gain them stronger supports for conservation against exploitation. It is time that underwater heritage professionals explore more seriously cross-disciplinary efforts to upscale safeguarding capacity by involving bigger, grassroots communities of heritage stakeholders. Key words: Interdisciplinary approach, Intangible cultural heritage, Underwater Cultural Heritage, Community participation, Public awareness Introduction Public negligence has been determined as one of the main factors to the very real threat of deterioration of heritage sites worldwide. Working with communities is an essential praxis included in capacity-building trainings for underwater archaeologists. There is no doubt of its importance; however, it has not been prioritised in practice. Site conservation that lacks the community involvement can become inefficient and problematic. In the developing world, with the scarcity of public funds for site maintenance, and grassroots communities being prone to commercial exploitation, it is 1 �vital to ensure that public understanding of archaeological works will lead to the better protection of non-renewable cultural resources. It is incumbent on the heritage workers to not only protect the findings, but also to make their intellectual value accessible to average locals. This is indeed easier said than done. It has been perceived that maritime archaeology is a distant realm of the academia only, with little benefit filtering down to the public sector (UNESCO Bangkok, 2009). Information of archaeological projects has been limitedly shared to the public, in fear that they would be “incapable of understanding archaeological principles” (UNESCO, 2013). Low public awareness seems to lie simply within a lack of interest in benefits of conservation. For instance, while experts agree that in situ preservation is the first option to protect underwater sites for future investigations, the public view this as a loss of opportunities to enjoy the site’s legacy. Among various stakeholders concerned, local communities are affected firsthand by activities directed at heritage sites, yet rarely profited from protection schemes. On many occasions, the protection of heritage sites is considered more effective if local inhabitants are involved from the beginning of the project (UNESCO, 2013). Sites are often discovered by fishermen or offshore operators, who may also view authorities and professionals as obstacles to their benefits. By enabling these local communities to be an active part of the site’s protection, they could help monitor risks to the site, which eases the demand of professional human resource. Involving community’s local customs and culture in the communication of heritage value can relay a strong sense of stewardship to the site. This is where Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) principles come into the picture, as a tool to approach and empower communities, whilst expanding the potential to advance heritage protection. This paper explores an approach that may change the perspective of heritage professionals and managers, and enhance their capacity to work with communities. Such approach should not only contribute to better site conservation, but is also in line with the ever-expanding concept of heritage. Paradigm Shifts: From Preservation to Safeguarding, from Teaching to Exchanging Intangible Cultural Heritage encompasses oral traditions, performing arts, norms, rituals, festivals, craftsmanship and beliefs. It is what community group or, in some cases, individual, recognises as a part of their culture. In other words, these activities give them 2 �a sense of identity and continuity, thus have been transmitted for generations, continuously recreated in response to the changing socio-cultural environment (UNESCO, 2003). Seen as ‘living heritage’, ICH forms a closer relationship with the community, more so than other types of heritage. Indeed, the community can also be referred to as a landscape, in which ICH holds an important place within every individual’s life, instilling in their daily routines and influencing their rites of passage. Therefore, it is believed that by valorising the role of local knowledge holders to represent communication, the heritage professionals stand more chance to convince the community to be more open to foreign ideas (Rai, 2013). This also means local people’s perception of heritage must first be recognised. A case study in American Samoa posts an interesting question of whether “cultural properties” by the definition of indigenous people – which extends to some animal species and natural locations associated to local myths – be included in the inventory of their Underwater Cultural Heritage (Van Tilburg, 2011). Presenting animals and places as integral components that constitute and maintain cultural heritage is not a new idea. The mountainous range of Ifugao in the Philippines is seen as a cultural landscape not only for the fact that it cradles the Rice Terraces of the Cordilleras World Heritage site, but also because it keeps alive the episodic Hudhud chants of Ifugao farmers. Falconry has been inscribed as a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage element, in which a falconer’s way of life and the raptor species have been given high status in society. In protecting cultural places and animals, we can perpetuate valuable arts and traditions, and vice versa. Since the start of the millennium, international discourses have been moving towards a direction that expands the scope of heritage. This was substantiated in forums that resulted in regionally-specific procedural documents. At the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium titled “Place - Memory - Meaning: Preserving Intangible Values in Monuments and Sites”, in Zimbabwe, 2003, Mounir Bouchenaki, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture at the time, said that traditional legal frameworks and administrative measures for heritage protection were no longer appropriate to safeguard the heritage in the contemporary context. Many countries had long realised this, and revised related laws to recognise the intangible heritage. The fact that there are separate UNESCO Conventions to deal with tangible and intangible 3 �heritage may give an outward impression that heritage is divided into clear-cut subcategories with self-ruling principles to protect them. However, through fieldwork there has been a proven and consistent reflection that the archaeological conservation principles alone cannot ensure the protection of all aspects of human’s culture. Integrity and authenticity, in the context of World Heritage, do not guarantee the survival of cultural expressions that always change. Likewise, the procedures of intangible heritage usually require the preservation of instruments and places of activities in order to conduct the practices in their original socio-cultural contexts. Despite criticism that the Conventions’ impacts are heavily State-centric (Cheng, 2010), these international mechanisms at least validate that the heritage is not an evidence of a past civilisation, but a civilisation itself. Heritage protection cannot simply end with preservation of physical state of objects