51 10 700 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Himanshu Prabha Ray Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Cambridge University Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Himanshu Prabha Ray Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 Place Cambridge Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Cambridge University Press Title A name given to the resource The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia Southeast 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 The Ashi-Bune, or the Reed-Canoe. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Shinji Nishimura Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Society of Naval Architects Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1925 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Shinji Nishimura Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1925 Extra External Resources: Find this item at Abebooks.com (Bookseller) Find this item at Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America (Bookseller) Find this item at Biblio (Bookseller) Cite This Item Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ... Language: English Class Descriptors: LC: VM105 Other Titles: Reed-canoe. Entry: 19881122 Update: 20080828 Provider: OCLC Library Catalog OCLC WorldCat FirstSearch Num Pages 180 Place Tokyo Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Society of Naval Architects Title A name given to the resource The Ashi-Bune, or the Reed-Canoe. Japan https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c448dc07fc1e004f3e778774444ae52b.pdf 5a5baab2f4bff3476b0dbbb9ff0f13ec PDF Text Text The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project: In-situ preservation and long-term monitoring of the Clarence (1850) and James Matthews (1841)shipwreck sites Vicki Richards Department of Materials Conservation, Western Australian Museum Shipwreck Galleries, 45-47 Cliff St Fremantle, WA 6160 Australia Email: vicki.richards@museum.wa.gov.au Ian MacLeod Western Australian Maritime Museum, Peter Hughes Drive, Victoria Quay, Fremantle, WA 6160 Australia Peter Veth School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy Crawley, WA 6009 Australia 1 �Abstract Increasingly archaeologists are opting for on-site examination, reinterment and in-situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage sites as the first option in the management of sites at risk as opposed to the more traditional excavation, recovery, conservation and display/storage methods. This decision will inevitably be based on significance assessment, degree of perceived risk and resourcing issues. However, long-term monitoring must become an integral part of these management programmes in order to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of the in-situ preservation techniques employed. Absence of monitoring is equivalent to abrogation of responsible management and in some cases can be considered tantamount to cultural vandalism. In 2012 the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) commenced, having secured funding through a substantial Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 10 Australian Partner Organisations and three universities. One of the major aims of the project is to develop a protocol for the excavation, detailed recording and reburial of significant shipwrecks under threat, fostering a strategic national approach for the management of underwater cultural heritage sites at risk. Two historically significant shipwreck sites were chosen for this longitudinal comparative study – the Clarence (1850) located in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria and the James Matthews (1841) which lies in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. Both sites have been preserved in situ using two very different but innovative remediation strategies. More importantly a long-term monitoring programme has been implemented which will characterise changes in the reburial environment and the effect on the reinterred materials. In this way, the efficacy of both in-situ preservation techniques will be systematically tested, providing a comparative analysis of practical protocols for the long-term protection and management of underwater archaeological resources. Key words: In-situ preservation, Underwater cultural heritage, Shipwrecks, monitoring, Conservation management Introduction The AHSPP is a national collaborative project funded by an ARC Linkage Grant which commenced in February 2012. With ten state, territory and federal Partner Organisations and three collaborating universities, this is the largest multi-government, 2 �multi-institutional maritime archaeological project ever initiated in Australia. The idea of a national collaborative research project arose from the 2008 review of the Australian Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Program (HSP). The report suggested that the HSP had not developed a maritime specific conservation management planning process for underwater cultural heritage (UCH) sites including nationally standardised processes and procedures, capacity for the excavation of UCH sites that are considered under threat and general guidelines for site management and in-situ preservation of UCH material. The ASHPP aims to address some of these issues by investigating and preserving in situ, in accordance with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Clarence (1850) shipwreck located in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria and the James Matthews (1841) which lies in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. The Clarence was considered an ideal site for this project for a number of reasons. This early colonial Australian built vessel was test excavated and surveyed in the 1980s (Harvey, 1989), providing a baseline for ongoing longitudinal comparative research. The site is relatively small (16.5m length; 6.2m width) and easily accessible as it lies in 5m of water at a location close to the major population centre of Melbourne. The site is subject to continuing anchor damage by illegal recreational anglers as well as the natural impact of the strong currents experienced in Port Phillip Bay and is considered under serious threat. The ex-slaver turned colonial trading vessel, James Matthews was chosen as the second site. It is also relatively small (24m length; 6m width) and located 12km south of Fremantle, lying approximately 100m off shore in 23m of water. More importantly, it has been the subject of a long-term detailed in situ conservation management research programme with more than 10 years of accumulated data on the efficacy of three different experimental reburial strategies trialled on-site (Richards et al., 2009).The synergistic impact of industrial activity and natural near-shore sedimentary processes has resulted in continued exposure and rapid deterioration of the site. The implementation of appropriate long-term in-situ preservation strategies for both sites, supported by an extensive monitoring programme to assess the viability of the different methodologies, was of paramount importance. However, in order for any in-situ preservation strategy to be successful the following points must be addressed in the overall management plan: 3 �1. Ascertain the extent of the site. 2. Assess the most significant physical, chemical and biological deterioration processes occurring on the site. 3. Assess the pre-disturbed local burial environment and the major factors affecting the long-term stability of the site. 4. Identify the major material types present on the site and their extents of deterioration. 5. Implement an appropriate in-situ preservation strategy or combinations thereof, to mitigate continued deterioration and stabilize the site long-term. 6. Implement a long-term monitoring programme to evaluate the efficacy of the implemented in-situ preservation strategy. 7. Provide alternative plans and procedures if the implemented in-situ preservation strategies are unsuccessful. 8. Conservation, storage and curation of any recovered artefacts. Each of these points is integral to a process-based approach when assessing underwater cultural heritage sites and establishing successful long-term conservation management plans (Richards, 2011). All eight points were addressed through application of previous research results and during the development of comprehensive research designs that included extensive methodology components and monitoring programmes for each site prior to the implementation of any reburial strategies. Clarence - Excavation, Conservation and In-situ Preservation The first fieldwork period on the Clarence occurred from 16 April to 15 May 2012. All activities were conducted from a 18m x 12m jack-up barge, set 3.5m above sea level, located directly adjacent to the site. The deposition of 1700 UV stabilised polypropylene woven sand bags onto the site was Fig. 1 Biological growth on the Clarence site in November 2013. (J. Carpenter) 4 �executed from support vessels. Adverse weather limited the excavation to only 9m of the starboard side, which was fully recorded. Only 35 artefact assemblages were recovered and kept wet at all times with seawater as opposed to fresh water to avoid osmotic shock when reburied. After full documentation the artefacts were prepared for reburial by wrapping them in polyester geotextile (Bidim A14), followed by a high density polyethylene shade cloth protective wrapping (Coolaroo Exterior Fabrics - Extra Heavy (84-90% UV Block) secured by cable ties. The artefacts were then placed in wet storage until the reburial phase of the project commenced. Previous research has established the 50cm datum as the minimum depth of burial for the protection of recovered artefacts (Nyström-Godfrey et al., 2011). It was decided that the few, smaller metal, glass and ceramic artefacts could be reinterred on the wreck site as it would be possible to obtain greater than 50cm of sediment coverage. However, because they were different material types they had to be separated by at least 50cm in order to minimise the chances of unwanted chemical interactions. Owing to the larger size of the packed organic artefacts, it was not possible to rebury them on-site, therefore they were reburied in an off-site storage depot in order to obtain the minimum depth of burial. A proprietary 2000L high density polyethylene water tank was purchased, the ends cut off and the tank sawn in half. This cylinder (1.0m height; 1.2m diameter) was then dredged into the seabed about 10m south of the stern. The sand was dredged from within the confines of the cylinder and the least degraded organic artefacts placed at the bottom of the depot, covered with 10cm of surrounding sand then the more fragile organics were placed on top of this layer. The depot was then backfilled with surrounding sediment, covered with shade cloth and anchored with polypropylene sand bags. Towards the end of the fieldwork period, the excavated area including the reinterred artefacts was backfilled with dredged sediment from the site, however due to the fine nature of the clay deposit some was lost from the sediment traps and therefore the forward section of the excavation trench was backfilled with proprietary sand emptied from the sand bags on the site. Unfortunately, the weather deteriorated so it was not possible to adequately rebury the entire excavation trench and the off-site reburial depot 5 �to the minimum 50cm datum. These areas were stabilised with a layer of shade cloth and additional sand bags as an interim remediation measure. Three weeks later saw the reburial of the excavation area and the depot with further proprietary sand so that an average reburial depth of 1m was achieved. This was considerably deeper than the pre-disturbance sediment profile. The backfilled areas were then stabilised with a layer of shade cloth, anchored with more sand bags until the final phase of the remediation strategy could be completed later in the year. In November 2012 the final phase of the in situ preservation strategy commenced. This entailed filling and depositing a further 1800 sand bags on the site, removing the sand bags and shade cloth deployed in June, repositioning and adding more sand bags to adequately support some of the higher profile structural features on the port and starboard side of the wreck, covering the site with a shade cloth mat and finally protecting the site with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tarpaulins. A pre-prepared 250m2 shade cloth mat (3 x 25m long x 3.66m wide sections joined together by cable ties) was deployed flush over the entire site conforming to the undulations of the wreck profile. The shade cloth was folded in a concertina fashion, which allowed the entire mat to be fanned out, starting down current, without recourse to deploying it in separate sections. The mat was then anchored with approximately 250 sand bags. The shade cloth mat will encourage the formation of an anaerobic environment in a relatively short period of time. However, because the shade cloth could be severely damaged by anchors it was covered with three 7m x 14m x 2mm PVC tarpaulins for further protection. The tarpaulins could not have been placed directly onto the site without the underlying shade cloth mat because a) the PVC was just negatively buoyant and relatively inelastic so the tarpaulins could not conform closely to the site profile leaving large water spaces around the higher profile structures, which would take too long to become anaerobic and b) the polyethylene mesh allowed the tarpaulins to slip and be easily moved into the correct position so they could be joined together with minimal gaps. Most importantly, 6 �the tarpaulins will minimise the continuing physical damage to the wreck site and should further encourage anaerobic conditions on-site. Each tarpaulin was deployed individually, with each end unrolled from the mid-section of the site. When all three tarpaulins were in the correct position they were joined together with cable ties through pre-prepared plastic eyelets and heavy duty nylon tabs. Sand bags were then tied in place along the seams and edges of the mats with previously installed nylon straps. Another layer of sand bags was then placed on top of these to minimise any gaps along the seams. Approximately 3-6 lines of sand bags were then placed along the bow and stern edges of the tarpaulin and another line of bags along the port and starboard side edges to seal any gaps and minimise water movement under the tarpaulin by strong currents and potential lifting by anchors. Finally, the entire interior of the tarpaulin was covered with approximately 1300 sand bags for added protection. The same procedure was followed for deploying the shade cloth and PVC tarpaulin (2m2) over the off-site reburial depot. Subsequent visits in March, September and November 2013, indicated that the in situ preservation strategy had been successful to date. All sand bags were still in place, there was extensive biological growth on the site and considerably more sediment buildup around the sand bags on top of the tarpaulins (Fig. 1). In addition, the sediment under the shade cloth was grey/black in colour indicating a low oxygen environment. The inspections showed that two of the higher profile ribs had broken through the protection and these will be wrapped in geotextile followed by impermeable black plastic. Any additional breakouts will be managed in the same fashion. Obviously, regular monitoring of any in-situ reburial strategy is essential in order to ensure continued longterm protection of the site. James Matthews – In-situ Preservation A comprehensive pre-disturbance survey and research into broader scale coastal processes and localised sediment level monitoring began in 2000. This work was extended in 2002 to assess the efficacy of sand bags, sediment trapping experiments 7 �using artificial seagrass and shade cloth mats and a cofferdam consisting of four environmentally inert, interlocking, medium density polyethylene ‘road crash barrier’ units (2m length; 0.9m height) filled with surrounding sediment, as site management methodologies. Long-term monitoring of the sediment to changes in micro-environment via microbiological and physico-chemical analyses were initiated (Richards et al., 2009).The crash barrier cofferdam technique appeared to be the best solution. Preparations for this large-scale reburial commenced in April 2013 with a total of 22 personnel(AHSPP Chief Investigator and Acting Project Manager, Western Australian Museum staff, practitioners from Partner Organisations and volunteers) involved duringthe intensive five day fieldwork period from 18-22 November 2013.Personnel were divided into 2 to 4 smaller teams dependent on the activities of the day. The two main teams consisted of a land-based team, which filled 1400 x 20kg sand bags with clean, washed proprietary sand (20m3 or 28 tonne) and the boat-based team, consisting of divers, boat handlers and support crew carried out all sea-based work on the wreck site. In addition two smaller teams were organised during the course of the fieldwork;a sand-barge team, which assembled and dismantled the sand barge and a shore-based team, which transported sand bags from the Museum to a beach about 100m from the wreck site and loaded the barge. Prior to the main program all previous site stabilisation equipment of anodes, sand bags and shade cloth were removed and a rope guideline was placed around the periphery of Fig. 2 Snorkelers sinking a RCB on the James Matthews site. (P. Baker) the site, which assisted in the 3 day deployment of the road crash barriers (RCBs), about 0.5-1.0m away from the wreck site in a semi-elliptical arrangement. Each RCB unit and connecting pin (0.9m length; 0.09m diameter) was filled with 20 kg and 5kg of blue metal (14mm), respectively on board a rented dive boat. The floating RCB and pin were then transported upright to the appropriate position on the wreck site using a small tender, then three snorkelers slowly sank the barrier via air displacement (Fig. 2). Two 8 �divers received the sinking RCB and the connecting pin and physically manoeuvred the barrier into the correct position, inside the guideline and then locked it in position with the pin. The RCBs weighed approximately 15kg under water and were easily manoeuvred on the seabed. Following this procedure 36 RCBs were individually deployed on-site before they were permanently anchored in place with a minimum of 120kg of blue metal per barrier. The initial sealing of the gaps in the Fig. 3 Plastic damp coursing anchored over the gaps between the RCBs with zinc tek screws. (J. Carpenter) coffer dam with 2m long; 1m wide black plastic strips proved to be ineffective due to wave action across the site so they were replaced with high density, plastic roof damp coursing (450mm width; 500µm thick) about 1.5-2.0m in length, placed over the gaps and anchored flush against the inner surfaces of the RCBs with zinc alloy tek screws (Fig. 3). Operation of the sand barge, designed to bring clean, washed sand to the enclosed wreck inside the RCB ring, proved that a beach based operation was not efficient since it involved multiple handling steps and took one day to deliver 3.5 tonnes of sand. The best method involved directly loading the barge from the rented dive boat moored adjacent to the site to minimise the distance the sand barge would need to be towed (Fig. 4).Twenty tonnes (1015 x 20kg bags) of sand was delivered to the site over the last two days of the fieldwork leaving8 tonne of sand at the Museum. The second phase of fieldwork was conducted over four days in early to mid-December 2013. By direct loading from the museum truck alongside the sand barge at the nearby Jervoise Bay Yacht Club, then towing the device to the wreck site a total of 8 tonne of sand was dumped on-site in one day with only 9 personnel. Dead seagrass that had begun to accumulate within the confines of the cofferdam was placed in bags and removed from the site. 9 �A total of 165m3 or 230 tonne of sand is required to achieve the desired 0.8m sediment height within the confines of the cofferdam. The enormity of this task became apparent after dumping28 tonne of sand which only produced a 5-15cm sterile sand layer. By deploying 4m wide strips of Fig. 4 Dumping of sand from the sand barge on the James Matthews site. (J. Carpenter) Armashade70% UV block shade cloth top over the top of the coffer dam it was hoped that the natural entrapment of fine sand particles suspended in the water column will assist in filling the cofferdam and also prevent ingress of dead seagrass. Seven panels with a 30cm overlap were sewn together with cable ties, which also enabled attachment to the RCBs (Fig. 5). In early 2014, the cofferdam will be filled to the required depth by dredging local surrounding sediment onto the site ensuring that minimal organic matter is incorporated within the backfilled sediment. Conservation Monitoring Programme Pre-disturbance Surveys The environmental characteristics of the pre-disturbed local burial environment should be assessed prior to reburial in order to assist in determining the inherent stability of the site and the major degradation mechanisms occurring on-site. In addition, this predisturbance information will be used as baseline data to assist in determining if and when the reburial environment returns to its original pre-burial state and the rate at which this occurs following the changes that necessarily accompany reburial. Analyses on both the Clarence and James Matthews sites included the chemistry of the seawater, pore water and sediments [pH; redox potential (Eredox); salinity, dissolved oxygen levels, total iron and organic content; sulphide and sulphate concentrations; nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus)levels], the type and nature of the sediments (loss on ignition; particle size distribution; porosity) and the level and type of microbiological activity within the sediment. A 3,000km separation between the Clarence site and specialist microbiological assays in WA precluded microbiological analyses of those sediments. 