Abstract
This chapter examines Southeast Asia’s significant underwater cultural heritage, which faces a range of threats. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage has afforded greater protection to underwater cultural heritage worldwide but has been less effective in Southeast Asia due to its limited uptake. In light of this, the author uses case studies to argue for a broader understanding of how protection and preservation of Southeast Asia’s underwater cultural heritage can be achieved. These management approaches include cultural diplomacy, public-private partnerships, commercial involvement and the increasing professionalisation of maritime archaeology. While some of these approaches are in line with the principles enshrined in the 2001 UNESCO Convention, others are at odds with these principles. Despite this, we cannot afford to dismiss these alternative approaches, as the threats faced by underwater cultural heritage in Southeast Asia are time critical.
The author is grateful for feedback and additional references suggested by Chiara O’Reilly, Mark Staniforth, Michael Flecker and Michael Leadbetter. The author wishes to thank Michael Flecker, the Marine Heritage Gallery (Jakarta) and the Asian Civilisations Museum (Singapore) for supplied images. All views expressed are the author’s own.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Southeast Asia is defined for the purposes of this chapter as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Myanmar, Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam and Timor-Leste.
- 2.
Australian David Burchell re-discovered the wrecks in the 1960s and recovered a number of objects from the vessels (see Burchell 1971).
- 3.
The trumpet was eventually passed to the underwater archaeology branch of the US Naval History and Heritage Command for conservation. Executive Director of the Survivors’ Association, John Schwarz, noted: ‘We have no idea of the untold number of other divers who have pilfered our ship, and were not straight up, and have kept relics retrieved for their own personal use, “stealing” that which truly belong to the lasting memory of the bravery and dedication of the men who served on these warships’ (Power 2016).
- 4.
2001 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention, Article 1: For the purposes of this Convention: 1. (a) ‘Underwater cultural heritage’ means all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years such as: (i) sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context; (ii) vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context; and (iii) objects of prehistoric character. (b) Pipelines and cables placed on the seabed shall not be considered as underwater cultural heritage. (c) Installations other than pipelines and cables, placed on the seabed and still in use, shall not be considered as underwater cultural heritage.
- 5.
Nor are Indonesia, Australia or America party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
- 6.
The US government enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA) in 2004. Its primary purpose is to preserve and protect from unauthorised disturbance all sunken military craft (including USS Houston) that are owned by the US government. Pursuant to this legislation, the US Navy’s sunken military craft remain property of the US regardless of their location or the passage of time and may not be disturbed without the permission from the US Navy. USS Houston has benefited from an active, funded program and an equally active Survivor’s Association; despite these measures, however, USS Houston has not been exempt from illegal looting and salvaging (see Anonymous (Naval History and Heritage Command); see also USS Houston CA-30: The Galloping Ghost of the Java Coast [Online]. Available: http://usshouston.org/ [Accessed 2016]).
- 7.
Indonesia’s Research Institute for Coastal Resources and Vulnerability, housed within the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, has also assessed HMAS Perth and identified it as vulnerable to the threats of ‘the activities of illegal salvagers who loot the ship’s iron/metal, sea sandmining operations, waste pollution, and vessel traffic disturbance’ (Ridwan et al. 2016).
- 8.
2001 UNESCO Convention, Article 2 (5): 5. The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage.
- 9.
2001 UNESCO Convention, Article 2 (7): Underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited.
- 10.
In 2003, Malaysia (p. 61) and the Philippines (p. 160) both indicated their intention to sign the Convention (Prott 2003a).
- 11.
As Forrest notes, ‘Seafaring, by its very nature, often involves international travel, during which a vessel from one State or nation may pick up cargoes, passengers and even crew from other States during her voyage. The complex remains of a shipwreck may therefore contain artefacts form a number of States or nations, yet the story and archaeological and historical information it can yield is distinctly international. In the case of an ancient vessel, it is often extremely difficult to determine the origin of either the vessel or her cargo… Whilst these vessels may flounder in international waters, they are more often than not wrecked on or off a coast, which might be that of a State with no cultural connection to the vessel at all. Claims by that coastal State will further confuse matters in cases of return or restitution’ (Forrest 2010). The transnational nature of ships and shipwrecks is the basis for arguments in support of a shared approach to underwater cultural heritage (see for example Staniforth 2014a).