or places; it must involve the provision of a conducive environment for people to continue their cultural activities, despite the change of time (Lenzerini, 2011). This process has been coined “safeguarding”, as different from “preservation”. It also means that present works on heritage involve not only specialists in social and human sciences, but also the actual cultural bearers and practitioners. Bringing these stakeholders together, Shanghai Charter, convened at ICOM’s 7th AsiaPacific Regional Assembly in 2002, emboldens “interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches that incorporate movable and immovable, tangible and intangible, natural and cultural heritage” (Bouchenaki, 2003). The Charter called for the activities that support transmission of traditional knowledge, as well as the translation of ICH elements into referential forms, such as records, inventories, museums, to maintain safeguarding capacity. This implies that the human resource lies within the community. Cultural practitioners, not scholars and professionals, are to determine how the heritage should be perceived, valued and used. This changes the role of the local people from the ignorant to the experts whose experiences are lifelong. Public archaeology has become much more than simply exposing the public to products of archaeological research. The management, communication and decisions should respect and benefit the locals. The core safeguarding approach is to present community-based value of cultural properties. It promotes a rights-based approach, encouraging the documentation of cultural 4 �elements from “multidimensional perspectives” (O’Brien and Marakas, 2009) of varying groups of peoples concerned. A relevant example is the use of narratives from witnesses of historical events, or possessors of traditional skills. Until 2001, exhibitions by the New Jersey Historical Society presented native dances, jargons, jokes, culinary practices, folklores, songs and memories along with artefacts to a wide range of crowds. They altered conventional presentation of history, diversified the audiences, as well as changed collection and staffing structures. More importantly, this method helped create an “identity repository” that does not simply inform distinctiveness of an ethnic group, but also fits the individuality of the New Jerseyan to the United States’ collective history (Yerkovich, 2006). Narratives and demonstration of cultural activities and skills have become effective ways to learning, and have been applied substantially by many museums. It underscores the credence that peoples do not need permission from authorities to speak about their heritage; they fundamentally have the right and expertise to do so. The inclusion of related intangible components of a heritage increases the capacity for peoples to exercise this right. Nara Document on Authenticity (2007) addresses the need for a broader understanding of community’s role. It advances that custodianship of heritage sites should, so far as possible, stay in the hands of the community who has generated it, and whom should be empowered to carry out conservation. The document underscores the importance of respect for other cultures, other values, and tangible and intangible dimensions that form the heritage. There are, as a result, no fixed criteria to judge value and authenticity of a cultural property; rather it must be evaluated within the cultural context(s) to which it belongs. Developed at the regional workshops in Australia and French Polynesia (200809), Pacific World Heritage Action Plan (2005-15) affirms that the interconnection of tangible and intangible heritage must be realised to achieve true heritage protection. The schemes for protection “must be based on respect, understanding and maintenance of the traditional cultural practices, indigenous knowledge and systems of land and sea tenure”(UNESCO, 2009). Before the start of their permanent settlements, for example, Pacific migrants survived long inter-island journey by canoes and navigating sagacity. The pride and knowledge have been transmitted to young native 5 �generations who share ambition of their ancestors in sailing the world with simple canoes (Gardner, 1999; UNESCO, 2004; Genzand Finney, 2006). The action plan also points out a common attribute of the Pacific sub-region that their marine biodiversity and cultural heritage wealth have been managed with traditional practices. It illustrates that there is an inseparable relationship between communities, cultures and environment that underpins sustainable livelihood in these islands. Bearing in mind the community’s original capacity and mechanism to safeguard their heritage, UNESCO developed the community-based inventorying workshop that aims to bring local people into the working group to create national ICH inventories. Local people, together with governmental staffs, are trained to use recording technology, to be knowledgeable of the viability and significance of ICH in different areas and to gain consents from cultural custodians. The workshop’s focus is not simply to teach how to document cultures, but essentially to establish a platform for people of different backgrounds to exchange their experiences and devise locally appropriate approaches to assist in the identification of cultural elements to the inventory. Enforcing this working environment at the national stage will ensure that the ICH elements safeguarded and promoted by international instruments will always reflect the priorities of a civilization. This workshop has also been implemented since 2012 in various countries, in both mainlands and islands, where the issue is discussed under notion of cultural diversity. UCH beyond a Site: Adding Value through Cultural Revitalisation On many occasions, archaeologists are faced with the problem of possessing limited relevant information about a site. The criteria used for determining significance, such as physical conditions, types of found artefacts and their social or historical importance, usually remains partial, hence the reason why most professionals choose to keep it preserved in situ. Meanwhile, many archaeologists turn their attention to the relationship between cultural properties and local traditions of immediate communities, when assessing intrinsic significance, and considering the site’s interpretative value against the present cultures. The Annexes of the 2001 Convention do not specify how to integrate living cultures to underwater heritage protection. The Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia, written a few years later, does mention this particular point, suggesting a possible interconnection between approaches under ICH disciplines 6 �and the attempt to extend safeguarding ability for underwater sites. Adopted in 2005 at the ICOMOS General Assembly as an Asia-Oceania regional guideline for public, the protocol pinpoints that artifacts from underwater sites often have significant intangible aspects which should be taken into account in the conservation and interpretation. Cultural and historical values, especially in sites associated with important events, can add layers of meaning to these physical objects, and may also