10 �It is also important to obtain an understanding of the extent of deterioration of the major material types present on a site prior to reburial. Moreover, it is essential to collect this baseline data for long-term comparative analysis to quantify the effect the mitigation strategy is having on the reburied materials. A full pre-disturbance corrosion survey [pH, corrosion potential Fig. 5 The RCB cofferdam prior to the last length of shade cloth being deployed.(J. Carpenter) (Ecorr), total depth of concretion and corrosion (dtotal), the total depth of corrosion (dc)] was performed on the James Matthews site but no such survey was conducted on Clarence due to the lack of exposed metal objects. In addition, in situ pH profiles and pilodyn measurements were taken on exposed structural timbers on the James Matthews site, however only pilodyn data was collected from timbers on the Clarence site. Wood samples were collected from both sites for wood identification, maximum water content (Umax), microscopic and Fourier transform infra-red spectrometric (FTIR) analysis. Post Reburial Surveys The biological and physico-chemical environment of the reburial mound should be monitored at regular intervals. Hence, the same suite of analyses will be performed on sediments recovered annually from the Clarence and James Matthews sites post reburial as was previously described for the pre-disturbed environment. However, since destructive sampling of reburied archaeological materials is inherently invasive, sacrificial modern samples, such as wood blocks and metal coupons, were included in the reburial mounds (Fig. 6). 11 �Fig. 6 The sacrificial wood and iron samples on the Clarence site prior to reburial.(J. Parkinson) Sacrificial wood samples and modern ferrous alloys were reburied on both wreck sites. There were significant amounts of copper alloys (e.g. fastenings, sheathing, etc) present on the James Matthews site, therefore duplicate copper alloy coupons were also reburied on-site. One of the duplicate wood, iron and copper sacrificial samples were wrapped in Bidim A14 geo textile to ascertain its protective effect on reburied artefacts. Each set of samples had to be reburied at least 1m apart to ensure there would be no influence of the metal corrosion products on the degradation of the wood samples and to minimize proximity corrosion. The sacrificial samples will be recovered and analysed annually. The same suite of insitu and ex-situ analyses will be performed on the samples post reburial as was previously described in the pre-disturbance surveys. However, additional analyses [i.e. weight loss, scanning electron microscope/energy dispersive x-ray analysis (SEM/EDAX) and x-ray diffraction spectroscopy (XRD)] will be performed on the metal coupons. The results of the biological and physico-chemical analyses of the sediments can then be correlated to the extents of deterioration of the sacrificial samples and extrapolated to the condition of the reburied archaeological material. Conclusions One of the major aims of the AHSPP is to develop a protocol for the excavation, detailed recording and reburial of historic shipwrecks under threat by anthropogenic or natural forces. On-site monitoring of the sediment and analysis of sacrificial samples on the Clarence and James Matthews sites will continue until early 2015to test the efficacy of different reburial and stabilisation techniques and provide a comparative analysis of practical protocols. This work will be critical to the future development of national policy, 12 �methodology and technical guidelines for in-situ preservation and management of endangered historic shipwrecks. Acknowledgements The AHSPP is supported by the Australian Research Council through Linkage Partner Grant LP110200184. The Partner Organisations are: the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development, the Western Australian Museum, Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Northern Territory Government, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the Norfolk Island Museum and the Australian National Maritime Museum. We are very grateful to our Partner Organisations and particularly their staff and to our phenomenal volunteers for contributing their time, expertise and equipment to the project. Bibliography Harvey, P., 1989.Excavation of the Shipwreck Clarence: Port Phillip Bay, October 1987.Unpublished Report. Victoria Archaeological Survey, Melbourne. Nystrom-Godfrey, I., Bergstrand, Y., and Petersson, H., (Eds.), 2011.Reburial and Analyses of Archaeological Remains – Phase II Results from the 4th retrieval in 2009 from Marstrand, Sweden. The RAAR Project, Bohusläns Museum and Studio VästSvenskKonservering, Uddevalla, Sweden. Richards, V., 2011.In-situ preservation – Application of a process-based approach to the management of underwater cultural heritage. In M. Staniforth, J. Craig, S.C. Jagoon, B. Orillaneda and L. Lacsina (Eds.),Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 8-12 November 2011, Manila, Jericopim Publishing House, Manila: 769-785. Richards, V., Godfrey, I., Blanchette, R., Held, B., Gregory, D., and Reed, E., 2009.Insitu monitoring and stabilisation of the James Matthews site. In K. Straetkvernand D.J. Huisman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological 13 �Materials Conference, Amsterdam, 10-15 September 2007, RijksdienstvoorArcheologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten (RACM), Amersfoort: 113-160. Biography Vicki Richards has been a Conservation Scientist in the Materials Conservation Department of the Western Australian Museum for the past 27 years. One of her primary research areas is devising and implementing appropriate on-site management plans for the long-term in-situ preservation of shipwreck sites. Ian MacLeod has extensive experience in the analysis and interpretation of corrosion products and in-situ corrosion measurements on historic shipwrecks and archaeological sites. His current role is Executive Director of the Western Australian Maritime Museum in Fremantle Peter Veth has directed numerous archaeological projects on the evolution of maritime societies in Australia, Maluku and East Timor. He has published widely on site formation models and heritage conservation strategies. He is Winthrop Professor of Archaeology at the University of Western Australia. 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 7: Preservation and Conservation of Wet Archaeological Materials and Site Management Subject The topic of the resource Interview with Session 7 chairs Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter and links to the papers presented in the session. Description An account of the resource This session will focus on in-situ preservation and conservation management issues, conservation analyses and treatments, and applied conservation research of archaeological materials from freshwater, marine and wet terrestrial sites. The main purposes of this session are to encourage the exchange of ideas and practices as well as the development of conservation networks throughout the region. Presentations, posters and workshops are invited that address any of the following areas: • In situ preservation of marine archaeological materials, including reburial practices • Conservation management of shipwreck sites, including on-site monitoring • Conservation treatment case studies • Research into the analysis and treatment of wet archaeological materials • Review of the status of wet archaeological conservation programs in the Asia Pacific region • Development of collaborative conservation research and treatment programs Suggestions for additional topics are welcomed by the session organizers. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project: In-situ preservation and long-term monitoring of the Clarence (1850) and James Matthews (1841)shipwreck sites Description An account of the resource Increasingly archaeologists are opting for on-site examination, reinterment and in-situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage sites as the first option in the management of sites at risk as opposed to the more traditional excavation, recovery, conservation and display/storage methods. This decision will inevitably be based on significance assessment, degree of perceived risk and resourcing issues. However, long-term monitoring must become an integral part of these management programmes in order to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of the in-situ preservation techniques employed. Absence of monitoring is equivalent to abrogation of responsible management and in some cases can be considered tantamount to cultural vandalism. In 2012 the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) commenced, having secured funding through a substantial Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 10 Australian Partner Organisations and three universities. One of the major aims of the project is to develop a protocol for the excavation, detailed recording and reburial of significant shipwrecks under threat, fostering a strategic national approach for the management of underwater cultural heritage sites at risk. Two historically significant shipwreck sites were chosen for this longitudinal comparative study – the Clarence (1850) located in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria and the James Matthews (1841) which lies in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. Both sites have been preserved in situ using two very different but innovative remediation strategies. More importantly a long-term monitoring programme has been implemented which will characterise changes in the reburial environment and the effect on the reinterred materials. In this way, the efficacy of both in-situ preservation techniques will be systematically tested, providing a comparative analysis of practical protocols for the long-term protection and management of underwater archaeological resources. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vicki Richards Ian MacLeod Peter Veth, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/15/2014 Asia-Pac Session 7 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/3287c0c08fd1a9a23617a3b0cf880ef6.pdf acce7ed828087e393451ee686bcfe585 PDF Text Text The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project – interim progress report Debra Shefi, Peter Veth, Cassandra Philippou School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley Western Australia 6009 E-mail: debra.shefi@uwa.edu.au Jennifer Rodrigues, Vicki Richards and Western Australian Museum, Shipwreck Galleries, 47 Cliff St, Fremantle, Western Australia 6160 Peter Harvey Maritime Heritage Unit, Heritage Victoria, Department of Transport, Planning, Local and Infrastructure 1 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia Abstract In early 2012 the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) was formally awarded a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant, enabling ten Partner Organisations to join with four Australian Universities in one of the largest multi-organisational maritime archaeology projects to be undertaken in Australia. The project involved a month-long excavation on the historic shipwreck Clarence (1850) in April/May 2012 and a complex reburial program in November 2012. Further in-situ preservation work is also being conducted on James Matthews (1841) in Western Australia to test experimental reburial approaches in an alternative marine environment. The work on Clarence is now in its research, analysis, monitoring and reporting phase, with artefact, sediment and chemical analyses being undertaken. This paper will provide an interim report on AHSPP since its launch at the 1 st Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Manila in 2011. It will provide analysis of some of the more significant artefacts and features revealed during excavation and approaches to long-term in-situ preservation and management of shipwreck sites. Key words: In-situ preservation, in-situ management, historic shipwreck, artefacts, site management 1 �Introduction In early 2012 AHSPP was formally awarded an ARC grant of $500,000 AUD to investigate the excavation, recording and in-situ reburial of wooden shipwrecks. The historic shipwreck Clarence (1850) in Victoria’s Port Phillip Bay was selected as the first case study to test the excavation and reburial methodology. The proposed research plan from the ARC application was presented at the 1st Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage held in Manila in November 2011 (Veth et al., 2011). The project commenced in February 2012 with the appointment of a project manager to organise fieldwork logistics alongside the commercial dive operators, Melbourne based company - Professional Diving Services, and the host organisation, Heritage Victoria. It was decided to commence diving operations in mid-April 2012 to take advantage of autumn tides and weather. In less than two months, a diverse multi-national team of 65 professional and volunteer archaeologists, divers, conservation scientists, photographers, artefact specialists and marine ecologists converged on Portarlington, Victoria to commence the survey, excavation, artefact cataloguing and in-situ reburial of Clarence. The excavation took place from a 12 m x 18 m jack up barge, which was towed by tugboat out to the site on the 12th of April, and placed alongside Clarence, off Edwards Point near the township of St Leonards. The barge was equipped with three shipping containers that held the artefact photography and x-ray systems, conservation and other general equipment and diving communication and safety equipment. Survey operations began on the 16th of April and continued for 29 days. During this time, diving, conservation and support teams were transported daily to the site using Heritage Victoria’s 8 m commercial Kevlacat Trim, with both underwater and topside support teams changing over throughout the day. Dive teams were tasked with placing sandbags along the exterior of the shipwrecked hull to provide structural support prior to reburial, completing a pre-disturbance marine ecology survey, obtaining sediment cores for baseline conservation data, excavating the 2 �starboard side of the wreck from the stern towards the bow (from 0 – 9 m along the baseline), recording the artefacts and exposed timbers in-situ, documenting all recovered artefacts ex-situ and reburying them on site (or in the nearby underwater repository), placing sacrificial wooden and metal samples on site and in the repository and backfilling the excavation trench. This was all achieved in 181 hours of diving over 17 diving days. Non-diving personnel were tasked with topside and off site duties including data input, purchasing, organisation of equipment and housekeeping. Clarence – Artefact and Site Features The artefacts recovered during the 2012 excavation included 109 individual artefact pieces, consisting of 102 database entries. All recorded artefacts were subsequently reburied; organic artefacts were placed in an underwater repository less than 10 m from the stern of the shipwreck, and ferrous and non-ferrous objects were reburied in the excavated trench. The range of materials found consisted of timber thought to be dunnage, a large number of cask components (staves and headpieces), concretions (including a concreted bolt), lead hull-sheathing, fragile pieces of leather, rope related to rigging, clear and olive-green glass pieces, a ceramic fragment, and an animal bone which appeared to be burnt. A leather bag or satchel was also identified in situ, however, this artefact was not raised. To date, analysis of the excavated artefacts continues and here a few selected items will be profiled. A more comprehensive report on the artefacts will be submitted later in 2014. Tierce casks The wooden cask components represented the majority of artefacts raised. The sizes of the staves and headpieces fit closest to the category of tierce casks. A tierce is an old measure of capacity equivalent to one third of a pipe, 42 wine gallons, half a puncheon or approximately 158 to 160 litres. The imperial tierce was 35 imperial gallons (~159 L)  the US tierce was 42 US gallons (~160 L). English stave lengths for tierce 3 Fig. 1: Branding mark on cask. (AHSPP). �casks were usually given at 31.5 inches (~800 mm) (Kilby, 1971: 52). The complete lengths for the Clarence staves averaged between 876 mm and 890 mm for the interior and 911 mm to 930 mm for the exterior. These measurements identify the excavated staves as slightly larger tierce casks than those traditionally described by the English. This variation in size could be because some tierce casks were made to store dry goods, in which case, they could be more rudimentarily manufactured as opposed to wet