- 12.
Manders identifies four broad categories of threats to underwater archaeological heritage: physical-mechanical, biological, chemical and human (Manders 2012).
- 13.
- 14.
In Hong Kong, authorities require the inclusion of a Maritime Archaeological Investigation in Environmental Impact Assessments for offshore development activities (see Jeffrey 2003).
- 15.
The sale of objects taken from the Geldermalsen was one of the first examples of shipwreck ceramics raising a profit at auction: ‘For the first time in the International auction market area, a shipwreck made a lot of money out of ceramics. Previously, the auctioned goods had to always be made out of gold and silver and everybody went to the Caribbean in search of ships for gold. Initially, in the early days you did not even boast about ones with silver or because the gold ones were more important. Now, suddenly Chinese ceramics became very popular…’ (Rodrigues et al. 2005).
- 16.
Flecker writes, ‘Unlike most terrestrial archaeology, maritime archaeology is enmeshed in politics and in ethics, two seemingly contrary fields. This is because shipwrecks can contain artefacts of considerable commercial value. They can contain treasure’ (Flecker 2002b).
- 17.
These are distinct from terms such as ‘recovery’ or ‘excavation’ which, as Tjoa-Bonatz points out, suggest a degree of compliance with recognised archaeological standards (Tjoa-Bonatz 2016).
- 18.
Writing about the Belitung, Flecker notes that, during a weather-enforced break in operations, the commercial excavation company returned to the site to find that ‘Local divers [had] immediately moved in, sometimes at night, and removed many artefacts. Furthermore, as large jars containing hundreds of Changsha bowls were too heavy for them to lift, they smashed holes in the sides of the jars in order to gain easy access’ (Flecker 2002b).
- 19.
Writing about commercial outfits operating in Indonesia, Liebner says that ‘Publication indeed is not a prerequisite of a licensed salvage’ (Liebner 2014).
- 20.
- 21.
Roxanna Brown notes: ‘Shipwreck sites have been located and at least partially investigated both in international waters and within the territorial waters of almost all the countries of Southeast Asia. Sites in international waters are investigated by private entrepreneurs who base their salvage rights on international laws of the sea. Sites in territorial waters have been excavated by the relevant national authorities alone or sometimes in conjunction with archaeologists from abroad or together with private companies. Sometimes the work of excavation is wholly contracted out to a private company, and sometimes the country simply issues an excavation permit to salvors for a fee. In Vietnam, the national salvage company is usually involved. In Thailand, the Underwater Archaeology section of the Fine Arts Department directs excavations. There is a wide range of possibilities’ (Brown 2004).
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
These principles were enshrined in the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea (1910), which was later replaced as the primary multilateral agreement on marine salvage by its incorporation into the International Maritime Organization’s International Convention on Salvage (introduced in 1989, came into force in 1996).
- 25.
O’Keefe examines the extent to which salvage law can be applied to historic ships and maritime archaeological sites in O’Keefe 1978, pp. 3–7. He observes the ‘difficulty in applying the concepts of salvage laws to the recovery of objects from the sites of shipwrecks where the cultural and historical value of those objects in their context will outweigh their extrinsic value’.
- 26.
‘While this may occur through a failure to take action to recover the lost vessel and its contents over a period of time, abandonment must be inferred from all the circumstances, including conduct of the owner, the circumstances of the loss of the vessel and its final resting place, as well as the opportunity for recovery’ (Forrest 2010). To this, Wilder adds that the actions of an ‘insurer that asserts ownership through abrogation’ must also be considered (Wilder 2000).
- 27.
Forrest also notes that the definition of a warship, per UNCLOS Article 29, is ‘inappropriate as a definition for warships of earlier centuries’ (Forrest 2010).
- 28.
Lee notes the issue of temporality in his discussion about the development of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and its compatibility with UNCLOS: ‘It was only in 1960 that underwater archaeology is said to have begun with the excavation of the Cape Gelidonya wreck. From the middle or late 1980s the international community began to be aware of the existence and importance of the underwater cultural heritage’ (Lee 2003).
- 29.
Displaced shells indicate that, as far back as 4500 BC, the search for food motivated the earliest ‘breath-hold’ divers.