convey a sense of identity or continuity with current seafaring and maritime practices. Studying in situ sites that are connected to a community’s living culture or records of cultural practices can also give strong cultural interpretation and presentation of the heritage, and in doing so, can reduce the need for excavation (Engelhardt and Rogers, 2009). In other words, ICH can add dimensions to the understanding of material culture. By studying living traditions with ethnographic data collection, researchers can better understand boats and artifacts, and reveal unfamiliar aspects of the community under study (Wylie, 1985; Pham, 2012). For thousands of years, the ancient art of manufacturing traditional Iranian vessel, called Lenj, has remained relatively unchanged in terms of techniques. The wooden Lenjes were once known as the fastest ships to sail the seas, and even now can still compete with contemporary rivals. Historically used by Iranian sailors, the vessels are used today in the northern coasts of the Persian Gulf for trading, fishing and pearl diving. The sailing knowledge has traditionally been passed on from father to son. Before the arrivals of compasses, Iranian helmsmen could locate ships according to water depth and positions of the sun, the moon and the stars, using special formulae to figure latitudes and longitudes. Winds, tones of water and heights of waves could forecast weather. Music, rhythms, games and seaside New Year festival are inseparable to the Lenj sailors’ communities. However, these wisdoms and rituals are unfortunately dying away with the disappearance of the Lenjes and their builders. Due to the downtrend of long distance travelling, the need for fast, big ships is a declining truth. Moreover, the wooden materials are continually being replaced by fiberglass substitutes, proving to be cheaper and faster to work with. This has resulted in a mass reduction of wooden Lenj workshops, which can only be found on the island of Qeshm. Few skilled wooden Lenj builders mainly consist of elderly people. 7 �In 2011, the skills of Lenj building and sailing was inscribed in UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. To fulfill the requirements to be an inscribed element, a national-level safeguarding plan was developed. Financial supports from multinational sources were secured to assist in sustaining all the contributors to the ingenuity of the tradition, including the continuation of the shipcrafting community, the protection of surviving Lenjes and profound documentation of related knowledge. The safeguarding of the Iranian Lenj craft is an example of the positive State’s commitment to international ministration guarantees. But in the wider reality, what must be achieved to gain the recognition of the State and other nations to realize the heritage’s importance? An even more complicated case study presents an attempt that aims to save both the rebuilding of ancient boats and the religious worship that destroyed them. In the coastal town of Komiža, on the Croatian island of Vis, the craft skills and incineration rituals of the ancient wooden sailboats were once under threat of extinction. Komiža people have a long-standing tradition of burning dilapidated traditional boats as an annual offering to St. Nicholas, the protector of seamen. After the burning, the boat owners build new boats to replace the old ones. Nevertheless, when development came to Komiža, the demand for commercially viable boats increased. Modern-designed plastic boats have become a new replacement of the ones burnt in the ceremony, and due to their material, they cannot be practically burnt. It took a long time for people to realize that a Croatian cultural heritage was being sacrificed in vain, confirmed by the cease of new wooden boats (Božanić and Buljubašić, 2012). Soon after Cicibela, the last falkuša boat, was sunk in 1986, local enthusiasts set up a non-profit foundation called ArsHalieutica, dedicated to multidisciplinary research of Croatian boats. The foundation also raised awareness to local people, showing that protecting the old traditions could contribute to the community’s economics. The young Cicibela wreck was excavated for study. Different types of Komiža’s fishing and trading boats were recorded. Historians, ethnographers and linguists were brought in to enhance various aspects of the tradition, including the ancient fishing culture; the relation of Komiža’s incineration ritual to those of Ancient Egypt, Vikings and Portugal; and the interpretative value of the anthropomorphic life 8 �cycle of boats to the social identity of the fisherman. 10 years later, a sacrificial falkušawas set on fire at the Expo in Lisbon on St. Nicholas’ Day. It was called the success of ArsHalieutica in reviving both the material and nonmaterial aspects of this heritage. These examples prove that folk traditions, which are not by meaning the underwater heritage, should nonetheless be included in the safeguarding plan. This approach can reduce dependence on scientific investigations and lower the strain on financial and human resources. It enables the locals to share their experience with the professionals, and possibly result in the revitalization of practices that sustain the heritage in long term. Conclusion When registering the concept of interconnection between tangible and intangible heritage safeguarding principles in the context of underwater heritage, let us think outside the box of the Conventions and their Operational Guidelines. In actual practice, especially when a line separating science from culture is lacking, there is no limitation to indicate that the link between a cultural expression and a site is only physical. A site can bear social and spiritual influence to the deep-rooted worldview of a society, while sunk a thousand miles from its origin. A site may not exist in its original state at all, but instead a precise remake that possesses the emotional, spiritual or intellectual value of its predecessor. The effort in Croatia to safeguard both historical boat-building and the town’s quintessential ritual and livelihood is an obvious example. One may ask why these approaches have not been recognised well enough to form a discipline. Were the results of past undertakings not worth future investments? Or, has it simply been the lack of organisational awareness to create inter-sectoral programmes? The salutation of being included in the UNESCO Lists happens after the safeguarding has already been achieved, or once it has been under the politics-induced attention of the concerned governments. Thus, the actual start point is that the locals and the professionals agree in what is important to their society and take actions. Underwater cultural sites, from island settlers’ canoes to submerged settlements were born from the needs – religious or utilitarian – of the founding peoples. Thus, they bear socio-cultural values before they became historical or archaeological. Archaeological investigation, therefore, should not end at revealing its past functions or filling the gap in history, but should show how its 9 �presence today still answers to the current community’s needs. While we can celebrate discoveries of large imperial vessels that hold expensive masterpieces, we should not forget that there are still ‘treasures’ that exist yet have been neglected – treasures of bigger group of peoples, which can earn one not only a knowledge of the past but also how we can progress our world sustainably. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Dr Tim Curtis and Mr Ricardo Favis who inspired this research, Dr Martijn Manders and Dr Hans Van Tilburg for opportunities to publish my works. My forever gratefulness to my family and my friends for their unceasing supports. References Božanić, J., and Buljubašić, E., 2012. The Ritual of Boat Incineration in the Island of Vis, Croatia: an Interpretation. International Journal for Intangible Heritage, Vol. 7: 15-30. Bouchenaki, M., 2003. The Interdependency of the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. In The 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium ‘Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites’, 27-31 Oct 2003, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. ICOMOS, Paris: 3-7. Cheng, A. C., 2010. All in the Same Boat? Indigenous Property Rights in Underwater Cultural Heritage. Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 32 (3): 695-732. Engelhardt, R. A., and Rogers, P. R., (Eds.), 2009. Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional Guidelines for Assuring and Preserving the Authenticity of Heritage Sites in the Context of the Cultures of Asia. UNESCO, Bangkok. Gardner, D. F., 1999. Conversations with Papa Tom, Pa TuterangiAriki, Sir Thomas Davis, KBE, MD. The Construction and Voyages of the Two Replica (Pahi, Pai) Canoes of the Southern Cook Islands, Rarotonga: The Takitumu and the Te Au o Tonga (MA thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland. Genz, J. H., and Finney, B. R., 2006. Preservation and Revitalization of Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Perspective from Cultural Anthropological Research on Indigenous Navigation in the Republic of the Marshal Islands. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 5 (1-2): 306-313. 10 �Lenzerini, F., 2011. Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples. Oxford Journal, Vol. 22 (1): 101-120. Manders, M. R., 2012. Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage. In M. R. Manders, and C. J. Underwood (Eds.), Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, Bangkok: 64-82. O’Brien, J. A., and Marakas, G. M., 2009. Management information systems (9th edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston. Pham, C. M. L., 2012. Asian Shipbuilding Technology. In M. R. Manders and C. J. Underwood (Eds.), Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, Bangkok: 349-400. Rai, G. S., 2013. Community Empowerment: Heritage Conservation for All. In UNESCO, Asia Conserved II: Lessons Learnt from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation. iGroup Publisher, Seoul: 66-70. UNESCO, 1972. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2001. The Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2003. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2004. The Canoe is the People. [Compact Disc]. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2012. Traditional skills of building and sailing Iranian Lenj boats in the Persian Gulf. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2013. UNESCO Manual for activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. –––––, 2009. Pacific World Heritage Action Plan 2010-2015. UNESCO, Apia. UNESCO Bangkok and EIIHCAP, 2008. Safeguarding Intangible Heritage and Sustainable Cultural Tourism: Opportunities and Challenges. UNESCO, Bangkok. Van Tilburg, H., 2011. A Place to Learn: the Underwater Cultural Heritage in American Samoa. The MUA Collection. 11 �World Heritage Committee, 2007. Nara Document on Authenticity. UNESCO, Paris. Wylie, A., 1985. The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8: 63-111. Biography Montakarn Suvanatap is a communication and programme assistant for Culture Unit, UNESCO Bangkok. She has been involving in capacity-building projects for Underwater Cultural Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Her works also include planning and promoting UNESCO’s visibility at regional level. Montakarn was awarded a three-year scholarship to research on Asian arts and cultures while completing a Bachelor Degree in English Literature at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. She received a Master Degree in Museum and Artifact Studies from Durham University, UK, in 2011. Her research concerns intangible heritage, ethnographic museology and community based media designing. 12 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage, Museums, and Sustainable Development Subject The topic of the resource Video Interview with Dr. Bill Jeffery on Sessions 3 and 11 with links to the papers presented in Session 3. Description An account of the resource Underwater cultural heritage holds a vast potential for sustainable development. It is a very interesting and attractive form of heritage, appreciated by the public. Underwater cultural heritage opens tourism opportunities. Worldwide, national authorities create dive trails to foster diving tourism economies. This is of special importance for States bordering the ocean, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which can greatly enhance their tourist attractiveness through the valorization of submerged archaeological sites. The investment in museums on underwater archaeology, dive trails and other forms of access for the public promise a beneficial and lasting return. Studies show that every USD invested in heritage increases the economic activity around the site by a factor between 1.2 to 8, depending on the significance of the site and the form of its valorization by museums and individual access. This is in particular to be noted as raise in employment and gain (hotels, food sales, transport benefit, guides), raise of cultural and educational levels in a region and improved consideration of heritage and local pride. Concerned forms of tourism in the case of underwater cultural heritage are cultural, dive and cruise tourism. New approaches and valid alternatives to commercial exploitation of sites are under consideration in order to finance underwater archaeological research and sustainable management of underwater cultural heritage sites, which include; i) dive club guardianship sites, ii) paid and controlled public visits of archaeological work, iii) evaluation of cultural development needs, iv) tour and exhibition opportunities, v) film and book rights in planning archaeological excavations. The objectives of the session are to: • Enhance understanding of the contribution of underwater cultural heritage to sustainable development; • Identify and promote good practice; • Foster partnership for regional and international cooperation. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Intangible Heritage Approach of Safeguarding Underwater Heritage: A Trans-disciplinary Perspective Description An account of the resource This paper presents the advantages of incorporating Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) disciplines in the protection of underwater sites. The integrated safeguarding approaches can enhance professional capacity and can lead to a knowledge pool that involves more peoples and gives greater meanings to underwater heritage. The paper critically investigates contemporary policies that redefine “cultural heritage” and raises examples of local and international initiatives that link traditional knowledge to the conservation of heritage sites. Good case studies exist not only in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, but also in the continents. These successful examples imply that intangible aspects of heritage can provide more profound interpretations of value and integrity of tangible heritage, including maritime sites. Despite that, there have been very few works directly addressing intangible heritage among UCH professionals. Main works on underwater heritage protection today are still archaeology-heavy and technology-heavy, as the concern has been to keep pace with looters, environmental change and industrial threats. Managerial professionals have overlooked that understanding the existing community’s cultures can gain them stronger supports for conservation against exploitation. It is time that underwater heritage professionals explore more seriously cross-disciplinary efforts to upscale safeguarding capacity by involving bigger, grassroots communities of heritage stakeholders. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Montakarn Suvanatap, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 3 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c8e5c13965c4d991464e08c65b44d44a.pdf 26e99bc89039296bb4cd1fcfa2b07bac PDF Text Text An Introduction to the Maritime Construct of Khashabat in the Persian Gulf Mostafa Karimi University of Tehran Email: karimi_282@yahoo.com Abstract The history of maritime routes and communications in Iran dates back to a long time ago. In ancient times, to prevent dangers for their ships such as water thinness and thawing near coasts, the shallow depths and narrowness of rivers at the mouth of seas, Iranians installed a mechanical device called khashabat or Khushab (lighthouse). This maritime device has been made out of teak wood in the form of a catapult and imperfect pyramid. The height of a khashabat was about 40 meters above the sea level. Its materials were pottery and stones. The watches on a khashabat were deployed in four-arched chambers on its top. The significance of the khashabat was because of natural disasters, the invasion of pirates, and expiration of their fuel. Historical resources indicate that khashabats or lighthouses in the sea exited until the 13th century. The present study is aimed at investigating functions and significance of khashabats in traditional cruise and the reasons for their construction. In addition, places where this Iranian technology and engineering were used are introduced. Key words: Khashabat, the Persian Gulf, navigation, maritime hazards, lighthouse. Introduction The history of technology is just a small part of the profile of the human civilization in their temporal visions, but it is an important part of human culture and civilization as well. Therefore, investigating the history of Iranian technology is very significant. Iranian culture is very rich in terms of maritime technology and shipbuilding. Waters of the Persian Gulf, Oman Sea, Indian Ocean, and rivers in the southwest of Iran have been scenes for people’s navigation since the ancient times. �According to myths, Jamshid Jam, from the Pishdadian Dynasty, built the first ship. He also established the first “maritime rituals” and other national rituals for leading people toward seas and navigation. He then started sailing and navigation in seas*** and sailed from one country to another.1 (Ferdowsi, 1966:27) According to Ferdowsi’s narration, after the transfer of government from Pishdadian to Kianian dynasties, occurrences of events changed from Sarandib to Hamavaran. During his travel to Iran, Kay Kavus passed Zabol (Nimrouz) and reached Makran coasts and decided to suddenly invade Hamavaran: “Key Kavus ordered the army to play drums and proceeded from Nimrouz*** Then he, the King of the world, became happy He deployed his army toward Turan and China*** and then he invaded Makran.2 Then the king ordered shipbuilders to build boats and ships. The king and his army boarded and passed seas a thousand miles until they reached a land. Key Kavus ordered shipbuilders to build abundant ships and boats***and then he deployed his army to invade The people of Hamavaran were informed that*** Key Kavus and his army were invading from the Makran Sea”.3 Sailing in Iranian waters was common in the Phoenician, Elamite, Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid times, as well as during the Islamic era. With a glance at the sailing tradition, shipbuilding and using maritime devices have been common in Iran since the ancient times. Many maritime and shipping instruments were created by Iranians, and some other instruments were used by Iranian sailors who traveled to other lands in the ancient era. Compasses, steerages, depth finders, distance finders, measurement tools, flyers (drawings), electric pellets, and khashabats (marine lights) were among instruments innovated by Iranians �(Nourbakhsh,2003:75 and 81, Raein,1976:288-289). The present study aims to investigate the functions and applications of khashabats, as one of the most important innovations and instruments of Iranian sailing in the shipping industry of those periods based on historical resources. a. What is a Khashabat? The word “khashabat” (‫ )خشبات‬which is the plural form of “khashaba” (‫)خشبه‬ means sea minarets. They are in a place behind Abbadan (Dehkhoda, 1998:9802). A khashaba literally refers to a piece of wood. It also refers to a ship metaphorically. But generally in resources such as Murravej ulZahab of Masoudi and other geographical resources, the term khashabat refers to a minarets of wood established as a wooden scaffold in the sea, and the fire was lit on the top of it in a small chamber. As a result, it led ships toward safe passages. It in fact was equivalent to a lighthouse in the modern shipping era. Nowadays there are some maritime guides-being lit at night by wires and power- which are called “Bayeh”, but they are floating in the sea (Hadi, 1992:180). b. Navigating and trading in the Persian Gulf The maritime routes of the Persian Gulf is the most ancient connecting maritime routes in the world. They have been connecting Central Asia to the Middle East since several thousand years. Since the very ancient times, Chinese, Indonesian, and Malayan, and Indian, and African, goods have been shipped with the efforts exerted by Iranian sailors to ports in the Persian Gulf such as Bayan (Lian), Oboleh, Riv Ardeshir, and Forat Mishan ports and were unloaded there from where those goods were transferred to Palmira and Syria. Sometimes windships headed toward their destination through the bay in the west of Iraq and stretched out to �Al-Hirah and unloaded their goods near that city which was the dock of caravans from Badia –al-Arab. Since that time, the Persian Gulf, as currently known for its oil reservoirs all over the world, has