casks, which required a higher level of skill and precision for storing liquids and preventing leakages. The casks from Clarence have similar features found on casks from other shipwreck sites. These include branding marks, incised lines and circles (made by a scribe tool) for ease of reassembly (Fig. 1) and branded names (either complete or partial due to deterioration or breakage) on headpieces for identification purposes or indication of their contents. Hoop marks are also visible on the exterior of some staves where they are assumed to have been hammered in. Some limited evidence of concreted iron hoops has also been found. The branding names on the headpieces recovered from Clarence, however, suggest that either these casks contained ale or they are reused components. The average diameter of headpieces raised was 55 cm (21.7 inches), which closely coincides with tierce cask head diameters of 20.5 inches (52.1 cm) (Kilby, 1971: 52). The slight difference is understandable considering that the Clarence casks are Fig. 2: Headpiece inscribed with “J & R TENNENT”. slightly larger than the standard English (AHSPP). dimensions of tierce casks. The pitch (widest mid section) of the cask would be approximately 25¼ inches (64.1 cm) in diameter. The headpieces are attached to each other via wooden dowels along the joining flat edges or straight flush joints. Dowels and dowel holes were visible along the joining 4 �edges. The outer circumference is bevelled in order to fit into the bite or croze groove of the staves upon assembly of the cask. The tool marks and striations observed suggest that the staves and headpieces were machine made rather than handmade, which was more common in earlier centuries. In England, for example, the first patent for a coopering machine was taken out by Plasket and Brown in 1811 (Kilby, 1971: 65). At this time, however, most of these machines were crude and inefficient and were mainly used for cutting headpieces. Certainly by the 1870s, a number of cooperages were making tierces and cheap dry casks by machinery (Kilby, 1971: 65). Some sets of headpieces, consisting of the cant and middle pieces, are branded on the topside with the words, either partial or complete, “J & R TENNENT” (Fig. 2). To date, at least one identity of J. & R. TENNENT has been traced to Wellpark Brewery in Glasgow, Scotland, which was in operation in the 1840s. If some of the casks originated from an overseas brewery, it is possible that the casks and similar contents were continuing to be transported elsewhere or the casks or some components were being reused, as was Fig. 3: Headpieces inscribed with “SAMUEL” and “BURTON”. (AHSPP). common practice. Another name branded on other cask heads, again, either partial or complete, is “SAMUEL” and “BURTON” (Fig. 3). Preliminary research identifies a Brewer named 5 �Samuel Allsopp as well as The Burton Brewery Company, both based at Burton upon Trent in Staffordshire, England. Samuel Allsopp entered business in 1807 and during the 1840s, Allsopp’s brewery had an overwhelming superior reputation for their pale ale (Perkins, 2012). Contemporarily, the Burton Brewery Company, founded in 1842, was one of the largest brewers in Burton upon Trent in the nineteenth century and supplied ships in the early 1850s with ale. However, it still may have been too late to be contemporary with casks that were later transported via Clarence. Further research into the connection between the Clarence casks and the abovementioned brewing companies is warranted. Although a few leads for the branded names on the cask’s heads have been obtained, the possibility that some components or entire casks had been re-used has not yet been ruled out. Leather Bag or Satchel A leather bag or satchel was also found on the site partially buried under a semi-circular timber artefact. Based on discussions amongst divers who excavated the area and upon close examination of underwater images, this leather bag, left in situ (Fig. 4), is thought to be a bosun’s bag. The size and thickness of the satchel suggest it may have been used to carry tools (i.e. if one was repairing masts or rigging), as it could be slung over the shoulder via a strap on the side. Interestingly, an image in Kilby (1971: 164) on coopers and their craft shows a nineteenthcentury travelling cooper carrying a Fig. 4: Leather bag or satchel left in-situ. (AHSPP). possible leather bag or basket over the shoulder containing tools. 6 �Clarence – Management Monitoring and Management In June 2012, shortly after the completion of the April/May Clarence excavation, a small team of researchers and volunteers returned to the site to finish backfilling the trench and artefact reburial depot to a minimum of 50 cm sediment coverage, as outlined in the research methodology. Final fieldwork took place in November when the site was covered with shade cloth and PVC tarpaulins to encourage anaerobic conditions and protect the site from anthropogenic and natural impacts (Fig. 5). Sediment core samples were collected for physico-chemical analysis and a marine biological survey was completed. In both March and September 2013, visual inspections were conducted and the site appears to have stabilised. A small team returned to the site in November 2013 to extract sediment core samples and sacrificial wood and metal samples. Management of the site has not ceased with the reburial of Clarence. monitoring, Long-term including Fig. 5: PVC tarpaulins on Clarence (J. Carpenter). visual site inspections and a program of regular compliance patrols, has been established. These site visits are conducted during periods of calm weather and on weekends and public holidays, when recreational boating activities peak. Individuals found within the 100 m protected zone surrounding the site are issued with either official warnings or infringement notices. Regular patrols by Heritage Victoria at Clarence have resulted in a 7 �high level of compliance by recreational anglers, with boats clustering around the boundaries of the site but complying with the exclusion zone itself. Although increased enforcement activities seem the likely driver for the improvement in compliance, consideration should also be given to the fact that stabilisation works on the site have substantially altered the seabed terrain and associated biology. Biological surveys indicate the variation in species on-site has not been greatly impacted, but this could have reduced the numbers of desirable fish catch, possibly also helping to explain the decreased fishing activity over the site. Digital Outreach In addition to on-site visitation and management of Clarence, AHSPP has focused on disseminating information beyond the academic and scientific communities to the wider public. This includes providing Project Updates for meetings of the Commonwealth Historic Shipwreck Act delegates, the AIMA quarterly newsletter and the AHSPP website (www.ahspp.org.au). Public lectures and professional papers have also been presented nationally and internationally with a major paper on the project published in the 2013 AIMA Bulletin (Veth et al., 2013). Moreover, in lieu of tangible displays, upon AHSPP digital dissemination relies media for Fig. 6: Shade cloth cover over the top of the cofferdam surrounding of James Matthews (J. Carpenter). information. This includes the project website and two public-focussed outreach projects. The first project is a triptych display banner that tells the story of the AHSPP Clarence case study using 8 �simple text and images. The pop-up banners are easily transportable and throughout 2013 and 2014 will be used as a travelling exhibition to Partner Organisations and collaborating institutions around Australia. They are also available for further use at presentations and conferences. The second outreach project was a curated digital database entitled ‘Preserving the Colonial Trader Clarence (1850)’ (the Clarence Anthology), which is publically accessible through library database subscriptions to BiblioBoard. This contains both web-based access and applications for mobile devices and Apple iPad and android tablets (http://www.biblioboard.com/libraries.html). The Clarence Anthology was the first Australian project created for BiblioBoard and also the company’s first archaeological and shipwreck database. The concept was to curate a collection of images, documents and multi-media items (including video and audio via web streaming) into an ‘anthology’ as part of BiblioBoard’s new ‘Artifact of History’ module. The module is made up of a wide range of historical sources that are focused on historical artefacts and archaeological discoveries. The Clarence Anthology consists of more than 270 files, primarily underwater site and artefact photographs, topside images and underwater and topside video. It also includes presentations, previous site research, historical research, media interviews and an edited oral history interview with a descendant of the captain of Clarence. This digital resource thus allows for enriched, well-curated content to be accessible to a broader, technologically-progressive audience and also facilitates access to associated grey literature. The Clarence Anthology is currently being utilised as a test case for future online curation of archaeological projects. As such, this method of community outreach may be recognized as an appropriate platform for future presentation of archaeological sites, in particular in-situ preservation projects where artefacts are returned to the seabed with no plan for future conservation and long-term museum curation. James Matthews 9 �Since the inception of AHSPP it was duly noted that to be a truly national research project, other sites around Australia should be included in the longitudinal in-situ preservation study for comparative analysis. Following the reburial success of Clarence in November 2012, and due to prudent project management, it became clear that the AHSPP could expand to a second case study. Partner Investigator Vicki Richards and colleagues at the Western Australian Museum (WAM) subsequently recommended the reburial of James Matthews (1841) in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia using a preferred cofferdam solution. Under the aegis of the AHSPP, WAM began organising this innovative reburial project in April 2013. Background James Matthews, originally known as Voltigeur, was a French-built wooden brig (approximately 24 m length x 6 m breadth x 3 m depth). In 1836 the vessel was sold to a Brazilian slave dealer and registered as Don Francisco under the Portuguese flag. For the following year, the vessel operated in the illegal slave trade between Africa and the West Indies until its capture by the British in 1837. Contemporarily, in 1836, British Parliament passed a Bill establishing an end to slavery. At this time, ships were seized and destroyed, often resulting in the vessel being dismantled and sold for scrap or burnt to the waterline and sunk (Henderson, 1977). This was obviously not the case with Don Francisco, which was sold and re-registered as the trading vessel James Matthews (Henderson, 1980). In July 1841 the ship sailed for the Swan River colony in Fremantle, Western Australia, but shortly after its arrival a violent storm struck the port and the vessel sank. Local divers came across the site in 1973, 12 km south of Fremantle, approximately 100 m off shore in 2-3 m of water (Henderson, 1977). Four seasons of excavation were carried out by WAM between 1974 and 1977. All loose artefacts were recovered and stabilised by standard conservation treatments appropriate for each material type and the excavation trenches were backfilled with the original overburden. The site remained buried for many years and was still relatively stable in the 1990s. However, in early 2000 it was observed that the edges of the 10 �wooden vessel and timbers at the stern and bow were exposed and severely degraded by marine borers and the extent of exposure was increasing every year. Therefore, devising an appropriate in-situ management plan to mitigate continuing deterioration was of paramount importance. Experimental Remediation Strategies and Monitoring Over the next ten years, a number of surveys and experiments were expedited to assess the most significant physical, chemical and biological deterioration processes impacting the site and determine an appropriate long-term in-situ preservation strategy to stabilise James Matthews. This included trialling different in-situ preservation strategies on-site, for example: sand bags; sediment trapping experiments using artificial seagrass, shade cloth mats and a cofferdam consisting of four environmentallyinert, interlocking medium density polyethylene ‘crash barrier’ units filled with surrounding sediment. More importantly, a long-term monitoring programme was also introduced that consisted of measuring sediment and seabed response and any changes in the sediment micro-environment via microbiological and physico-chemical analyses. Based on these results, the crash barrier cofferdam technique appeared to be the best solution for the in-situ preservation of James Matthews (Richards et al., 2009; Richards, 2012). However, due to the significant cost of this mitigation strategy (~$25,000 AUD for 40 crash barriers, geotextile and polymeric sandbags) and the local economic environment, the cofferdam solution could not be funded through WAM’s budget. Therefore, in 2010, the more exposed sections of the site were covered with shade cloth, which was economically more viable but resulted in undesirable toe scouring around the edges of the mats. The site continued to be monitored at regular intervals over the next two years (Richards, 2012). The AHSPP and the Cofferdam Solution Preparations for the reburial of James Matthews commenced in April 2013, with fieldwork occurring from 18-22 November 2013. A total of 22 people, including the AHSPP Chief Investigator and Acting Project Manager, WAM staff from the Materials 11 �Conservation and Maritime Archaeology Departments, practitioners from other Partner Organisations and volunteers, were involved during an intensive five-day fieldwork period. During this time, 36 road crash barriers were deployed on-site in a semi-elliptical arrangement, anchored in place with a minimum of 120 kg of blue metal per barrier and 20 m3 of clean, washed proprietary sand dumped within the confines of the cofferdam via a manufactured sand barge, which provided a sterile sand layer of approximately 515 cm over the entire site. A more comprehensive account of the fieldwork logistics and deployment procedures are outlined in Richards et al. (2014) published in this volume. The amount of sand required to fill the cofferdam to an optimum level of 0.8 m is approximately 165 m3, which was impossible to achieve in the five-day fieldwork interval. With a considerable reduction in personnel after the fieldwork had concluded, it was decided to cover the top of the cofferdam with 70% UV stabilised shade cloth (Fig. 6). The suspended shade cloth aims to a) preclude the ingress of dead seagrass and other organic material and b) encourage deposition of fine sand particles suspended in the water column, through the shade cloth and onto the site. In early 2014, the cofferdam will continue to be filled to the required depth (0.8 m) by dredging local surrounding sediment onto the site ensuring that minimal organic matter is incorporated within the backfilled sediment. On-site monitoring of sediment characteristics and analysis of sacrificial samples will then proceed, replicating the monitoring strategy used on the Clarence site. This should allow for meaningful comparative analyses of these reburial interventions in different contexts. The efficacy of different reburial and stabilisation techniques can thus be systematically tested providing an evaluation of optimal protocols for the in-situ preservation and management of historic shipwrecks determined to be ‘at risk’ in both Australian and other waters. Conclusion The primary aim of the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project is the development of an optimal in-situ preservation protocol for historic shipwrecks at risk. Longitudinal recording, reburial and ongoing monitoring at both Clarence and James 12 �Matthews, occurring in different geomorphic and energetic contexts, will provide an invaluable comparative study towards this end, and will continue throughout 2014. As outlined in this paper, data collection, analysis and interpretation are continuing. The results from the archaeological, conservation, sedimentary and biological studies will be published in a major excavation and fieldwork report due for completion in 2015. Analyses of the artefacts, geochemistry of the sediments, pre- and post-disturbance biological surveys, and condition of the sacrificial tabs, will also be published over the next several years. Bibliography Henderson, G., 1977. Four seasons of excavation on the James Matthews wreck. The First Southern Hemisphere Conference on Maritime Archaeology, Perth, Western Australia. Henderson G., 1980. Unfinished Voyages. Western Australian Shipwrecks 1622-1850. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands. Kilby, K., 1971. The Cooper and His Trade. Linden Publishing, Fresno. Perkins, B., 2012. Tennent’s India Pale Ale. Retrieval December 20, 2013. From http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/tennents-india-pale-ale.html Richards, V., 2012. In-situ preservation and monitoring of the James Matthews shipwreck site. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, Vol. 14 (1-4): 169-181. Richards, V., Godfrey, I., Blanchette, R., Held, B., Gregory, D. and Reed, E., 2009. Insitu monitoring and stabilisation of the James Matthews site. In K. Straetkvern and D.J. Huisman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Amsterdam, 10-15 September 2007, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten (RACM), Amersfoot: 113-60. Richards, V., MacLeod, I. and Veth, P., 2014. The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project – In-situ preservation and long-term monitoring of the Clarence (1850) and James Matthews (1841) shipwreck sites. In S. Tripati and V. Walker (Eds.), 13 �Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 12-16 May 2014, Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaii. Veth, P., Philippopu, C., Richards, V., Staniforth, M., Rodrigues, J., Khan, A., Creagh, D., Viduka, A., Barham, A., and MacLeod, I., 2013. The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project 2012: First Report on the background, reburial and in situ preservation at the Clarence (1841-50). Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 37: 1-19. Veth, P., Viduka, A., Staniforth, M., MacLeod, I., Richards, V. and Barham, A., 2011. The Australian historic shipwreck protection project. In M. Staniforth, J. Craig, S.C. Jago-on, B. Orillaneda and L. Lacsina (Eds.), Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 8-12 November 2011, Manila, Philippines, Jericopim Publishing House, Manila: 753-762. Biography Debra Shefi is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Western Australia and is the Acting Project Manager for the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP). She joined AHSPP after obtaining her PhD from Flinders University, where her thesis investigated the relationship between the in-situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage in law and practice. 