- 30.
The beginnings of maritime archaeology are commonly dated to the 1960 excavation of a late Bronze-Age shipwreck off Cape Gelidonya, in the eastern Mediterranean, by archaeologist George Bass. The ship dated to 1200 BC and was the first wreck to be archaeologically excavated in its entirety. Just as significant was that Bass made no concessions to the fact that the archaeological site was underwater. Although the depth of the wreck and the limitations of equipment precluded dives longer than 30 minutes, Bass and his team assessed and surveyed the site in a methodical and measured manner—just as if they were archaeologists working on a terrestrial site. Bass’ approach to excavating the Gelidonya incorporated his belief that it was more efficient to teach archaeologists how to dive than it was to teach divers how to be archaeologists. The excavated objects were recorded and conserved, Bass’ findings published, and the objects placed on display in a purpose-built museum. This approach demonstrated an understanding of not only the possibilities of underwater exploration but also the risks and responsibilities it entailed.
- 31.
The 1970 UNESCO Convention employs the term ‘cultural property’, which is also used in the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which addresses the destruction and looting of cultural property during times of armed conflict. By 1972, with the introduction of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, UNESCO was using the phrase ‘cultural heritage’. However, the UNIDROIT Convention uses the term ‘cultural object’. The 2001 UNESCO Convention uses the term ‘cultural heritage’. In 1992, Prott and O’Keefe proposed that cultural heritage was a more appropriate phrase than cultural property because it did not connote ownership in the legal sense. Furthermore, they argued, ‘property’ does not incorporate concepts of duty to preserve and protect. See Prott and O’Keefe (1992).
- 32.
Prott includes Australia, France, Japan, the UK and Switzerland in this list (Prott 2003b).
- 33.
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth).
- 34.
See also Tjoa-Bonatz (2016).
- 35.
See Prott (2003a).
- 36.
These zones are:
-
A State’s internal waters, such as lakes and rivers. In terms of States’ rights and responsibilities, internal waters are generally treated as if they were land.
-
The territorial zone, which extends up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline (usually the low-water line) and over which a State is allowed to claim sovereignty; ships of other States have the right of innocent passage through the territorial zone.
-
The contiguous zone, which continues out a further 12 nautical miles beyond the territorial zone. In this zone, states are allowed to enforce laws relating to customs, taxation, immigration and pollution.
-
The continental shelf, which is a place where States have sovereign rights over the exploration and exploitation of natural resources (defined by UNCLOS Article 77 (4) as ‘the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil’). O’Keefe notes that ‘The legal definition of the continental shelf in UNCLOS is a complex one which, for political reasons, departs from the physical concept’. UNCLOS provides for States with a physically narrow continental shelf to extend their legal entitlement to a full 200 nautical miles, ‘even though this encroaches on the geological deep seabed’; meanwhile, a complicated formula is used to determine the legal extent of sovereign rights for States with a wide continental shelf (O’Keefe 2002).
-
The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal zones and gives the coastal state sovereign right over the protection and preservation of the marine environment. O’Keefe notes that these rights apply ‘in the waters above the seabed as opposed to sovereign rights in the seabed itself [emphasis added]’.
-
The Area, or simply the high seas. UNCLOS defines the Area and its resources as ‘the common heritage of mankind’. No state has exclusive jurisdiction or sovereign rights over the Area or its resources.
-
- 37.
UNCLOS Article 303:
-
1.
States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose.
-
2.
In order to control traffic in such objects, the coastal State may, in applying article 33 [Contiguous zone], presume that their removal from the seabed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article.
-
3.
Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty, or laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges.
-
4.
This article is without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law regarding the protection of objects of an archaeological and historical nature.
-
1.
- 38.
UNCLOS Article 149:
All objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in the Area shall be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind as a whole, particular regard being paid to the preferential rights of the State or country of origin, or the State of cultural origin, or the State of historical and archaeological origin.
- 39.
For more background information on the move towards the preparation of an international instrument, see O’Keefe (1996).
- 40.
Despite UNCLOS Article 311(2), which specifically disavows this view:
This Convention shall not alter the rights and obligations of States Parties which arise from other agreements compatible with this Convention and which do not affect the enjoyment by other States Parties of their rights or the performance of their obligations under this Convention.