been famous for connecting trade routes in the east to the west of the ancient and modern world (Rasaei, 1972:42). c. Reasons for the advent and construction of khashabats To build a light to guide ships in dangerous and difficult passages, human beings thought of fire and light; therefore, lighting and igniting wood were some strategies for guiding ships and fleets. Then, human beings succeeded to use viscous black liquid, also called petroleum (from Greek: petra: "rock" + oleum: "oil".) for igniting fires in seas. However, since this liquid was flammable, it was poured in special containers or holes were delved in heights and it was poured into those holes and ignited (Rasaei, 1972:40) Indeed the geographical situation of soils in the head of the Persian Gulf was not like the present time. In the ancient time, downstreams of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Karun rivers were separately poured into the Persian Gulf; as a result, salty water of the sea spread out the surrounding lands through bays stretched out near Basra even in the Sassanid era (Rasaei, 1972:42). In addition, the Persian Gulf is more roaring than other seas because of its shallow depth and its rugged submarine topology. The Persian Gulf joins the Indian Ocean (Eghtedari, 1966:10). Thus the ancient Iranians thought of finding safer routes for facilitating navigation, preventing damages to ships, and guiding ships toward northern parts of the Persian Gulf. As a result, they constructed a type of maritime guide board called “khashabat” in historical resources. In addition, in the guidebook of Rani Kia Tan, written between 785 to 805 AD, it is mentioned that Iranians constructed special towers in the Persian Gulf and ignited them at night for guiding ships and boats. The flammable �materials used for igniting those towers were unknown but they could be wood or petroleum (Hadi, 1992:170). Professor Hadi Hassan quoted from Hiret Veracqui, the author of the book the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries that a ship is made out of wood and a shipmaster is a human, as there are land mice, there are water mice as well, and there are bandits as there are pirates. In addition, there are other hazards such as typhoons and rocks. Therefore, there were some decorated columns in the Persian Gulf which were ignited in order to guide ships toward true destinations” (Hadi, 1992:171). According to Muqaddasi, in 985 AD around Basra, people constructed chambers on palm trees and ignited fire in them in order to prevent the crash of ships with rocks. But since it was difficult to navigate in that area, ships sailed mostly in days in such a way that shipmasters climbed decks and watched the horizon. Then, they transferred their commands to helmsmen to steer ships. However, when their ships got away from coasts and reached the sea, they had to steer their ships via the sun, the moon, and stars (Muqaddasi, 1897:17).Those khashabats were established and worked until the thirteenth century. The most important reasons of constructing khashabats can be as follows: 1. Specific geographic features of the north of the Persian Gulf; 2. The sea level rise in the Persian Gulf in the bay stretching out Basra and the shallow depth of water; 3. Prevention from big ships’ grounding in muds which the Tigris, Euphrates, and Karun rivers carried from mountains and embedded at the mouth of the head of the Persian Gulf; 4. Determination of the shipping routes in shallow areas of the Persian Gulf at night; and 5. Protection of commercial goods exported from or imported to the area. �d. Geographic range of khashabats in the Persian Gulf In this section, the study is to investigate in which areas of the Persian Gulf khashabats were employed. Distribution of khashabats in the Persian Gulf until the 13th century Darius the Great ordered that the first lighthouse be installed at the mouth of Indus River under the supervision of Scylax. When Nearchus, Alexander’s Admiral, sailed into the Persian Gulf in 326 BC, he was astonished by great lighthouses. As a result, he praised the miracles he had observed in the area in his travelogue. According to Nearchus, Iranians’ lighthouses were installed in different parts of the Persian Gulf (Nourbakhsh, 2003:77). The Persian Gulf was considered as a part of the fourth gulf of the Bahr ul-Azam Sea. In the book Hudud al-Alam, The Persian Gulf is described as “a gulf with narrow width which stretches out Indus River” (Sotoudeh Ed, 1960:12). Muqaddasi writes in the book Ahsan al-Taqasim that khashabats’ origin is thought to be from Basra. They are very shallow and dangerous. Wood columns were installed and chambers were built on top of them. At night, the fireplaces were lit to warn them not to approach. Muqaddasi writes also that a captain once said that there were a lot of calamities there; his ship grounded several times. Only one ship out of 40 ones can return from there (Muqaddasi, 1982:18). Nasir Khusraw who voyaged to Mahrouban Harbor via Basra in a ship in 1051 observed khashabats and attributed their constructions to ancient kings. He narrated that when they voyaged from Basra in May 1051, firstly they boarded a boat and voyaged for four miles to reach Abbadan (Abadan). Abbadan was close to the sea as an island with two branches. As they approached and anchored, they saw some towers and asked �natives what were they? They answered them that those towers are khasbabats (Ghobadiani, 1976:161). Soleiman Sirafi writes in the book Sequence of Histories (Silsilat ulTwarikh) that the beginning of the Persian Gulf was the area of khashabats of Basra. That area covered Basra, Oboleh, and Bahrain. Then, there was Laravi Sea beside which there were khashabats of Saymur, Subareh, Taneh, Sandan, and Konbayeh regions which were parts of India and Indus River. The beginning of the Perisan Gulf there was maritime rugged topologies around Basra where khashabats or konkalas had been installed. Those khashabats were constructed out of wood in order to be guides for sailors and helmsmen. The distance from the beginning of the Persian Gulf to the Oman Sea is about 300 miles. In addition, the distance from Persian coasts to Bahrain is about 300 miles (Sirafi, 2002:160). In his observations of the Persian Gulf from 947-956, Masoudi describes its range as follows: “the beginning of this sea starts from Basra, Oboleh, and Bahrian where areas of khashabats of Basra are located. Therefore, the beginning of the Persian Gulf is from khashabats of Basra, also called Konkala, that are signs made out of wood and installed in the sea. The distance form this area to Oman Sea is about 300 miles” (Masoudi, 1864:147). According to the above discussions, it can be concluded that marine lights were mostly employed at the head of the Persian Gulf. In most historical and geographical resources, the area of using khashabats were Basra, Oboleh, Abbadan (Abadan), Mesopotamia4 (Hamavi,1987:239), Bahrain, Mahrouban, Siraf, and even Masqat, and Sohar5 in Oman and at the mouth of Indus River. All in all, it can be claimed that khashabats were constructed and established at the mouth of big rivers ending in Persian Gulf from where muds and sediments entered the sea and resulted