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 7: Preservation and Conservation of Wet Archaeological Materials and Site Management Subject The topic of the resource Interview with Session 7 chairs Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter and links to the papers presented in the session. Description An account of the resource This session will focus on in-situ preservation and conservation management issues, conservation analyses and treatments, and applied conservation research of archaeological materials from freshwater, marine and wet terrestrial sites. The main purposes of this session are to encourage the exchange of ideas and practices as well as the development of conservation networks throughout the region. Presentations, posters and workshops are invited that address any of the following areas: • In situ preservation of marine archaeological materials, including reburial practices • Conservation management of shipwreck sites, including on-site monitoring • Conservation treatment case studies • Research into the analysis and treatment of wet archaeological materials • Review of the status of wet archaeological conservation programs in the Asia Pacific region • Development of collaborative conservation research and treatment programs Suggestions for additional topics are welcomed by the session organizers. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vicki Richards and Jon Carpenter Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project: interim progress report Description An account of the resource In early 2012 the Australian Historic Shipwreck Preservation Project (AHSPP) was formally awarded a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant, enabling ten Partner Organisations to join with four Australian Universities in one of the largest multi-organisational maritime archaeology projects to be undertaken in Australia. The project involved a month-long excavation on the historic shipwreck Clarence (1850) in April/May 2012 and a complex reburial program in November 2012. Further in-situ preservation work is also being conducted on James Matthews (1841) in Western Australia to test experimental reburial approaches in an alternative marine environment. The work on Clarence is now in its research, analysis, monitoring and reporting phase, with artefact, sediment and chemical analyses being undertaken. This paper will provide an interim report on AHSPP since its launch at the 1st Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Manila in 2011. It will provide analysis of some of the more significant artefacts and features revealed during excavation and approaches to long-term in-situ preservation and management of shipwreck sites. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Debra Shefi Peter Veth Cassandra Philippou Jennifer Rodrigues Vicki Richards Peter Harvey, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/15/2014 Asia-Pac Session 7 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/9af8c7bf965d9778065867f0566f88e1.pdf 1a79f3e9f9bffb35bcff7651df05d282 PDF Text Text The Australian Historic Shipwreck Protection Project Peter Veth, Andrew Viduka, Mark Staniforth, Ian MacLeod, Vicki Richards and Anthony Barham Abstract Australian wooden shipwrecks represent significant submerged heritage sites with huge potential to inform on historic connections, technological innovation and early colonial behavioural systems. Their archaeological potential is unfortunately often under severe threat from natural and human impacts. The Australian Historic Shipwreck Protection Project has recently been granted a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant to investigate the excavation, reburial and in-situ preservation of wrecks and their associated artefacts, which are at risk. This project will focus on Clarence (1850), a historically significant colonial wooden trading vessel, and brings together the disciplines of behavioural archaeology, maritime archaeology, conservation sciences and maritime object conservation. The vessel lies in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria only a few hours from Melbourne by boat and by land. The overarching theoretical focus will be on shipwreck site formation models as well as the potential of wooden historic wrecks and assemblages to elucidate early colonial history and shipbuilding. One of the main aims of the project is to try and develop a protocol for the rapid excavation, detailed recording and subsequent in-situ preservation of significant shipwrecks and their associated artefacts, at risk. This work will foster the development of a consistent national methodology for shipwreck and artefact storage and preservation underwater and assist in developing a strategy for the in-situ preservation of endangered historic shipwrecks. This work will also be critical to the future development of national, and possibly international, policy and technical guidelines for site managers of historic wrecks. The project will run for a period of three years. During the field work components the investigators from the University of Western Australia (UWA), the Australian National University (ANU), Monash University and the Western Australian Museum (WAM) with support from research associates and practitioners from the ten partner organisations will operate from a jackup barge located over the site including purpose built laboratories where they will excavate circa 25-50% of the Clarence site, conduct imaging (x-ray and optical) of recovered artefacts, conserve at-risk materials (where required) and rebury structural elements and associated artefacts using a combination of in-situ preservation techniques and initiate a long-term monitoring programme for the site. Excavation methodology will be overseen by Mark Staniforth, Peter Harvey (Heritage Victoria) and Peter Veth; conservation and in-situ preservation protocols, analyses and pre- and post-reburial monitoring by Ian MacLeod and Vicki Richards; imaging co-ordinated by Dudley Creigh (and colleagues) and Andrew Viduka; geoarchaeology and Geographical Information systems (GIS) by Tony Barham and Masters of Archaeological Science candidates. Introduction Australia is a maritime nation and much of its early history is represented by the cultural heritage of its maritime zone – most notably shipwrecks. More than 7,500 shipwrecks are known to lie within Australian waters which have unrivalled archaeological potential to provide information on social and economic history, cross-cultural exchanges and the early role of Australia within the Asia-Pacific region (Staniforth and Nash 2006). This maritime cultural heritage is under threat due to development work programs and the ravages of climate change and extreme weather events that lead to scouring and sudden exposure of buried elements. The management of underwater cultural heritage has demonstrably not kept pace with accelerating offshore exploration for gas and oil reserves, �pipeline construction and port-related facilities. Never has there been a greater need for a unified approach as to how to best manage and mitigate this irreplaceable record (Evans, et al. 2009). The Australian Historic Shipwreck Protection Project has recently been granted a large ARC Linkage grant to investigate the excavation, reburial and insitu preservation of wrecks and their associated artefacts, which are considered to be at risk. This project brings together the disciplines of behavioural archaeology, maritime archaeology, conservation sciences and maritime object conservation. One of the main aims of the project is to develop a protocol for the rapid recovery (excavation), detailed recording and subsequent reburial, as well as the in-situ preservation of significant shipwrecks and their associated artefacts. This work will foster the development of a consistent national, and contribute to the international, methodology for shipwreck and artefact storage and preservation underwater (Bergstrand 2002; Björdal & Nilsson 2008; Curci 2006; Gregory 1998). Furthermore it will assist in developing strategies for the insitu preservation of endangered historic shipwrecks. This work will be critical to the future development of national, and possibly international, policy and technical guidelines for site managers of historic wrecks. It is clearly in the national interest that a cost-effective management and mitigation strategy for historic shipwrecks impacted by natural or human actions is developed as a national priority. This project will develop a model for state and federal government collaborative research and policy development and offers an ideal pathway for developing a national collaborative approach to the sustainable management of maritime cultural heritage. Background to the project The idea of a national collaborative research project arose, in part, from the 2008 review of the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Program (HSP). The report suggested that the federal nature of Australian politics has meant that after 16 years the HSP had not developed nationally standardised processes and procedures and no official national collaborative project had ever been successfully initiated. Maritime archaeology projects in Australia certainly have been collaborative in their nature but this has been largely based on personal relationships between people and usually not between organisations. Three examples of collaborative projects that were largely based on personal commitments to collaboration were the excavation and research conducted on HMS Pandora, Sydney Cove and HMS Sirius (Nash 2007; Henderson and Stanbury 1988). And yet, despite increased impacts and loss of shipwreck site integrity in marine precincts, there has been no large-scale maritime archaeological excavation in Australia for more than a decade – since HMS Pandora – which was heavily subsidized by the philanthropic sector. There are three main reasons for a previous lack of national collaborative projects:  the lack of proposed projects relevant to all organisations; � the extreme difficulty in persuading States and Territories with limited budgets to participate in projects where the majority of benefits are indirect and short term; and  the difficulty in coordinating and developing such a proposal. In addition, there has been no significant increase in funding from the Commonwealth government for 20 years and under the current economic climate it is unlikely that an increase will occur in the near future. As a result there is a clear need to identify other funding options to meet organisational and research needs. Most jurisdictions in Australia have either remained at funding and staffing levels or decreased with operational money becoming scarcer in successive financial years. Furthermore, there is an ageing population of senior maritime archaeologists with a wave of newer maritime archaeologists coming into the field. Some of these younger professionals have not been involved in major excavation projects and lack the technical experience of their later career counterparts and the opportunity to develop these skills. The profile of historic shipwrecks as a national program has not greatly expanded over the years and our challenge is to engage a new generation of Australians to generate respect for our maritime heritage and an understanding of why it should be protected and conserved for the future. There is a need for national policy and standardised operational guidelines for site management to meet current needs in the workplace for cultural resource managers. To address some of these issues, this project brings together, for the first time, 10 partner organisations in Australia representing government heritage agencies, museums and the peak avocational body – the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA). It will focus on a particular site at risk, the Clarence shipwreck. This project will have three main components focusing on:  developing a world-class, and best-practice, protocol for the rapid recovery, recording and reburial of artefacts from historic shipwrecks;  in situ preservation of historic shipwrecks at risk from natural and human impacts; and  adding to the knowledge base of Australian colonial wooden ship-building. Australian wooden shipbuilding Australian wooden shipwrecks represent significant submerged heritage sites with considerable potential to inform on historic connections, technological innovation and early colonial behavioural systems. Their archaeological potential is, unfortunately, often under severe threat from natural and human impacts. This project will focus on Clarence (1850), a historically significant colonial wooden trading vessel, which lies in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria only a few hours from Melbourne by boat and by land. The project will build on the significant work carried out on Clarence during the 1980s by Staniforth, Harvey and others and contextualise this within the national knowledge base that has developed at the national level over the last 25 years. �In 1995 the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) commissioned the Historic Shipwrecks National Research Plan (HSNRP), which identified Australian shipbuilding as a research theme of national importance (Edmonds, et al. 1995). Clarence (Victorian Heritage register S127) is considered ideal for this focused reburial study for a number of reasons. This early colonial built vessel has already been extensively monitored and test excavated (Harvey 1989; Coroneos 1991). Clarence was one of the first Australian built vessels to be extensively surveyed (in the 1980s) and remains one of the best documented shipwrecks in Australia, which will allow comparison of data from the site over more than a 25 year time period (Figure 1). While protected by the Victorian Heritage Act 1995, it is subject to continuing anchor damage and is considered at risk. Clarence is very accessible as it lies in 5m of water at a location close to the major population centre of Melbourne, which will also help to make the work economically viable. The shallow depth allows for unlimited bottom time for the diving teams, which will help to maximise the productivity of the field work components and finally, it is also amenable to reburial. Figure 1. Recording on the Clarence wreck site in 1986 (photo courtesy of Heritage Victoria) Clarence is representative of the majority of Australian-built vessels, which were small coastal traders that were often unregistered and therefore largely unrecorded. 2,786 Australian built vessels are recorded as having been wrecked on the Australian coastline. The available databases indicate that only 271 vessels have been located to date (approximately 10% of the total number wrecked) and that only 14 Australian-built vessels have been properly surveyed and/or excavated with the results published. This project will build on the long- �standing interest of Australian maritime archaeologists in the origins and development of colonial shipbuilding (Coroneos 1991; Harvey 1989; Nash 2004 2007; O’Reilly 1999; Staniforth 1984). While research into pre-1900 colonial shipbuilding has been conducted for more than 20 years, the colonial shipbuilding industry overall, is relatively poorly understood. This is argued to be a consequence of research being largely conducted on a case-by-case site basis within different jurisdictions and lacking any comparative component. Rapid recovery, recording and reburial What the proposed rapid recovery, recording and reburial protocol relies on are understandings of archaeological site formation models – generally for all sites – and specifically for wooden vessels in maritime contexts. While different aspects of maritime site formation models have been developed and profiled over several decades (Godfrey, et al. 2005; Richards, et al. 2009; Ward, et al. 1999) their longitudinal evaluation via excavation, reburial and monitoring (including coring and minimally intrusive sampling after reburial) has yet to be properly trialed in Australian waters. It is now accepted that sites pass through many stages of deterioration towards eventual quasi-equilibrium – and that these processes are structural/physical, chemical and biological in nature. What is less well understood is the cyclical nature and reversibility of these taphonomic processes in contexts where the sedimentary budget may vary widely due to natural systems (such as episodic scouring) and cultural impacts such as dredging or changes in the morphology of shorelines and the construction of port facilities and the like. The detailed mapping of seabed contours, recording of three dimensional (3D) relationships of artefacts and ship’s structure, x-ray and optical imaging and the analysis of the physico-chemistry, geochemistry and microbiology of the site by the team during the recovery and reburial phase in Year 1 and subsequent monitoring phases in Years 2 and 3 will represent the first multi-decadal longitudinal monitoring at this important site – for which there are benchmark studies arising from the 1980s excavation programs. This current work will represent the beginning of long-term phyico-chemical and microbiological environmental studies of the site. The reburial methodology will subject all excavated artefacts and objects to a sophisticated, forensic documentation prior to their reburial. Rapid documentation includes two dimensional (2D) to 3D imaging of all retrieved artefacts in a special purpose built chamber with rotating stage as well as laser imaging and morphometric and geochemical recording conducted on the working barge-platform. This approach maximises information gain, while minimising deterioration. Documentation such as stereo optical recording of all objects will be entered rapidly into a GIS database allowing unprecedented sophistication in how information is handled. This has not been previously achieved in maritime archaeology. Documentation will include non-invasive analytical methodologies such as X-ray imaging of smaller objects and possible imaging of larger elements at the Australian Synchrotron and portable x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy, where applicable. �At the Clarence site some of the assumptions of these varied site formation models will be examined via detailed visualisations of the sea bed (staff from University of New South Wales and Port Melbourne); GIS-enhanced logging of wreck structures, fittings and objects (Mark Staniforth, Peter Harvey, Andrew Viduka and others); and laser and synchrotron 3D images of smaller artefacts and larger elements (Dudley Creagh, David Hallam and colleagues). Sacrificial samples will be placed on-site for continued future analysis and environmental changes in the reburial mound will be monitored over time by measuring the pH, redox potential, dissolved oxygen content and sulphate/sulphide, concentrations (see Godfrey, et al. this volume for details) in the sediment with micro-electrodes and other wet chemical techniques (Vicki Richards and Ian MacLeod). Sediment core samples will be collected both on and off site to: a) describe bedloads across the site; b) model sedimentary trends: c) establish control on facies development: d) assess any environmental changes that occur once the site is reburied; and e) assess the consolidation of the sediments. Terrestrial signatures may occur in the form of pollen, dust, insect remains and similar fossils, as well as non-living traces, such