- 41.
See also O’Keefe (1996).
- 42.
There were 15 abstentions, including France, the UK, Brazil, Greece and the Netherlands.
- 43.
2001 UNESCO Convention Article 27 had stipulated that it would not come into force until ‘three months after the date of the deposit of the 20th instrument’ (i.e., 3 months after the 20th State had ratified). See O’Keefe (2002).
- 44.
For more detail on the differences between movable and immovable heritage (sites and objects) as they are understood by UNESCO Conventions, refer to Prott (2003b).
- 45.
Hence, in the 46 years since its introduction, 4 out of 11 Southeast Asian states (if we include Timor-Leste) have ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention. In the 15 years since its introduction, 1 out of these same 11 states has ratified the 2001 UNESCO Convention; in a 45-year time period, therefore, we may expect Southeast Asian signatories of the 2001 UNESCO Convention to be about on par with the 1970 UNESCO Convention. I am grateful to Mark Staniforth for this point. Prott notes that ‘Conventions which deal with issues also the subject of other international conventions, or which have complex provisions requiring new legislation or revision of existing legislation, or those which require a change of public attitudes, or more stringent requirements of many nations, or those which reach across a series of different areas of law (such as criminal law, administrative Law, defence issues, contract or property law and so on), usually take much longer to attract a great many ratifications’ (Prott 2014).
- 46.
2001 UNESCO Convention Article 2 (3).
- 47.
2001 UNESCO Convention Article 21.
- 48.
See also Maarleveld et al. (2013). Their Manual expands on the ethical principles underpinning the Rules and supplies a series of operational guidelines. It specifies that in situ preservation is a first option because the site of an historic event is authentic; context defines significance; heritage is finite; and many sites cannot be preserved in situ.
- 49.
2001 UNESCO Convention Article 2 (5):
The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage.
- 50.
- 51.
2001 UNESCO Convention Article 2 (7):
Underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited.
- 52.
- 53.
Presidential Decree Number 43 of 1989 on the National Committee and Utilisation of Valuable Cargo from Sunken ships (Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia No 43 Tahun 1989 tentang Panitia Nasional Pengangkatan dan Pemanfaatan Benda Berharga Asal Muatan Kapal yang Tenggelam), proclaimed 14 August 1989.
- 54.
The permit system for excavating shipwrecks and their cargo in Indonesia effectively came to an end in May 2016 with the introduction of Presidential Regulation Number 44 of 2016 concerning the List of Closed Business Fields and Open Business Fields With Conditions to Investment (Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 44 Tahun 2016 Tentang Daftar Bidang Usaha Yang Tertutup Dan Bidang Usaha Yang Terbuka Dengan Persyaratan Di Bidang Penanaman Modal). The Regulation prohibits investment in specified business fields, including, at Appendix One, the excavation of shipwrecks.
- 55.
The shipwreck is sometimes also known as the Batu Hitam (Black Rock) or Tang shipwreck. In this chapter, the term Belitung is used. For more on the political aspects of naming this shipwreck, see Pearson (2016c, pp. 10–11).
- 56.
Furthermore, neither Indonesia nor America, from where much of the criticism originated, is party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
- 57.
At the time of the Belitung salvage, Flecker based his qualifications on an early UK ruling that recognised a maritime archaeologist as anyone with at least 10 years’ field experience, relevant publications and a Bachelors degree of any kind (Flecker 2015). He has subsequently completed a PhD on the tenth-century Intan shipwreck—see Flecker (2001a).
- 58.
The interest in building full-scale replicas dates to the early 1980s and is used to better understand the dynamics of shipbuilding while also providing a point of comparison with the original ship (Green 2001). The construction of the Jewel of Muscat was also an opportunity for Oman to position itself in the modern-day story of the Belitung—see Pearson (2016c).
- 59.
This clearly violates the 2001 UNESCO Convention’s requirement that objects not be irretrievably dispersed; however, as noted, the first iteration of Indonesia’s legislation relating to underwater cultural heritage had preceded the Convention and the ICOMOS International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, on which the 2001 UNESCO Convention’s Rules are based, by a number of years.
- 60.