in �creating bays. In the Persian Gulf where the Tigris, Euphrates and Karun rivers reaches each other, a relatively big bay is emerged. As a result, the sea becomes shallow. This issue results in problems for ships. Iranians solved this problem in the Persian Gulf using khashabats. [Fig. 1] Fig.1: Geographic range of khashabats in the Persian Gulf. e. The structure and features of khashabats Nasir Khusraw who visited khashabats, describes their structures: “[t]heir columns are four big teaks like catapults with wide bases. Their heads are narrow. Their heights above sea level are about four feet. On their tops, there are stones and pottery containers fastened to each other with wood. They are called khashabats6. Some people say that they were constructed by a merchant and some others say they were constructed by a king. Nevertheless, they both had intentions: to save ships from getting stuck in sediments of that area, and secondly to warn them of pirates. When we passed by khashabats, we saw a Nabeh without any dome. After that, were reached Mahrouban” (Ghobadiani, 1976:163). �Hafiz-i Abru describes khashabats as follows: “khashabats exist near Abbadan- around Basra- where marshes and drainage of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers poured into the sea. The distance from Abbadan to that place is about six miles. The depth of the body of water in that area is shallow; thus ships may be in danger. In those locations, timbers have been raised up as catapults. The bases of those khashabats are reinforced with a lot of pieces of wood. There are domes of pieces of wood for watches to ignite fires on the top of those khashabats. Those khashabats cannot be seen in days because their distances is very far from the coast. The mouth of the Tigris River is the border where ships must not trespass” (Hafiz i-Abru, 1996:239). As discussed, the structural features of khashabats can be explained as follows: - Each khashabat (lighthouse) had four bases made of wood7. Wood has been used as one of the materials in Iranian buildings since the ancient time. Wood was used in chambers of royal emirates in Shush and Persepolis in the Achaemenid era (Farsahd, 1987:730). - In the design of khashabats, the quadrangular bases were underwater. As they went up, the quadrangular got smaller, that is to say their heads were smaller than the bases. This design was adopted for the increase in the strength and resistance against typhoons8. - Their heights were 40 meters above the sea level. - On the top of them, there were dome shaped and pottery-roofed cubicles for watches. - In their cubicles, there were places for igniting fire. - The distance of one khashabat with another was in such a way that when one of them was out of sight, another appeared. f. The function and significance of khashabats in navigation With regard to descriptions and explanations of Muqaddasi, Nasir Khusraw, Soleiman, and Sirafi, Hafiz i-Abru, and other historians and geographers, it can be inferred that khashabats and lighthouses were of two types which in spite of commonalities in goals and duties, they had �different functions. Apparently, one type of khashabats were merely used for watches; therefore, ignition in them seems unlikely because the fire for guiding ships must have been very big to be seen by captains. On the top of that type of khashabats, there were some tombs and chambers as shelters for watches. The significance of khashabats type one is in their determination of shallow places of a body of water and the existence of underwater big rocks. In addition, sailors and watches in those khashabats were responsible for transferring news about the coming of ships to officials in ports or in case of observing pirates, they informed military bases to fight them. Therefore, khashabats had military functions as well. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2: The khahsbats type one. (Artwork: Nahid koohi) �But the khahsbats type two were lacking in chambers and tombs because fire was ignited on the top of them. However, there were some officers responsible for igniting fire at night. The significance of this type of khashabats was for nights because the ignited fires were for guiding ships in order to find their ways at night and in mists, while khashabats type I were used in days. Nevertheless, these two types both had common function of indicating shallow places of a body of water and guiding ships. [Fig. 3] Fig.3: The khahsbats type two. (Artwork: Nahid koohi) As a result, in can be concluded from the above discussions that khashabats were considered significant in the ancient navigation. Ferdowsi describes khashabats in Shahnama that: �“Come to explain you what are khashabats***a wise man has established them in waters… When a ship observe them from a distance***and see fires blazing out of them... It follows the right direction as fires show***and the shipmaster thinks so.” Therefore, khashabats have been very significant for maritime transportations and the development of business and trades in the Persian Gulf in that the economic life of people living in ports and harbors of the Persian Gulf ranging from the eastern coasts of the Tigris River to Makran plains and Baluchistan, and from the western bank of the Tigris River to southern coasts of the Persian Gulf and around Arab Peninsula as well as those who were known as Babylonian, Sumerian, Arabic, Zangi and Yemeni having lived in other parts of the region all needed the sea and maritime business. As a consequence, residents in the coasts of the Persian Gulf have always intended to find routes, instruments, and technologies for ships to navigate as rapidly and safely as possible, and one of those technologies was khashabats. Conclusion According to information obtained from writings and observations of historians and geographers, navigation has been a dangerous profession when ships are approaching coasts of the Persian Gulf. Therefore, in the ancient times (the Achaemenid and specially Darius the Great), Iranians constructed constructions made of wood and ignited fires for signing the ships and warning them of dangerous and shallow parts of the body of water in coasts. In navigation of the previous centuries, this type of construction has been called khashabat. Those khashabats played a significant role in navigation of the ancient sailors in that their structure acted as lighthouses for the current sailors and helmsmen. The distance �of those khashabats from each other was as far as when one got out of sight, the other appeared. The most reasons and goals of constructing those towers were as follows: 1. To guide ships at night by igniting fires on the top of them because when the sea level went up in shallow lands, there was a danger that ships got stuck in sediments of that area; 2. When sailors saw lights in darkness, they could find their ways among mists and darkness; 3. They were used for watching and determining routes for ships in days. As observed, lighthouses and maritime signs have been one of the innovations of ancient Iranians; therefore it can be assured that current advanced lighthouses and maritime sings mixed with modern technologies and completed with modern advances are rooted in Iranians’ intelligence used in the Persian Gulf. EndNotes 1 ‫گذر كرد از آن پس به كشتي بر آب *** ز كشور به كشور برآمد شتاب‬ 2 - ‫ شاه گيتي فروز‬،‫بزد كوس و برداشت از نيمروز *** شده شاد دل‬ 3 ‫ز ايران بشد تا به توران و چين *** گذر كرد از آن پس به مكران زمين‬ ‫بي اندازه كشتي و زورق بساخت *** بياراست لشكر بدو در شناخت‬ ‫خبر شد بديشان كه كاوس شاه *** برآمد ز آب زره با سپاه‬ 4 - An island where Abadan is in its west beside the Aravand River. It was called Mesopotamia. “Mesopotamia means in between rivers and it is a kind of island in lower parts of Basra of which Abadan is a part”. 