as sediments and dung (Tony Barham and Masters candidates). On prehistoric and historic vessels these properties can be highly informative about voyaging tracks, ports of call and previous cargos. In short, the efficacy of reburial as opposed to excavation and conservation – as a viable intervention needs to be tested. This will be judged on the actual conservation outcomes obtained through time, research insights afforded against opportunity and cost, the robustness of the protocol used to decide whether materials are conserved or reburied and the research ethics associated with excavation, recovery and conservation versus rapid recovery, recording and reburial. In situ preservation The coming into force of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2001) and the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (ICOMOS 1996) have focused attention on in situ preservation as the preferred method for the long-term preservation of underwater cultural heritage (Broadwater and Nutley 2009; Carducci 2006; Manders 2006; Oxley 1996; Panter 2006; Staniforth 2006). Thus these conventions set a political framework for the in situ protection of submerged cultural heritage. A properly planned reburial should eventually provide a storage option for archaeological material in a similar or improved environment to that which was responsible for its preservation in the first place. Reburial is a technique that should involve minimal continuing maintenance costs and also allow access to the reburied materials if necessary in the future. Martijn Manders (et al. 2008), and Staniforth and Debra Shefi (2010) have provided overviews of some of the methods of in situ preservation that have been applied to submerged sites over the years. �Reburial of an archaeological site and/or artefactual material may be an appropriate means of stabilising and decreasing the overall deterioration rate of our underwater cultural resource by limiting dissolved oxygen, nutrients, chemicals and so forth and minimising water movement which will, in turn, decrease physical, chemical and biological degradation of the site and associated artefacts. Unfortunately in the recent past, when sites or artefacts were reburied there was often little, if any, subsequent monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the technique (Gregory 1998). It is imperative that there be a holistic approach to the study of the environment, pre- and post-burial to gain a full understanding of the changes occurring in the local reburial environment and the associated deterioration of archaeological material (Caple 1994; Hogan, et al. 2002). This, in turn, will allow the accurate assessment of the success or failure of the adopted remediation strategy on the long-term preservation of the site (Nyström Godfrey, et al. 2009; Richards, et al. 2009). In order for any in situ preservation strategy for an underwater cultural heritage site to be successful the following points must be addressed in the management plan:  Ascertain the extent of the site;  Assessment of the pre-disturbed local burial environment and the major factors affecting the long-term stability of the site;  Assessment of the most significant physical, chemical and biological deterioration processes occurring on the site;  Identification of the major material types present on the site and their extents of deterioration;  Implementation of an appropriate in situ preservation strategy or combinations thereof, to mitigate continued deterioration and stabilize the site long-term;  Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to evaluate the efficacy of the implemented in situ preservation strategy;  Provision of alternative plans and procedures if the implemented in situ preservation strategies are unsuccessful; and  Conservation of recovered artefacts. Australia, in general has been involved with in situ preservation and site stabilisation work for more than twenty-five years. A few of the more notable projects include the William Salthouse (Hosty 1988; Harvey 1996; Moran 1997; Staniforth 2006) and Cerberus wrecks in Victoria (Figure 2) and the ex-slaver James Matthews in Western Australia (Godfrey, et al. 2005; Richards, et al. 2009; Winton and Richards 2005; MacLeod 2010; MacLeod and Steyne 2011). �Figure 2. Divers measuring corrosion potentials on anodes treating gun barrels in-situ from HMVS Cerberus in 2009 (photo courtesy of Heritage Victoria S117). Conclusion Excavation and reburial is likely to become an increasingly important technique in the preservation of archaeological materials and underwater cultural heritage sites despite the current uncertainties surrounding such methods. Current and future reburial projects must continue and provide information that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the associated benefits and disadvantages of this in-situ preservation technique. To this end the proposed in-situ preservation and reburial study on the Clarence (1850) will significantly contribute to this knowledge base and will make an interesting comparison with past and present reburial projects. This project will be critical to the future development of Australian national, policy and technical guidelines for site managers of historic wrecks as well as at an international level. It is clearly in the national interest that a cost effective management and mitigation strategy for historic shipwrecks impacted by natural or human actions is developed as a national priority. This project will develop a model for state and federal government collaborative research and policy development. This project offers an ideal pathway for developing a national collaborative approach to the sustainable management of maritime cultural heritage. �Acknowledgements The Australian Research Council (ARC) and the state and territory institutions for the provision of funding that have made this project possible -The Western Australian Museum, Heritage Victoria, The Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, Arts and Sport, Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, NSW Department of Planning, Norfolk Island Government, Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA), Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water, Parks and Environment, The Australian National Maritime Museum and the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC). Bibliography Bergstrand, T., 2002 "In situ preservation and re-burial - methods to handle archaeological ship remains in the archipelago of Göteborg Sweden", in Proceedings of the 8th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Stockholm 2001, International Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation Working Group on Wet Organic Materials, Stockholm, pp 155-166. Björdal, C.G., and "Reburial of shipwrecks in marine sediments: a long-term study on wood degradation", in Journal of Archaeological Nilsson, T., Science, 35,4, pp.862-872. 2008 Broadwater, J., and "The management of marine archaeological sites in situ and site sustainability", in Conservation and Management Nutley, D., of Archaeological Sites, 11,1, pp.70-77. 2009 Caple, C., "Defining a reburial environment: Research problems 1994 characterising waterlogged anoxic environments", in (eds) Per Hoffmann, Thomas Daley and Tara Grant, Proceedings of the 5th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Portland, Maine 16-20 August 1993, The International Council of Museums (ICOM), Committee for Conservation, Working Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials, Bremerhaven, pp. 407-421. Carducci, G., "Introduction to the UNESCO Convention on the 2006 Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage", in (eds.) Robert Grenier, David Nutley and Ian Cochran, Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts. International Council on Monuments and Sites, Paris, pp. i-ii. Historic Shipwreck the Clarence (1841-1850), Coroneos, C., Conservation plan, Unpublished report, Victoria 1991 Archaeological Survey, Melbourne. Curci, J., "The reburial of waterlogged archaeological wood in wet environments", in Technical Briefs in Historical 2006. Archaeology, 1, pp. 21-25. �Edmonds, L., Kenderdine, S., Nayton, G. and Staniforth, M., 1995 Evans, A.M. Firth, A. and Staniforth, M., 2009 Historic Shipwrecks National Research Plan May 1995, Department of Communications and the Arts, Canberra. "Old and New Threats to Submerged Cultural Landscapes: Fishing, Farming and Energy Development", in Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 11,1, pp. 44–54. "The James Matthews shipwreck – Conservation survey Godfrey I.M., Reed and in-situ stabilisation", in (eds) Per Hoffmann, Kristiane E., Richards V.L., West N.F., Winton Strætkvern, James A. Spriggs and David Gregory, Proceedings of the 9th ICOM Group on Wet Organic T., Archaeological Materials Conference, Copenhagen, 2005 2004, , The International Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation Working Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials, Bremerhaven, pp. 4076. Gregory, D., "Re-burial of timbers in the marine environment as a 1998 means of their long-term storage: experimental studies in Lynæs Sands, Denmark", in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 27,4, pp. 343-358. A Pre-Disturbance Survey of the Shipwreck Clarence in Harvey, P., Port Phillip, Unpublished report, Victoria 1986 Archaeological Survey, Melbourne. Harvey, P., "A review of stabilization works on the wreck of the William Salthouse in Port Phillip Bay", in The Bulletin of 1996 the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 20, 2, pp. 1-8. Henderson, G. J., The Sirius, Past and Present, Collins. and Stanbury, M., 1988 Hogan, D.V., "Development of a protocol for the reburial of organic Simpson, P., Jones, archaeological remains", in (eds) Per Hoffmann, James A.M., Maltby, E., A. Spriggs, Tara Grant, Clifford Cook and Andrea Recht, Proceedings of the 8th ICOM Group on Wet Organic 2002 Archaeological Materials Conference, Stockholm 11-15 June 2001, International Council of Museums (ICOM), Committee for Conservation, Working Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials, Bremerhaven, pp. 187-212. "Bagging the William Salthouse: site stabilization work on Hosty, K., the William Salthouse", in The Bulletin of the 1988 Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 12,1, pp.13-16. �Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, Sofia. “Assessment of the impact of scallop dredging, site clearance and cathodic protection on the City of Launceston (1865) in Port Phillip Bay”, in (ed.) Ross Anderson, Final Report on SS City of Launceston (18631865) excavation and conservation 1997-2009, Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Special Publication no, pp. 94-103. MacLeod, I.D., and “Managing a Monitor – the case of HMVS Cerberus in Steyne, H., Port Phillip Bay: Integration of corrosion measurements with site management strategies”, in Conservation and 2011 Management of Archaeological Sites, in press. Manders, M., "The In Situ Protection of a 178th century Trading Vessel 2006 in the Netherlands", In (eds.) Robert Grenier, David Nutley and Ian Cochran, Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, International Council on Monuments and Sites, Paris, pp. 70-72. "The in situ preservation of archaeological sites Manders, M., Gregory, D., underwater. An evaluation of some techniques", in (eds) Eric May, Mark Jones and Julian Mitchell, Proceedings of Richards, V., the 2nd Heritage, Microbiology and Science, Microbes, 2008 Monuments and Maritime Materials Conference, 28 June – 1 July 2005, Portsmouth, UK, RSC Publishing, pp. 179203. Moran, V., "Sea Scour Control Systems - some considerations for use", in The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for 1997 Maritime Archaeology, 21, 1&2, pp. 133-134. "The Australian-built schooner Alert (1846-1854)", in The Nash, M., Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime 2004 Archaeology, 28, pp. 89-94. Shipwreck Archaeology in Australia, University of Nash, M., (ed.), 2007 Western Australia Press, Nedlands, WA Nyström Godfrey, I., "Reburial and analysis of archaeological remains – The Berstrand, T., RAAR project. Project status and cultural heritage Gjelstrup Björdal, C., management implications based on the first preliminary Nilsson, T., Bohm, results" in (eds.) Kristiane Straetkvern and Dirk J. C., Christenssen, E., Huisman, Proceedings of the 10th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Gregory, D., Amsterdam, 10-15 September 2007, Rijksdienst voor Peacock, E.E., Richards, V., Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten (RACM), MacLeod, I.D., Amersfoort, pp. 169-196. 2009 ICOMOS, 1996 MacLeod, I.D., 2010 �O’Reilly, R., 1999 Oxley, I., 1996 An assessment of Australian built wooden sailing vessels (constructed between 1850-1899) operating the South Australian intrastate trade: methods and materials, Honours Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide. "The in-situ preservation of underwater sites" in Preserving Archaeological Remains in situ: Proceedings of the Conference of 1st-3rd April 1996, Museum of London Archaeology Service, pp. 159-173. Panter, I., "In situ preservation versus active conservation: are we 2006 prepared for the deluge?", in (eds.) Julie Satchell and Paola Palma, Managing the Marine Cultural heritage: defining, accessing and managing the resource, CBA research Report 153. Council for British Archaeology, Oxford, pp. 59-62. "In situ monitoring and stabilisation of the James Richards, V., Matthews site", in (eds.) Kristaine Straetkvern and Dirk J. Godfrey, I., Blanchette, R., Held, Huisman, Proceedings of the 10th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, B., Gregory, D., Amsterdam, 10-15 September 2007, Rijksdienst voor Reed, E., 2009 Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten (RACM), Amersfoort, pp. 113-160. Notes on a comparative approach to 19th century Staniforth, M., Australian shipbuilding, Unpublished report, Victoria 1984 Archaeological Survey, Melbourne. Staniforth, M., "In situ stabilization: the William Salthouse case study", 2006 in (eds.) Robert Grenier, David Nutley and Ian Cochran, Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: managing natural and human impacts, UNESCO, Paris. pp. 52-54. Available at: http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2006/index.html Staniforth, M., and Maritime Archaeology: Australian Approaches, Plenum Nash, M., (eds)., Press, New York. 2006 Staniforth, M., and "Protecting underwater cultural heritage: A review of In situ preservation approaches to underwater cultural Shefi, D., heritage and some directions for the future", in 2010 2010 World Universities Congress Proceedings Volume II, Canakkale Onseklz Mart University, Cannakale, Turkey, pp, 1546-1552. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural UNESCO, Heritage, Paris. 2001 Ward, I., Larcombe, "A new process-based model for wreck site formation", in Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 26, pp. 561-570. P., and Veth, P., 1999 �Winton, T., and Richards, V., 2005 "In-situ containment of sediment for shipwreck reburial projects", in (eds.) Per Hoffmann, Kristaine Strætkvern, James A. Spriggs and David Gregory, Proceedings of the 9th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Copenhagen, 7-11 June 2004, The International Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation Working Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials, Bremerhaven, pp. 77-89. � 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 Australian Historic Shipwreck Protection Project Subject The topic of the resource Session 7 Preservation and conservation of wet archaeological materials and site management Description An account of the resource Australian wooden shipwrecks represent significant submerged heritage sites with huge potential to inform on historic connections, technological innovation and early colonial behavioural systems. Their archaeological potential is unfortunately often under severe threat from natural and human impacts. The Australian Historic Shipwreck Protection Project has recently been granted a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant to investigate the excavation, reburial and in-situ preservation of wrecks and their associated artefacts, which are at risk. This project will focus on Clarence (1850), a historically significant colonial wooden trading vessel, and brings together the disciplines of behavioural archaeology, maritime archaeology, conservation sciences and maritime object conservation. The vessel lies in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria only a few hours from Melbourne by boat and by land. The overarching theoretical focus will be on shipwreck site formation models as well as the potential of wooden historic wrecks and assemblages to elucidate early colonial history and shipbuilding. One of the main aims of the project is to try and develop a protocol for the rapid excavation, detailed recording and subsequent in-situ preservation of significant shipwrecks and their associated artefacts, at risk. This work will foster the development of a consistent national methodology for shipwreck and artefact storage and preservation underwater and assist in developing a strategy for the in-situ preservation of endangered historic shipwrecks. This work will also be critical to the future development of national, and possibly international, policy and technical guidelines for site managers of historic wrecks. The project will run for a period of three years. During the field work components the investigators from the University of Western Australia (UWA), the Australian National University (ANU), Monash University and the Western Australian Museum (WAM) with support from research associates and practitioners from the ten partner organisations will operate from a jack-up barge located over the site including purpose built laboratories where they will excavate circa 25-50% of the Clarence site, conduct imaging (x-ray and optical) of recovered artefacts, conserve at-risk materials (where required) and rebury structural elements and associated artefacts using a combination of in-situ preservation techniques and initiate a long-term monitoring programme for the site. Excavation methodology will be overseen by Mark Staniforth, Peter Harvey (Heritage Victoria) and Peter Veth; conservation and in-situ preservation protocols, analyses and pre- and post-reburial monitoring by Ian MacLeod and Vicki Richards; imaging co-ordinated by Dudley Creigh (and colleagues) and Andrew Viduka; geoarchaeology and Geographical Information systems (GIS) by Tony Barham and Masters of Archaeological Science candidates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peter Veth Andrew Viduka Mark Staniforth Ian MacLeod Vicki Richards Anthony Barham Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-shan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Edwin G. Pulleyblank Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford University Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955 Type The nature or genre of the resource Book Zotero Author Edwin G. Pulleyblank Item Type Book Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955 Place London Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford University Press Title A name given to the resource The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-shan China 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 