The Intan was a tenth-century lashed-lug vessel and the oldest Southeast Asian wreck to be found with a complete cargo. Seabed Explorations obtained the permit to excavate the wreck, and the excavation was directed by Flecker in 1997. Objects excavated from the Intan are now on display at the Museum of Fine Arts and Ceramics (Museum Seni Rupa dan Keramik) in Jakarta. See Tjoa-Bonatz (2016). Flecker later wrote his PhD on the Intan: see Flecker 2002a.
- 61.
The Sentosa Leisure Group was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sentosa Development Corporation, which in turn was an entity established by the Singaporean Government (Lambert 2012). The objects were transferred to the Singapore Tourism Board and later to the National Heritage Board. The Belitung cargo is now known as the Tang Shipwreck Collection and is on permanent display in the Khoo Teck Puat Gallery at the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore. Many objects are kept in an offsite storage facility, accessible via appointment.
- 62.
At the Institut du Monde Arabe (Institute of the Arab World) in Paris and the Musée des Civilisations de l’Europe et de la Méditerranée (Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations) in Marseilles.
- 63.
Museums that are members of the Council of American Maritime Museums (CAMM), the International Council of Museums (ICOM) or the International Congress of Maritime Museums (ICMM) are unlikely to exhibit this collection; to do so would contravene their standards and codes of ethics.
- 64.
Archival research suggests the ‘tantalising possibility’ that the wreck was that of the unlucky Chinese merchant I Sin Ho, who was travelling from China to Johore in 1608 when his vessel, carrying silk and ceramics, sank off the coast of south Vietnam. Flecker, M. 2004. The Binh Thuan Shipwreck: Archaeological Report. Melbourne: Christie’s.
- 65.
- 66.
This is what Flecker defines as a reactive approach, revolving ‘around fishermen or sports divers stumbling upon shipwrecks, then either reporting them or more likely getting arrested looting them, before the government decides what to do with the new discovery’. Meanwhile, a proactive regime is one in which ‘a government institution would actively search for shipwrecks to excavate – or protect through archival research (generally for European wrecks), electronic survey (wreck specific or blanket), fisherman interviews (for artefact finds in nets) and the like’ (Flecker 2011).
- 67.
Between 2008 and 2016, Vietnam Maritime Archaeology Project (VMAP) conducted 11 seasons of research and fieldwork in Vietnam, including on-site training of local personnel. They have also provided Nautical Archaeology Society training, which does not require diving, to local students, archaeologists and museum and government staff.
- 68.
- 69.
Manders details some of the implications for museums of in situ preservation and outlines some creative responses by museums to interpreting such material for the public. See Manders, M. 2008. In Situ Preservation: The Preferred Option. Museum International, 31–41.
- 70.
Tjoa-Bonatz notes that ‘since 1999, tension has arisen about territorial demarcations in the South China Sea due to China’s intensifying campaign to assert ownership over natural resources and archaeological sites, leading to violence against Philippine archaeologists. This area is traditionally claimed by China, but overlaps with claims of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam’ (Tjoa-Bonatz 2016). See also Page (2013) and Campbell (2015).
Bibliography
Alexandrowicz, C. H. (1967). An Introduction to the history of the law of nations in the East Indies (16th, 17th and 18th centuries). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Anand, R. P. (1981). Maritime practice in South-East Asia until 1600 A.D. and the modern law of the sea. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 30, 440–454.
Anderson, R., Philippou, C., & Harvey, P. (2006). Innovative approaches in underwater cultural heritage management. In M. Staniforth & M. Nash (Eds.), Maritime archaeology: Australian approaches. New York, NY: Springer.
Anonymous. (2013). Media reporting of salvage activity on the wreck of HMAS Perth I. Canberra: Australian Government – Department of Defence – Defence News and Media.
Anonymous. (2016). The Netherlands will protect the underwater cultural heritage. Government of the Netherlands.
Anonymous. (n.d.-a). Naval history and heritage command » research » underwater archaeology » permitting policy and resource management » sunken military craft act. Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/policy-and-resource-management/sunken-military-craft-act.html.
Anonymous. (n.d.-b). USS Houston CA-30: The galloping ghost of the java coast. Retrieved 2016, from http://usshouston.org/.