5 - Iranians called it “Mazun” in the ancient times. 6 - Khashbab 7 - They were mostly made of palm trees. 8 - Its design were in the form of current towers. Bibliography: Dehkhoda, A. A, 1998. Persian Dictionary of Dehkhoda. M. Moein and S. J. Shahidi (Eds.). vol. 7. University of Tehran Press, Tehran. Eghtedari, A, 1985. Form the Persian Gulf to the sea of china. Iran Transportation Research and Publishing Company, Tehran. �Eghtedari, A, 1966. The Persian Gulf. Franklin Publishing House, Tehran. Farshad, M,1987. History of engineering in Iran. Amir Kabir,Tehran. Ferdowsi, A,1966. Shahnama. J, Mohl (Ed.). vol. 1. Franklin Publication, Tehran. Ghobadiani, N,1976. Nasir Khusraw’ travelogue. M. Dabir Siaghi (Ed.). University of Tehran, Tehran. Hafiz i-Abru, Sh,1996. Geography of Hafiz i-Abru. Vol. 1. Miras Maktoub, Tehran. ……….1960.The whole world from the east to the west. M. Sotoudeh (Ed.). Tehran University Press,Tehran. Hadi, H, 1992. The story of Iran's shipping from ancient times to the sixteenth century. O. Eghtedari & A. Eghtedari (Ed.). Astan Quds Razavi Publishing House, Tehran. Hamavi, Y,1987. Dictionary of countries. Vol. 5. Dar al-Beirut Publication,Beirut. Masoudi, A, 1864. Murravaj ul-Zahab. Dominard (Ed.). vol. 1. Paris Raein, E,1976. Iranians’ navigation Vol.1. Javidan,Tehran. Rasaei, F,1972. 2500 years on the seas. Peik Darya, Tehran. Sirafi, S,2002. Sequence of histories: news from China and India. Asatir, Tehran. Masoudi, A,1864. Murravaj ul-Zahab. A. Payandeh (Trans.). Translation and Publishing Agency ,Tehran. Muqaddasi, A,1982. The best divisions in the knowledge of regions (Ahsan al-Taghasism fi Maretaf al-Aghalim). Vol. 1. Company of Authors and Translators, Tehran. Muqaddasi, A,1897. The best divisions in the knowledge of regions (Ahsan al-Taghasism fi Maretaf al-Aghalim). Ranking. B. (Trans.). Calcutta. �Nourbakhsh, H,2003. Navigation in Iran. Institute for Cultural Research, Tehran. Kheir Andish, A. & Tabriz Nia, M,1993. Research on the Persian Gulf (vol. 6). First edition House of Book, . Tehran. Biography Mostaf Karimi holds an M.A. in history, focussing on Persian Gulf Studies. Graduating from the University of Tehran, his dissertation title is “The historical process of maritime culture in the Persian Gulf". He is currently a lecturer at the University of Tehran. He is the author of "Maritime Culture of The Persian Gulf" and Co-author of the encyclopedia of the Persian Gulf. He has written several articles about the Persian Gulf for international and domestic magazines. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 5: Iran's Maritime Cultural Landscape Description An account of the resource The country of Iran benefits from having a long coastline. Sea spaces and coastlines were attractive settlements for humans throughout history. These extensive maritime landscapes have resulted in interactions between human and sea along the northern (Caspian Sea) and southern (Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman) coastlines of Iran. Iran’s rivers and lakes contain a great deal of evidence of human habitation and interaction. Due to the country’s long history of maritime culture, we can also observe sea effects on coastal communities in Iran. Maritime archaeological studies in Iran, however, are at a nascent stage. In the 1990’s, a small group of archaeologists from the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR) investigated in the north of Persian Gulf to decode its unknown history. In 2000, the first coherent and planned activities of that group produced the "Underwater Surveys around the shores of Siraf Port in Bushehr Province". After that, the team surveyed "Bandar-e Rig"(Rig port), Portuguese castles in Siraf port, Southern Shores of the Bushehr Peninsula in the Persian Gulf. The team has worked on sites from "Shushtar’s Band-e Mizan"(Shushtar barrier), "Takht-e Suleiman" Lake, and the Amir Abad and "Zaghmarz" shipwrecks; the "TammÄ«sheh and Gorgān" Underwater Walls, and the "Ghorogh" and "Rudsar" shipwrecks. These projects were published in Persian by a domestic magazine. The team then prepared and distributed a booklet titled of "Iran, Underwater Cultural Heritage and It's Share in Maritime Archeological Studies" for the annual meeting of States Parties of The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2016. Next, UNESCO and ICHTO held "Training Workshop on Underwater Archaeology with a Focus on the UNESCO 2001 Convention" in Iran. These activities are continuing and we hope for some continued progress in maritime archaeological studies and international cooperation. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hossien Tofighian Research Institute of Cultural Heritage & Tourism (RICHT), Iran Ramin Adibi Higher Institute of Marlik University, Iran 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 An Introduction to the Maritime Construct of Khashabat in the Persian Gulf Description An account of the resource The history of maritime routes and communications in Iran dates back to a long time ago. In ancient times, to prevent dangers for their ships such as water thinness and thawing near coasts, the shallow depths and narrowness of rivers at the mouth of seas, Iranians installed a mechanical device called khashabat or Khushab (lighthouse). This maritime device has been made out of teak wood in the form of a catapult and imperfect pyramid. The height of a khashabat was about 40 meters above the sea level. Its materials were pottery and stones. The watches on a khashabat were deployed in four-arched chambers on its top. The significance of the khashabat was because of natural disasters, the invasion of pirates, and expiration of their fuel. Historical resources indicate that khashabats or lighthouses in the sea exited until the 13th century. The present study is aimed at investigating functions and significance of khashabats in traditional cruise and the reasons for their construction. In addition, places where this Iranian technology and engineering were used are introduced. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mostafa Karimi Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Mostafa Karimi Asia-Pac Session 5 2017 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c7defd7427a3e7b5fd8d0df9a290cafa.mp4 047c7d466cbd0c91ef647b34b55a2924 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Video interview with Session 1 chair Etienne Clément. Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. To view the papers presented in this session please use the Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mr. Etienne Clément Asia-Pac Session 1 2014