Bakau wreck: an early example of Chinese shipping in Southeast Asia Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michael Flecker Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Zotero Author Michael Flecker Item Type Journal Article DOI 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2001.tb01369.x Abstract Note Very few early Chinese shipwrecks have been discovered in Southeast Asia, despite the enormous volume of trade with China. This article describes the surprising hull features of one such wreck, and its diverse ceramic cargo. The Bakau Wreck dates to the early 15th century, and was bound from southern China to Indonesia via a Thai entrepot port. Access Date 2009-11-28 06:23:20 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Issue 2 Library Catalog Wiley InterScience Pages 221-230 Publication Title International Journal of Nautical Archaeology Short Title The Bakau wreck Title A name given to the resource The Bakau wreck: an early example of Chinese shipping in Southeast Asia URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2001.tb01369.x Volume 30 China Southeast Asia https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/73e71ba1ab4a6726eca6924415885dcc.pdf b678cec074c5f4d3d0558b4a2087f53d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2021 Session 14: In the Mind of the Boatbuilder: Asia Pacific studies in Maritime Ethno-archaeology Subject The topic of the resource Session 14 papers Description An account of the resource Abstract The study of contemporary maritime cultures and their materials through first hand observation, maritime ethnography is a ‘relatively’ new tool available to maritime archaeologists. By using ethnographic analogies, archaeologists can propose hypothetical reconstructions of incomplete objects or structures, suggest the possible use of enigmatic structural elements, and describe in detail how the object or structure was made. Ethno-archaeology can provide clues or suggest ways of thinking about past cultures, and serve as a launch pad for retrospective enquiry. Analogous applications of ethnography to archaeology allow us to breach temporal and spatial gaps by using information derived from one context (the present) to help explain data found in another (the past). In keeping with the Conference theme and proposed sub-theme (8), ‘Nautical Technology in Asia-Pacific’, this session is intended to provide a forum for researchers from ethnography, archaeology, anthropology, digital humanities and related disciplines, to exchange ideas, present new research and explore challenges in the collection, investigation, interpretation and dissemination of maritime ethno-archaeological data. The focus of ‘In the Mind of the Boatbuilder: Asia Pacific Studies in Maritime Ethno-archaeology’ will be on water transport technology in Asia-Pacific, including regional studies and collaborative projects, which employ innovative and emerging technologies, observe boatbuilding traditions and explore archeological evidence for traditional boats, social practices, maritime rituals and associated traditions. We invite researchers from across the Asia Pacific region to submit papers on topics including, but not limited to: ancient seafaring in Asia-Pacific; boat ethnography in Asia-Pacific; ethno-archaeological studies of water transport systems and practices, new and emerging technologies for recording traditional boats; and ethnographic studies of maritime rituals and traditions in boat construction. We particularly welcome submissions that provide new information about regional seafaring that is changing our understanding of human history and creating opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration beyond national boundaries. Session Organizers: Sarah Ward and Ying Ying Yan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Barbari-Habeshi crewmen and merchants – Uncovering an African maritime tradition in the Indian Ocean World Description An account of the resource Ancient Axum was a maritime trading empire based in present day Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa from 400BCE to around 940CE and for a while the empire even extended across the Red Sea to Yemen. Historians have tended to neglect the story of free African movement across the Indian Ocean. However, a multidisciplinary approach to the evidence of Africans in Asia, demonstrates that the following the arrival of Islam in the Horn of Africa in the 8th century the legacy of Axumite maritime trading was passed successively to the states of Shoa, Ifat and Adal. This maritime tradition gave rise to Muslim African communities known as Habeshis or Habshis in the Indo-Pacific region from the Red Sea to the Straits of Malacca and possibly beyond into the South China Sea. Through images and archives this paper traces the growing presence of Habeshi communities in the Indo-Pacific world from the 8th to the 17th centuries and demonstrates how they were part of the mechanism that turned the Indian Ocean into an “Islamic lake” before the arrival of the Europeans and how these Habeshi’s adapted to the European naval presence and ventured further into the Asia-Pacific region. The paper suggests that the Habeshi were also responsible for the spread of live poritis coral exploitation from their homelands to the East African littoral and across the Indian Ocean. The last point is still being researched in Southeast Asia. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cliff Pereira Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2021 Language A language of the resource English Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Pereira, Cliff. 2021. “The Barbari-Habeshi crewmen and merchants – Uncovering an African maritime tradition in the Indian Ocean World.” Edited by Brian Fahy, Hans Van Tilburg, Bill Jeffery, T. Kurt Knoerl, and Riley Smith. In Proceedings of Fourth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Keelung,Taiwan, and Virtual, November 1-5, 2021. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology URL: https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/exhibits/show/apconf-muchproceedings/item/699 Asia-Pac Session 14 2021 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/dab36d5761458b4aef132ab88a8fbc49.pdf 64a8abfbd7fc88468d4e1235312e633e PDF Text Text The Barragup Mungah – A site so well known that there's nothing left to learn? Kevin Edwards1 and Ian McCann2 1 PhD researcher at Flinder University; 2 Independent researcher ABSTRACT The Barragup mungah, is situated on Gnaala Karla Boojas land, it is a well-researched site and oral history from both traditional owners and settler communities. Traditional owners and Western academics emphasise the importance of the site to indigenous people for fishing, social and ceremonial activities. Survey maps from the early nineteenth century of the region, and photographs that may be of the mungah, indicate the general location of the mungah. Despite all this information and research, the mungahs exact location on the Waangaamaap Bilya or Serpentine River is still in doubt. Ethnohistorical data which include indigenous and Western oral history, newly digitised early maps of the region and extensive fieldwork, may have relocated the mungah. In addition, it has raised the intriguing possibility of there being more than one mungah at Barragup.   With low visibility and thick mud in parts of the river, side scan sonar was used as a screening tool to help identify potential locations. The sonar also indicated possible site formation processes that may prove useful in detecting fish traps in riverine environments. Future work will be directed by the Gnaala Karla Booja people. INTRODUCTION Mungah or fish traps were an important method of catching food for indigenous people living near water and were used throughout Western Australia. While some river sites are yet to be relocated such as the Como and Guildford mungahs in the Derbarl Yerrigan (Swan) River, others such as the Kalganup (Kalgan) River mungahs are well recorded (Dix and Meagher 1976:183). The Barragup and Como mungahs were being used by traditional owners during the early colonial period. Fish were traded or sold from Barragup (Hammond 1933, 46) while the Como fish trap was being worked by one indigenous family and the fish sold to settlers in Perth (Kelvin Garlett pers comm 03/09/22). The Barragup mungah is situated somewhere on the lower reaches of the Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River, approximately 2.5 km from the Djilba (Peel) Estuary. Gibbs states that his mungah was used to trap marine fish that moved up the river as the salinity increased during the summer and then left the river systems when the first rains of autumn fell, and the salinity decreased (Gibbs 2011, 6). This cycle of fish movement is disputed by Weaver who states the movement of the fish has more to do with the mullet spawning (Weaver 1997, 91). When the traditional owners noticed the fish moving along the river, they would first rebuild parts of the mungah as it was sometimes partly dismantled after a seasons use and sometimes was damaged by seasonal rains (Gibbs 2011, 8; Hammond 1933, 46). Indigenous people from the surrounding areas were invited to the site to take part in this annual event. It is suggested that up to 300 people may have camped at the site in mias or huts (Gibbs 2011, 9). Hammond wrote: “To make this trap they chose the narrow neck of the river, at Barragup on the Serpentine, where the water was up to about four feet in depth. A wicker fence was built across the stream, completely closing it from bank to bank, except in the centre, where a small opening was left. Through this opening a race was constructed by driving two rows of parallel stakes in the riverbed. The bottom of the race was filled with bushes, until there was only about eight inches of clear water above the bushes for the fish to swim through. On either side of this race was built a platform, about two feet six 1 �inches below the top of the water. On these platforms the natives stood to catch the fish as they swam through the race.” (Hammond 1933, 46). Hammond also drew, from memory, a plan of the weir (Figure 1). Figure 1. Barragup Mungah Serpentine River (Hammond 1933:47) There are also two photographs taken at around 1900 and both are described as showing a mungah on the Murray River (Figure 2). Gibbs suggests that Figure 2 (right) may portray the Barragup mungah. Figure 2. Left, fish trap on the Murray River, c. 1900, Western Australian Museum (Dortch 1997, 29 plate 5). Right, Aboriginal fish trap, Murray River, c.1900, Western Australian Museum, Anthropology Department collection (Gibbs 2011, 8). Indigenous Oral History The Gnaala Karla Booja people have several recorded stories relating to the Barragup mungah. Collard and Palmer have captured some of this information and included them in The Gcayut Research and Training Project. This document contains input from eight elders and knowledge holders of the region. Within this document are descriptions of the construction of the mungah, how it was used and the fish that were caught. There are details of ceremonies and songs performed at the site and the implements and goods that were made to trade with the other tribes who were invited to 2 �Barragup to share the trapped fish. Collard and Palmer mention that the elders: “… obtained a Ngoonjook… interwoven wire grass used as a 'net', also used in the construction of the weirs” (Collard and Palmer 1996, 21). Another fish trap is also mentioned: “The narrow creek joining Goegrup Lake to the smaller south-eastern lake was blocked by a Mungah or fish trap” (Collard and Palmer 1996, 26). In a video called Barragup Yarns George Walley describes a: “… fish trap as being made of sticks” (Lyons, Barragup Yarns 2104) And: “… small trees, skinny ones placed vertically into the mud. And from there, there's horizontal pieces of wood that’s tied up and you can make the small ropes from what we call Wagyls whiskers, from the reeds that grow along the waterways” (Our Knowledge Our Land 2016) The website Our Knowledge Our Land Ngalang Kaadadjan, Ngalang Boodja includes a page on the Barragup mungah that contains a piece of information regarding the mungahs consteuction: “… the stones that once formed the base of the fish mungah on the bottom of the riverbed are not visible from the surface.” (Our Knowledge Our Land 2015/6) On the same website it locates the mungah: “… where the Serpentine River forks in two directions, is Mungah on Serpentine”. Bilya cultural trail (Our Knowledge Our Land 2015/11) Harry Nannup, in an interview transcribed from Stretch Festival Mandjar Dreaming Audio recording states: “I don’t think a lot of people know… where the real fish trap was. Just there on the Serpentine River, by the bridge there, in Barragup” (Stretch River Festival Mandjar Dreaming 2015), Frank Nannup has also recorded interviews in July 1995 with the Winjan Aboriginal Centre about his early life living around the Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River. Though not directly mentioning the Barragup mungah his interview provides an insight into how local indigenous people caught fish in the river (Our Knowledge Our Land 1995). When at school he sometimes played with a local, Charles Norton, and they would talk about the fish trap and its location (Charles Norton pers comm 13/06/21). In 2020 when discussing the use of fish traps on the Swan coastal plain, an individual who only wants to be identified as a Wadjuk Noongar person, mentioned that there was a method of trapping fish using two fish traps. The first weir would have an access point for the fish and would be upstream of a second continuous barrier. Once sufficient fish had entered through the first weir it would be blocked leaving the fish trapped in a small area where they could be kept alive and only removed when they were to be eaten. This technique has been recorded being used throughout Eastern Australia (Kelly 2014, 18; Kreij et al 2018, 149; Martin et al 2022, 108; Rowland et al 2011, 3). This possibility should therefore be considered when assessing potential fish trap sites. These accounts build a picture of a site that is of great importance to the traditional owners. They describe aspects of its construction, general location and state that the mungah is part of a larger system of trapping fish. This includes another mungah north of the Barragup site at Goegrup Lake. Hammonds description of the munga matches the traditional owners oral histories, but the traditional owners add three additional pieces of information. First, that stones were placed at the base of the munga, second, that ‘small ropes’ were used to tie parts of the fish trap together and third that woven 3 �nets were used to assist trapping the fish. Gibbs cites Stranger from a 1972 letter to the West Australian Museum stating that nets were used to catch fish that were strung across a six-foot gap that was made in the mungah. This was to allow boats to pass (Gibbs 2011, 13). It’s not known if this is the use of nets that traditional owners mention. Modern Oral Histories The authors contacted a local, Charles (Charlie) Norton, after discovering he had first-hand information about the Barragup mungah. Charlie was born on the 20th of July 1940 and lived on his family's 500-acre farm situated on the north side of the Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River. Charles recalls seeing some of the fish trap wooden stakes still in situ in the mid 1950’s. His father told him about the fish trap and how the indigenous people used it and it was made from casuarina sticks that were pushed into the riverbed at random angles. Charlie took one of the authors to the location of where the sticks were seen. Charlie revealed that the riverbanks have lost around 4 metres from each bank due to erosion. The river at this location is now 36 metres wide so it was approximately 28 metres when Charlie first saw the sticks. Modern Netting At Nortons mungah location are two drill rods that have been driven into the south side of the riverbed. They are set at 90 degrees to the riverbank and angled at approximately 60 degrees towards the riverbank. These may have been used as anchor points for setting nets across the river. The removal of the wooden stakes that Norton reported seeing in the 1950’s may have been removed modern as they could have snagged modern nets set off the drill rods. Early Maps Early colonial maps that include the Barragup area were produced in the 1840’s, the accuracy of which can be seen when compared to a modern map (Figure 3, Left). Browne’s copy of a Watson map from 1841is of particular interest (Figure 3, right. SRO 3844-250). The cartographer’s notation on this map reads ‘Barragup fishing ground’, underlined in red by the authors. Both maps show little change in the river course over the past 183 years. Brownes map has locations added by the authors marked by numbers from one to six. Position one on Brownes map is where some traditional owners indicate the mungah was (Our Knowledge Our Land 2015/11). Position two, the approximate position as the State Heritage office place number 09017 and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage site 3314. Positions three and four is where the authors suspect the fish traps are. Both Browne and Creerys maps show limited access for a boat trying to navigate the small branch of the river at position five. The unnavigable small creeks, position six, are still visible today. An 1840 map by Creery of the Geerginup estate, (SRO 3869-018), also matches the river course shown in Brownes map. It can be said with some confidence that since the 1840’s the main river channel is where the Barragup Fishing Ground is noted on Brownes map. This is likely to be the place where the Barragup fish trap was positioned as it would restrict boat access, and this is the reason given for it to be repeatedly damaged and finally removed in 1937 CE (Collard and Palmer 1996, 29; Gibbs 2011,13). If the mungah was at location one, there would be no reason to remove it as maps from the period clearly show this branch of the river is a dead end and not navigable for boats. Charlie Norton 4 �mentioned that he had widened the ‘dead end’ at position five to increase waterflow, but this was well after the fish trap was removed. Figure 3. Left, Google Maps accessed 20/03/23. Right, Browne after Watson. 