Austin, J. (1986). Our new dinner service is 235 years old and has never been used. Colonial Williamsburg News.
Australia. (2015). Report from Australia – 2015 – On the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property 1970. Canberra: Australian Government – Attorney-General’s Department – Ministry for the Arts/UNESCO.
Bartman, E. (2011). AIA statement on Belitung. Archaeological Institute of America.
Besser, L., Oakes, D., & Hermant, N. (2013). HMAS Perth: WWII warship grave stripped by salvagers. ABC News. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/outrage-as-warship-grave-stripped-by-salvagers/5156320.
Brown, R. M. (2004). History of shipwreck excavation in Southeast Asia. In J. Ward, Z. Kotitsa, & A. D’Angelo (Eds.), The Belitung wreck: Sunken treasures from Tang China. New Zealand: Seabed Explorations.
Burchell, D. (1971). The bells of Sunda Strait. Adelaide: Rigby.
Burger, P., Charrie-Duhaut, A., Connan, J., Albrecht, P., & Flecker, M. (2010). The 9th-century-AD Belitung wreck, Indonesia: Analysis of a resin lump. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 39, 383–386.
Caixia, L. (2011). The Belitung shipwreck controversy. The Newsletter – Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre, Autumn/Winter, pp. 41–42.
Campbell, P. B. (2015, December 18). Could shipwrecks lead the world to war? The New York Times.
Carducci, G. (2003). The UNESCO Convention 2001: A crucial compromise of salvage law and the law of finds. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), Finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
Clément, E. (2003). The provisions on illicit traffic in the UNESCO Convention 2001. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), Finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
Dissanayake, S. (2014). The wreck detectives. BBC News. Retrieved September 3, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8704/index.html.
Dyson, J. (1986). Captain Hatcher’s richest find. Reader’s Digest.
Flecker, M. (2000). A 9th-century Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesian waters. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 29, 199–217.
Flecker, M. (2001a). The archaeological excavation of the 10th century Intan wreck. PhD, National University of Singapore.
Flecker, M. (2001b). A ninth-century Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesia: First evidence for direct trade with China. World Archaeology, 32, 335–354.
Flecker, M. (2002a). The archaeological excavation of the 10th century: Intan wreck. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Flecker, M. (2002b). The ethics, politics, and realities of maritime archaeology in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 31, 12–24.
Flecker, M. (2004). The Binh Thuan shipwreck: Archaeological report. Melbourne: Christie’s.
Flecker, M. (2008). A 9th-century Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesian waters: Addendum. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 37, 384–386.
Flecker, M. (2011). Wrecked twice: Shipwrecks as a cultural resource in Southeast Asia. In J. N. Miksic, Y. G. Geok, & S. O’Connor (Eds.), Rethinking cultural resource management in Southeast Asia: Preservation, development and neglect. Anthem Press.
Flecker, M. (2012). Rake and pillage: The fate of shipwrecks in Southeast Asia. In H. Tan (Ed.), Marine archaeology in Southeast Asia: Innovation and adaptation. Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.
Flecker, M. (2015). RE: ICAS paper. 14 July 2015. Type to N Pearson.
Forrest, C. (2004). Australia’s protection of foreign states’ cultural heritage. UNSW Law Journal, 27, 605–630.
Forrest, C. (2006). Book review: Lyndel Prott, ed., finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage pp. 168; UNESCO Publishing and Institute of Art and Law, Leicester: 2006. ISBN: 1-90398711-3. International Journal of Cultural Property, 13, 247–251.
Forrest, C. (2010). International law and the protection of cultural heritage. Abingdon: Routledge.
Frydenberg, J. (2016). New underwater heritage law will protect even more of our history. Camberwell, VIC: The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, Minister for the Environment and Energy.
Green, J. (1988). Book review: The Nanking Cargo by Michael Hatcher with Max de Rham and other books on the Geldermalsen. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 17, 357–362.
Green, J. (2001). Nautical archaeology in Australia, the Indian Ocean and Asia. In M. Staniforth & M. Hyde (Eds.), Maritime archaeology in Australia – A reader. Blackwood, SA: Southern Archaeology.