1841 SRO 3844-250 This is not discounting the possibility that there was once another mungah at location one. The river and lake system may have formed as early as the Late Pleistocene (Gibbs 2011,13) and over the millennia the river would have changed course many times. Any oral history locating the mungah elsewhere may be a reference to an earlier mungah. First Site Visit Barragup was first shown to McCann by David Austin, Michael McGee and Nicholas Reynolds from the Mandurah Museum Maritime Museum. The first trip to the area was aboard one of the tunnel boats that the group had restored. These boats have an inboard engine with a propeller that is recessed into the hull allowing the boat to navigate the shallow waters of the river. Subsequent Surveys Due to the shallow nature of the waterways, the initial visual surveys were conducted using canoes. Over 34 kilometres of river and lake banks were inspected with particular attention taken of any narrow sections of the waterways as well as any evidence of wooden structures. The only wooden structures found were fence lines that extended into the lakes made up of closely spaced, split timber posts. The Dortch Stake The only physical evidence said to be from the Barragup mungah is a short wooden steel cut stake found by Charlie Dortch when diving in the area in the late 80’s (Email Charlie Dortch 17/02/2020 and O’Connor et al. 1989, 14) and reported in the West Australian newspaper on the 18/02/89. Over the past three years McCann has found seven wooden stakes within the surveyed area and all are of a similar size and shape to the one found by Dortch. They have been found along the riverbanks of 5 �the Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River and one in the Djilba (Peel) Estuary 1800 metres south of the Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River mouth. All were steel cut, had a rough point at one end and the other end was cut flat. They were between 450mm to 550mm long and between 40mm to 70mm in diameter. The stake from the Estuary was driven vertically into the inlet bank. Unfortunately, the authors have been unable to inspect the Dortch stake, which is currently held by the West Australian Museum Boola Bardip who have not yet provided access. These wooden stakes may have been used as land anchors for recreational and commercial netting of fish. The commercial set, haul and boat netting of fish in this region started around the third quarter of the nineteenth century (Worsley et al 2012, 334) and was one of the largest estuarine fisheries in Australia (McComb and Lukatelich 1995, 5). McCann has used this technique of a land anchor when assisting commercial fishers in Western Australia. This method of using land anchors for netting has been used for millennia, a mosaic from the Roman villa of La Vega Baja de Toledo, third-fourth centuries BCE, show a net set onshore and a fishing boat deploying the net it in a curve (Lopez 2010, 167 Figure 1). Interviewing the retired commercial fishers who operated in the Djilba (Peel) Estuary may well help confirm if wooden stakes were used in this fashion. Side Scan Sonar On later surveys the authors used a Lowrance HDS Carbon 9 with a Totalscan transducer to scan the river and lake beds. This unit has a transducer that is bolted to a boat's hull and was chosen as the river has numerous obstacles, particularly sunken trees, that could snag a towed side scan transducer. Over a period of four years, thirty-three kilometres of side scan sonar survey lines were recorded. These were from the Waangaamaap Bilyas (Serpentine) River junction with the Djilba (Peel) Estuary and upriver for 8500 metres. Scanning was conducted during different seasons as the rainy season allowed the boat to access shallower parts of the river. There are limitations to using a side scan in shallow water as the effective range of the sonar is quite short, often requiring multiple runs to scan a small area. Also, any remnant wooden stakes or stones from the mungah would be in a line at 90 degrees to the transducer meaning the return signal would show multiple objects as one signal (Blondel 2009, 15 and 37-38). Targets are illuminated from the side, consequently only the surfaces facing the sonar will be seen. Interpretation of the side scan images can be difficult and requires practice. Basically, soft objects, mud, sand and wood, return a weak or dull signal and hard targets, such as rock, a strong or bright signal (Blondel 2009, 78). The side scan sonar picked up two sections of the riverbed where a bank had formed across the river (Figure 4, A, B and C) In the same areas rocks could be seen at the topmost part of the bank, these are circled in red. These are the only sections of the riverbed where a bank forms across the river. The side scan screenshots (Figure 4, B and C) are taken at the same location but different times of the year. Note the difference in the signal from the rocks, in B only one rock is visible, in C, three. The position of these rocks were confirmed by wading across the river and seven rocks, in two lines, set at 90 degrees to the riverbank, were detected. The rocks vary in size from approximately 300mm to 800mm in diameter. These banks and stones seem to fit the description of where the traditional owners say the mungah should be, a narrow section of the river, a shallow bank with a deeper central channel and rocks in a line on the riverbed. The two banks and two lines of rock may indicate two mungahs. 6 �Figure 4. Screen shots of cross riverbanks and lines of stones (circled in red). CONCLUSIONS Through a combination of investigative methods, the authors may have relocated the position of the Barragup mungah and suggest that a second mungah may be in the same area. The side scan sonar data clearly show two sand and mud banks that cross the river from bank to bank. These are the only locations on the lower Waangaamaap Bilya (Serpentine) River where this occurs. Each of the banks have stones set in a line on top of the bank, a feature of the mungah mentioned by traditional owners. These banks and stones were located prior to meeting Charlie Norton. This discovery was not mentioned to Charlie until he indicated where he last saw the mungah sticks. This proved to be in the same spot as one of the banks and line of stones that is at position 3, as shown on Brownes map (Figure 3, right). The use of side scan sonar may be a viable screening tool for locating wooden or stone barrier fish traps in limited visibility environments. If in position for a long time they can change the deposition of sediment thus altering the topography of a lake or riverbed. This will be evidenced by sedimentation along the length of the structure (Van Denderen et al. 2022, 2), such as the two sandbanks found by the authors. There is still plenty of research that needs to be done before we can definitively say that the mungah has been relocated. Some of the mungah wooden stakes may have snapped off and could still be implanted under the mud on the riverbed. These could be found with a non-invasive fingertip survey by divers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thanks to the Gnaala Karla Boojas people who allowed us to research their mungah (fish trap) on their land. 7 �BIBLIOGRAPHY Blondel, Philippe. The handbook of sidescan sonar. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010. Collard, L, and D. Palmer. "Gcalyut Research and Training Project." Unpublished, (1996): 1-107. Dix, W. C., and S. J. Meagher. "Fish traps in the south-west of Western Australia." Records of the Western Australian Museum 4, no. 2 (1976): 171-187. Dortch, C. E. "New perceptions of the chronology and development of Aboriginal fishing in South‐Western Australia." World Archaeology 29, no. 1 (1997): 15-35. Gibbs, Martin. "An Aboriginal fish trap on the Swan Coastal Plain: the Barragup mungah [Paper in:'Fire and Hearth'Forty Years on: Essays in Honour of Sylvia J. Hallam. Bird, Caroline and Webb, R. Esmee (eds).]." Records of the Western Australian Museum 79 (2011): 4-15. Hammond, Jesse E., and Paul Hasluck. "Winjan's people: the story of the South-West Australian Aborigines." (No Title) (1933). Kelly, Damian. "Archaeology of Aboriginal Fish traps in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia." Charles Sturt University, Sydney (2014). Kreij, Anna, Jason Scriffignano, Daniel Rosendahl, and Sean Ulm. "Aboriginal stone-walled intertidal fishtrap morphology, function and chronology investigated with high-resolution close-range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle photogrammetry." Journal of Archaeological Science 96 (2018): 148-161. López Monteagudo, Guadalupe. "Nets and fishing gear in Roman mosaics from Spain." Nets and fishing gear in Roman mosaics from Spain (2010): 161-185. Lyons, Karen 2014. Barragup Yarns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4fWs3n71E last accessed 20/03/23 Martin, Sarah, Hubert Chanson, Badger Bates, Duncan Keenan‐Jones, and Michael C. Westaway. "Indigenous fish traps and fish weirs on the Darling (Baaka) River, south‐eastern Australia, and their influence on the ecology and morphology of the river and floodplains." Archaeology in Oceania (2022). McComb, A. J., and R. J. Lukatelich. "The Peel-Harvey estuarine system, Western Australia." CRC Press, 1995. Nannup, H. https://soundcloud.com/user-427497721/mandjar-dreaming/s-6DhqH 2015. 2015 Last accessed 15/04/23 O'Connor, Rory Pearse, Corrie Bodney, and Gary Quartermaine. Report on an investigation into Aboriginal significance of wetlands and rivers in the Perth-Bunbury region. Western Australian Water Resources Council, 1989. Our Knowledge Our Land. 1995. Our Stories. https://www.ourknowledgeourland.com.au/story/frank-nannup/ last accessed 01/04/23 Our Knowledge Our Land. 2015/6. Mungah on the Serpentine. https://www.ourknowledgeourland.com.au/mapitem/12-barragup-fish-mungah/ Our Knowledge Our Land. 2015/11 Bilya Cultural trail Mungah https://www.ourknowledgeourland.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mungah.pdf location last accessed 18/01/23 Our Knowledge Our Land. 2016. Mungah on the Serpentine https://www.ourknowledgeourland.com.au/experience/walking-in-history/bilya-country-story-trail-map/ Last accessed 06/03/23 Rowland, Michael J., and Sean Ulm. "Indigenous fish traps and weirs of Queensland." Queensland Archaeological Research 14 (2011): 1-58. Van Denderen, R. Pepijn, Emiel Kater, Luc H. Jans, and Ralph MJ Schielen. "Disentangling changes in the river bed profile: The morphological impact of river interventions in a managed river." Geomorphology 408 (2022): 108244. Weaver, Paul R. "An ethnohistorical study of the Swan-Canning fishery in Western Australia, 1697-1837." (1991). Worsley, J. P, Worsley, Green, J. "Capes of Sunset: Western Australia’s Maritime Heritage between Peel Inlet and Flinders Bay." (2012). 8 � Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Barragup Mungah – A site so well known that there's nothing left to learn? Description An account of the resource The Barragup mungah, is situated on Gnaala Karla Boojas land, it is a well-researched site and oral history from both traditional owners and settler communities. Traditional owners and Western academics emphasise the importance of the site to indigenous people for fishing, social and ceremonial activities. Survey maps from the early nineteenth century of the region, and photographs that may be of the mungah, indicate the general location of the mungah. Despite all this information and research, the mungahs exact location on the Waangaamaap Bilya or Serpentine River is still in doubt. Ethnohistorical data which include indigenous and Western oral history, newly digitised early maps of the region and extensive fieldwork, may have relocated the mungah. In addition, it has raised the intriguing possibility of there being more than one mungah at Barragup. With low visibility and thick mud in parts of the river, side scan sonar was used as a screening tool to help identify potential locations. The sonar also indicated possible site formation processes that may prove useful in detecting fish traps in riverine environments. Future work will be directed by the Gnaala Karla Booja people. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kevin Edwards Ian McCann Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Language A language of the resource English Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. McCann, Ian and Kevin Edwards. 2023. “The Barragup Munga – A site so well known that there's nothing left to learn? Edited by Jennifer Craig, Jay Mok, T. Kurt Knoerl, Paul Montgomery, and Bill Jeffrey. In Proceedings of Fifth Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage: Gwangju, The Republic of Korea, November 13-18 2023. The Museum of Underwater Archaeology. URL: https://apconf.omeka.net/exhibits/show/apconfproceedings/item/2008 Asia-Pac Session 11 2023 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/15d494d7b18aeee72a24fbc0d2e01176.pdf 51b4d2c4db8bfac50d93cfd0a902df2a PDF Text Text The Belitung Wreck Site After Commercial Salvage In 1998 Agus Sudaryadi Abstract The Belitung Shipwreck Site, located at 17 meters (m) depth in Belitung waters, Indonesia, is a shipwreck site containing Tang Dynasty (AD 618-906) cargo that was lifted by private salvage companies, Limited Corporation/Perusahaan Terbatas (PT). Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration Company in 1998. 1 The salvaging process was done without involving Indonesian State archaeologists. The shipwreck is an Arab or Indian vessel that includes 60,000 artifacts from the Tang Dynasty. In 2005, the artifacts sold to Singapore Sentosa Leisure Group. In 2010, the Office for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Jambi conducted the first underwater archaeological survey at Belitung Shipwreck site in order to find out the conditions of the site after the salvaging operation. The result shows that the site is extremely ravaged, with unidentified ceramic fragments spread out in a radius of ± 20 square meters (m²). It seems clear that the ceramic fragments have been removed by the company then thrown back into the sea because considered non-commercial. Meanwhile, the structure of the actual shipwreck was not found. It was only a big hole with 6 m wide and 15 m long, which seems to be where the ship may have settled. The remnants are now just a few small wood fragments and a sizable chunk of wood, this maybe the mast-step. The Belitung Shipwreck is recognized worldwide as an extremely valuable find in Indonesian waters. Preservation efforts are needed to remind future generations that the shipwreck site very important for underwater archaeology in Indonesia. Some preservation efforts that can be done are legal protection, site rehabilitation, and establishing a maritime museum in Belitung Regency. The last of which efforts have initiated two years ago with the aim to preserve artifacts from Belitung shipwreck site and other underwater sites in Bangka Belitung Province. Keywords: Belitung, Tang cargo, Shipwreck site, Preservation Introduction The Fantastic selling price of the cargo of De Geldermalsen salvaged by Michael Hatcher in Riau water has stimulated businessmen in Indonesia who want to try their luck to get treasure. It encouraged the government to form a National Committee, one of its responsibilities is to manage licenses, salvage, and exploitation. One of the salvaged shipwrecks is Belitung Wreck or popularly known as the Tang Cargo. The company which salvaged it was PT. Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration, a German company. The company carried out excavation work at the site in September and October 1998, and continued in April 1999 (Flecker 2001:335). The process of salvage was done without involving archaeologists or Indonesian researchers. The Belitung wreck is the first archaeological evidence for direct trade between the western Indian Ocean and China. A remarkable portion of the ship’s hull survived. The hull planks were stitched together, with no sign of wooden dowels or iron fastening. The keel is 15.3 m long, a keelson, stringers, ceiling planks, and thwart beams still in 1 The term salvage is associated to random removal of ship parts or cargo for their reuse or sale; excavation is the term used for scientific methodology in the removal of heritage objects �place. The majority of the surviving cargo consisted of ceramics from the Changsha kilns2 of China. Primarily bowls and ewers, but also a smattering of figurines and jarlets. Other significant finds from the wreck include white-ware from the famous Ding Kilns, and Yue wares3 from Zhejiang Province, several rare pieces of high-fired blue and white, lead ballasts, some pieces of resin which would come from Sumatra, pillowshaped silver ingots, and a number of gold vessels (Flecker 2001:336-345). How is the Belitung Wreck now? Only fragments of tile remain and useless cuts of wood on the site. They are scattered about the seabed in 17 m depth to the west of Belitung Island. The identified cuts of wood are not known from which part of the wreck, if at all, the may have originated. Potentially, a propped-up wood chunk is the maststep. A long sand pit indicates the site of the shipwreck where it was found by the salvagers. What should be done with the ruins? This shipwreck is the only known ship from the 9th century Anno Domini (AD) that has been found. It needs preserving. Belitung Wreck now The location of Belitung Wreck site is in the Western Belitung Island. Its geographical location includes Batu Itam (Black Rock) village area, Sijuk district, Belitung regency, Bangka Belitung Archipelago province. To get to the site, we can start from Batu Itam beach about 3 km (1.8 mile) or from Nusantara port in Tanjung Pandan city, from which the distance is 8.8 km (5.4 mile). The visibility is quite good at around 5-7 m. Figure 1. The Location of The Belitung Wreck (Google Earth) The result of the survey done in November 2010 shows that the salvaging of the Belitung Wreck left broken jar and bowl ceramics. The scattered fragments of jars and 2 3 Changsha kilns located in Hunan Province where the ceramics produced a porcelain that the ancient Chinese likened to snow because of its delicacy �bowls are in about 20 m2 surrounding the wreck site. It seems that the fragments were lifted then thrown away again into the sea because of their broken condition. Figure 2. Fragment of Jars and Bowls in Seabed (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) Meanwhile, the ship itself can not be found again. There are only some small wood chunks left. The sinking of the ship in the seabed left a trace in the form of 6 m wide and 15 m long hole with orientation South West – North East. In the hole, there are many small fragments of tile and a part of the ship which is identified as the mast-step (Manurung 2010:8). Figure 3. a small wood fragment (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) �Figure 4. The wood predicted as the mast-step (Agus Sudaryadi/Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi) Preservation Efforts The condition of Belitung Wreck is unknown so far after salvaging in 1998. We have no data about its. As a consequence, there have not been any preservation steps taken. There are many factors that cause this, some of which are unavailable human resources (see Wahjudin this volume) and the preservation of underwater sites has never been done before in Indonesia. Due to that case, in my opinion, the preservation that can be done is legal protection, it becomes the collection of maritime museum and a site rehabilitation is needed. a) Legal Protection UCH protection in Indonesia is very neglected compared with land cultural heritage. The salvaging of De Geldermalsen (The Nanking Cargo) incident in Riau Archipelago waters by Michael Hatcher in 1985-1986 has stirred up government and society (Utomo 2008:20-21). The auction 140,000 tiles and 225 bars of gold was held by Christie’s in Amsterdam totaled US$18 million. The Government reacted by implementing Presidential Decree No. 43 of 1989 on the National Committee for Salving and Exploiting Valuable Objects Retrieved from Shipwreck (henceforth referred to as the National Committee). The National Committee’s duty is to manage the licensing of survey, salvage, and exploitation4. The laws which protected Indonesian culture heritage at that time was Monumenten Ordonnantie (Netherland Law) No. 19 of 1931 (Staatblad 1931 No. 238) then changed into Monumenten Ordonnantie No. 21 of 1934 (Staatblad 1934 No. 515). 4 Until now, The Indonesia Government has issued three Presidential Decree, Presidential Decree No. 43/1989, Presidential Decree No. 107/2000, and Presidential Decree No. 19/2007. Now the National Comitte Chairman is Ministry of Marine and Fisheries. �From the salvaging of Geldermalsen’s cargo, Indonesia got neither financial nor non-financial award. The result of the auction was not done clearly, meanwhile the process of lifting, packing, conservation, and auction did not involve Indonesian archaeologists at all. Thus, there was no data, documentation nor improvement of underwater archaeologists’ knowledge in Indonesia. One of the more horrendous consequences of the event is that an Indonesian archaeologist is considered dead, his body thus far not found, who was active in the investigation of locating the Geldermalsen. He was an alumni of an underwater archaeologist training course held in Thailand in 1985 and 1986 (SEAMEO Project of Archaeology and Fine Arts). That incident left deep pain for Indonesian archaeologists and a gap in the knowledge on Indonesian UCH. To replace the old ineffective law in the Law No. 5/1992 was issued concerning culture heritage objects. The weakness of Indonesian law has been exploited by the looter and the salvaging of UCH. The cargo which is known as Belitung Wreck has been desalinated, conserved, and researched in New Zealand. The cargo taken out of the country against the rule. The auction conducted by Christie’s with a total earnings of US$32 million. The agreement that obliged the salvagers to share half the value was broken with only US$2.5 million delivered in total (Rachel 2009; Sofian 2010:21). In 1999 salvaging by Michael Hatcher occurred again to a shipwreck in Gaspar straits which is known as Teksing Cargo. The major findings were blue and white ceramics about 18th – 19th century AD produced in Dehua Kiln in Fujian Province. Not only ceramics, from the cargo found cannon, objects of brass and copper, watches, china ink container, folding knife, and incense burner (Widiati 2007:35). They were shipped to Australia in 43 containers. All the cargo of the ship was sold by Nagel auction in Stuttgart, Germany in November 2000. It sold 350,000 ceramics at a total 7,2 million deutsch marks (DM). The Indonesian government got only 2 million DM and only 1,000 ceramics (Wahjudin 2003:17). The forming of National Committee did not reduce the illegal salvaging of UCH. During 2005 – 2011 there have been eleven cases. Meanwhile, survey and legal salvaging were only 26. Of all the incidents, there was only one successful archaeological excavation namely the Cirebon Wreck salvaged by PT. Paradigma Putera Sejahtera cooperate with Cosmix, Belgia. The process of salvaging was done systematically under the supervision of government officials. There were 500,000 ceramics, objects of gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, bottle, glass, beads, coin, and precious stones (Utomo 2008:35-60). Law protection toward UCH in Indonesia has changed by the issue of Law No. 11/2010 on Culture Heritage. This new law is more firm in managing the discovery of culture heritage in the water and the repercussions for bringing it abroad. There are heavy punishments for those who break the law. The explanation about that is as follow: Discovery Government is obliged to bring about discovering of objects, building, structure and location predicted as Culture Heritage. The discovery of culture heritage or predicted as culture heritage can be done individually by excavating, diving, and/or lifting in the land and/or in the water. The discovery as meant in Verse (1) and (2) can only be done through research with caring about belonging right and location authority. �Everyone is prohibited to carry out discovery of culture heritage or predicted as culture heritage by excavating, diving, and/or lifting in the land and/or in the water as meant in Verse (2), except with license from government or local government with its authority. (Article 26, Versus 1-4) Carrying Foreigners and/or law institution can not possess and/or dominate culture heritage, except foreigners and/or foreign law institution that live and inhibit in Indonesia territorial; Foreigners and/or foreign law institution as meant in Verse (1) is prohibited to carry Culture Heritage, either all or a part of it, out of Indonesia territory. (Article 14, Verse 1 and 2) Culture Heritage, either all or a part of it, can only be brought out of Indonesia territory for the sake of research, cultural promotion, and/or exhibition; Everyone is forbidden to bring Culture Heritage as meant in Verse (1), except by Minister Permission . (Article 68, Verse 1 and 2) Punishment Everybody without governmental license or local government bring about discovery of Culture Heritage as meant in Article 26 Verse (4) is punished by sending to jail at least 3 (three) months and the longest is 10 (ten) years and/or fined at least Rp. 150,000,000,- (one hundred and fifty million rupiahs) and the most is Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiahs). (Article 103) Everybody without ministry licence, bring Cultural Heritage out of Indonesia territory as meant in article 68 Verse (2) is punished by sending to jail at least 6 (six) months and the longest is 10 (ten) years and/or fined at least Rp. 200,000,000,- (two hundred million rupiahs) and the most is Rp. 1,500,000,000,- (one billion and five hundred million rupiahs). (Article 109) How is the law protection of underwater culture heritage in Indonesia? still a lot of shipwreck site is not determined yet. Whereas, in Law No. 5/1992 about Culture Heritage Objects Verse 11 states, “Government determines the finding of Culture Heritage Objects or objects predicted as Culture Heritage Objects as meant in Article 10 Verse 1 about the site with its border”. Government Regulation No. 10 of 1993 about the implementation of Law No. 5/1992 about Culture Heritage Objects Article 24 Verse (1) states, “ in conserving Culture Heritage Objects Government decides the site”. Meanwhile Law No. 11/2010 has changed the determining of Culture Heritage becomes national and local government’s responsibility. According to verse (1): Regent and mayor issue the determining of Culture Heritage status 30 (thirty) days the longest after the recommendation is accepted by experts team which states the object, building. structures, location and/or geographic space unit which is registered as Culture Heritage. Regency and municipality government convey the result of determining to Provincial Government and continued to the central government. (Article 35) Government and local government can bring about the ranking of Culture Heritage based on the importance to be national ranking, province ranking, and regency/municipality ranking based on recommendation from Culture Heritage Expert Team.(Article 41) The determination of Belitung Wreck site as a possible site is due to survey result data (Manurung 2010:8-9). It was done after 12 years since its salvage. Before that, the obstacle of determining the location of the underwater site was lack of survey, so there was no underwater site data available that could aide in its identification. �Legal protection of the Belitung wreck and other underwater sites would need to be followed by marking the protect sites, both on land and at sea. The sign is installed on land are information board. The board provide information about the history of the particular wreck and layout of the site, but will also carry a strong conservation message, stressing the legal protection, and the responsibilities of divers when visiting them. The board installed adjacent to the slipway at a harbor from which divers access to a shipwreck. While at sea, the location of shipwreck with an installed buoy. The buoy is moored with rope/chain which is bound around the cement block in the seabed. On the cement block, there is a bronze plaque of the writing relating its lawful determination. b) Maritime Museum Since two years ago the Indonesian government prepared to build a maritime museum in Belitung Island. At that time, there were 8 hectares of land available for development. The choosing of Belitung Island as the location of maritime museum is quite appropriate due to the amount of shipwrecks around the seawater territory of Bangka and Belitung Island. Noted since 1950-1878 43 ships sank in the Gaspar straits and surroundings, including Gaspar Island, Karang Coope, Karang Beldeveree, Karang Arang Marai (Pramono 2005:85; Tangkilisan 2009:10). Wreck site found by Arqueonautas from 2007-2010 include 27 sites located at a depth of 6 m to 53 m. Condition of the sites has been largely heavily disturbed and looted. Seven sites are European shipwreck from the 19th century AD. Two of them are believed to be the location of Alceste5 and Forbes6 (Mirabal 2008: 28; Mirabal 2011:30) Indonesia has 275 museum with only two categorized as maritime museums. They are the Museum Bahari in Jakarta and Museum Bahari in Ende, Flores. However, the museums do not have underwater heritage collections. Museum Bahari in Jakarta is Culture Preserve building inherited from the Dutch government. The building was used by Dutch government officials as storehouse to keep, choose, and pack Indonesian commodities. Museum Bahari of Jakarta was officially opened on 7th July 1977. The collection exhibited in the museum consist of various kinds of classic Vereenigde OostIndische Compagnie (VOC) boats, Indonesian traditional boat, and models of modern boat. It also includes the equipment of sailing such as navigation tools, anchors, lighthouse models, and many kinds of cannon. It displays sea biota collection (fish in Indonesia’s seawater), technology of traditional boat building, and folklore of Indonesian fishermen customs. The museum exhibits Indonesian Navy dimension, cartography, maritime kingdom heroes and figures, and photos of the voyage of Koninkelijitke Paketvaart Mattscappi KPM) ship. Museum Bahari in Ende collects sea biota in Nusa Tenggara area. The total collection amounts to 22,000 kinds. The Maritime Museum in Belitung must build a new building. Ideally, the architecture of the building reflects Indonesian culture, like the shape of the ship, Indonesian traditional building, history of Indonesian maritime, or Indonesia’s sea potential . However, based on the comparison of maritime museums in Osaka Maritime 5 The English ship was on voyage to China with a famous ambassador on board. The ship was wrecked on this reef which now bears its name, Alceste Cliff (Wells 1995:94) 6 Forbes is a English country trading ship which sank on November during its voyage from China to India (Ibid.) �Museum, Japan, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle, Australia and Maritime Museum of Chicago, USA, the maritime building in Indonesia needs to consider the concept of developing modern architecture. For the collection, museum needs to add the collection of (1) Indonesian Maritime History, (2) Indonesian Maritime Culture, (3) Sailing technology and safety, (4) Variation of water transportation, (5) Port and shipping (6) Various kinds of weaponry, tools and social material cultures related to territorial defense and security (Supardi 2009:8-13). Problems with the collection that came from the Belitung wreck is most of the objects have belonged to the Singapore Artscience Museum. Indonesian Government has only 39 ceramics which are in the National Museum. For that we need to do a good negotiation so that Indonesia government to get additional artifacts the Belitung wreck. Artifacts from Belitung Wreck will also be the collection the Museum Timah in Belitung but most of the ceramics is broken. Other ceramics are in private collections and their number is unknown. c) Site Rehabilitation As illustrated above the rest of the site is only the scattered fragments of ceramic jars and some unprovenienced wood. I think that site should be preserved in a way rehabilitated. According to Indonesia Big Dictionary, rehabilitation is the recovery to previous condition (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia 1990:737). So in this paper, rehabilitation means the recovery to condition before the salvaging. The consideration factors to do the rehabilitation of Belitung Wreck are : 1. Important underwater site as the proof of sailing in 9th century AD 2. The location is near Belitung island 3. It is located about 17 meters deep 4. It can be developed for under water tourism resorts and complete the maritime museum Site rehabilitation activity is the reordering of scattered objects on the seabed and the returning the land objects to the sea. The land objects are the fragments of ceramics in a villa which used to be a basecamp when the salvaging took place and the seizure of court given to the Museum Timah in Belitung. In addition, it is needed to make the imitation from the pieces of the ship and other objects. Belitung Wreck Site Rehabilitation is expected to support society’s curiosity after visiting the maritime museum. They conduct diving tourism to know the situation under the sea. There are two spots that can be diving tourism destination which are the location of sunken ship and the reef that cause the sunken ship. Conclusion Belitung Wreck is one of underwater site salvaged without involving Indonesian archaeologists. Since it was salvaged not many people has known the condition of the site. It is different from the objects exposed in permanent exhibition or travelling exhibitions. It causes amazement and also controversy as lifting is considered an infringement of the 2001 Convention. Belitung Wreck site can be an example of how salvaging is a loss of objects to National governments. More importantly the information of the site was lost due to there �being no report submitted to the Indonesia government on the salvage operations or any of the conservation or auction follow-ups. There were only pieces of ceramics and planks of wood left on the seabed. It would have been best if the shipwreck site had been approached as a research and preservation activity; with the inclusion of scientific considerations and the preservation/monitoring of in situ objects. In my opinion it is much better to excavate only some objects designated to be exhibited in museums while leaving the rest in situ. Bibliography Departemen Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata, 1990 Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1997 Flecker, M., 2001 Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Cetakan Ketiga, Balai Pustaka. Himpunan Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia tentang Benda Cagar Budaya Republik ”A Ninth-century AD Arab or Indian Shipwreck in Indonesia: first evidence for direct trade with China”, in World Archaeology, Vol. 32, February Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 34 Tahun, 1989 Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 107 Tahun, 2000 Keputusan Presiden tentang Panitia Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Republik Indonesia Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal Tenggelam No. 19 Tahun, 2007 Monumenten Staatblad 1931 No. 238 Ordonnantie No. 19 1931 Monumenten Staatblad 1934 No. 515 Ordonnantie No. 21 1934 Manurung, Y. H.M., Laporan Survei Peninggalan BawahAir di Perairan Belitung, 2010 Provinsi Kepulauan Bangka Belitung, Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala Jambi, 2010 Archaeological Survey Report of Wreck Sites Located in The Mirabal, A., Areas of Baginda and Belvedere Reefs and Bangka and 2008 Belitung Island During 2007 Season, Arqueonautas Worldwide, Jakarta �Mirabal, A., 2011 Pramono, D., 2005 Rachel 2009 Sofian, H. O., 2010 Supardi, N., 2009 Tangkilisan, Y. B., 2009 UNESCO 2001 Undang-Undang 11 Tahun 2011 Utomo, B. B., 2008 Wahjudin, J., 2003 Wells, T., 1995 Widiati, R., 2007 1992 2010 Expedition report of the ”BUDPAR-Arqueonautas” Project in the Area of Babel During 2009-2010 Seasons (From 13/11/09 to 30/11/09 and 23/05/10 to 22/10/10), Arqueonautas Worldwide, Jakarta. Budaya Bahari, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta Curating The Oceans: The Future of Singapore’s Past; accessed October 12th 2011: http://idlethink.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/curating-theoceans-the-future-of-singapores-past/ ”Keadaaan Terkini Situs Arkeologi Bawah Air Belitung Wreck, Perairan Batu Hitam, Kabupaten Belitung”, Jurnal Arkeologi Siddhayatra, Volume 15 Nomor 1 November, Balai Arkeologi Palembang, halaman 20-23. ”Konsep Pendirian Museum Maritim”, Seminar Persiapan Pendirian Museum Maritim di Belitung, 23 Juli 2009. ”Belitung Dalam Lintasan Sejarah Maritim Indonesia”, in Seminar Persiapan Pendirian Museum Maritim di Belitung, 23 July. Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage No. tentang Cagar Budaya Kapal Karam Abad Ke-10 Di Laut Jawa Utara Cirebon, PANNAS BMKT, Cetakan Pertama, Jakarta ”Lelang Keramik di Stuttgart, Jerman”, in Buletin Cagar Budaya, No. 3, Januari, Jakarta "Shipwrecks &Treasure in Southeast Asia with over 450 wrecks including the Flor Do Mar", in Times Edition, Singapore. Katalog Peninggalan Bawah Air di Indonesia, Direktorat Peninggalan Bawah Air, Jakarta Act No. 5 Year 1992 on Cultural Heritage Act No. 11 Year 2010 on Cultural Heritage �� Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Belitung Wreck Site After Commercial Salvage In 1998 Description An account of the resource The Belitung Shipwreck Site, located at 17 meters (m) depth in Belitung waters, Indonesia, is a shipwreck site containing Tang Dynasty (AD 618-906) cargo that was lifted by private salvage companies, Limited Corporation/Perusahaan Terbatas (PT). Sulung Segara Jaya and Seabed Exploration Company in 1998. The salvaging process was done without involving Indonesian State archaeologists. The shipwreck is an Arab or Indian vessel that includes 60,000 artifacts from the Tang Dynasty. In 2005, the artifacts sold to Singapore Sentosa Leisure Group. In 2010, the Office for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Jambi conducted the first underwater archaeological survey at Belitung Shipwreck site in order to find out the conditions of the site after the salvaging operation. The result shows that the site is extremely ravaged, with unidentified ceramic fragments spread out in a radius of ± 20 square meters (m²). It seems clear that the ceramic fragments have been removed by the company then thrown back into the sea because considered non-commercial. Meanwhile, the structure of the actual shipwreck was not found. It was only a big hole with 6 m wide and 15 m long, which seems to be where the ship may have settled. The remnants are now just a few small wood fragments and a sizable chunk of wood, this maybe the mast-step. The Belitung Shipwreck is recognized worldwide as an extremely valuable find in Indonesian waters. Preservation efforts are needed to remind future generations that the shipwreck site very important for underwater archaeology in Indonesia. Some preservation efforts that can be done are legal protection, site rehabilitation, and establishing a maritime museum in Belitung Regency. The last of which efforts have initiated two years ago with the aim to preserve artifacts from Belitung shipwreck site and other underwater sites in Bangka Belitung Province. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agus Sudaryadi Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 2011 Asia-Pac Session 12