Green, J. (2003). Pathways and pitfalls on the road to the implementation of the UNESCO Convention 2001: An Asian perspective. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Hong Kong SAR, China: Institute of Art and Law.
Green, J. (2011). Book review: Shipwreck [sic]: Tang treasures and monsoon winds. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40, 449–452.
Habermehl, N. (n.d.). Shipwrecks and lost treasures of the seven seas – Famous wrecks – VOC Geldermalsen: Porcelain and gold bullion from Asia. Shipwrecks and Lost Treasures of the Seven Sea. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://www.oceantreasures.org/pages/content/famous-wrecks/old-treasures-and-shipwreck-news-voc-geldermalsen.html.
Hauser-Schäublin, B. A., & Ardika, W. (Eds.). (2008). Burial, texts and rituals: Ethnoarchaeological investigations in North Bali. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Henderson, G., & Viduka, A. (Eds.). (2014). Towards ratification: Papers from the 2013 AIMA conference workshop. Fremantle: Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
ICOMOS. (1996). Charter on the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. Sofia: International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
Indonesia. (2010). Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No. 11 tahun 2010 tentang Cagar Budaya (Law No. 11/2010 on Cultural Heritage) (Revision of Law No. 5/1992). Jakarta: Indonesia.
Jeffrey, B. (2003). Non-archaeological activities affecting the underwater cultural heritage. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), Finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
Johnston, P. F. (1993). Treasure salvage, archaeological ethics and maritime museums. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 22, 53–60.
Kamsan, H. (2011). Project approach to the establishment of underwater heritage management in the kingdom of Cambodia. In M. Staniforth (Ed.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific regional conference on underwater cultural heritage. Manila: Asian Academy for Heritage Management.
Kimura, J. (2015). Shipwrecked? New developments in Southeast Asian maritime archaeology and the safeguard of shipwrecks in the region. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 44, 1–4.
Kimura, J., Staniforth, M., Lê Thi., L., & Sasaki, R. (2014). Naval battlefield archaeology of the lost Kublai Khan fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 43, 76–86.
Kingsley, S (2011). The sunken past: Shipwrecks lost in translation. Wreckwatch: Wreckwatch. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from http://wreckwatch.org/2011/09/28/the-sunken-past-shipwrecks-lost-in-translation/.
Krahl, R., Guy, J., Wilson, J. K., & Raby, J. (2010). Shipwrecked: Tang treasures and monsoon winds. Singapore: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC; National Heritage Board, Singapore; Singapore Tourism Board.
Kwa, C. G. (2012). Locating Singapore on the maritime silk road: Evidence from maritime archaeology, ninth to early nineteenth centuries. In G. Wade & J. Zaide (Eds.), Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre working paper series. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Lambert, M. (2012). Belitung shipwreck. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://traffickingculture.org/encyclopedia/case-studies/biletung-shipwreck/.
Lê Thi., L., Nguyễn, T. M. H., Pham, C., Staniforth, M., Delgado, J. P., Kimura, J., & Sasaki, R. (2011). Understanding the Bach Dang battlefield from recent research results. In M. Staniforth (Ed.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific regional conference on underwater cultural heritage. Manila: Asian Academy for Heritage Management.
Lee, K.-G. (2003). An inquiry into the compatibility of the UNESCO Convention 2001 with UNCLOS 1982. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), Finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
Liebner, H. H. (2014). The siren of Cirebon: A 10th century trading vessel lost in the Java Sea. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Leeds.
Maarleveld, T. J. (2011). Ethics, underwater cultural heritage and international law. In The oxford handbook of maritime archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maarleveld, T. J., Guérin, U., & Egger, B. (Eds.). (2013). Manual for activities directed at underwater cultural heritage: Guidelines to the annex of the UNESCO 2001 convention. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Manders, M. (2008). In situ preservation: The preferred option. Museum International, 60, 31–41.
Manders, M. (2012). Unit 9: In situ preservation. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.
Mathers, W. M., & Flecker, M. (1997). Archaeological recovery of the Java Sea wreck. Maryland: Pacific Sea Resources Inc.
Miller, G. L. (1992). The second destruction of the Geldermalsen. Historical Archaeology, 26, 124–131.
Nady, P. (2011). History and status of underwater cultural heritage in Southeast Asia. In M. Staniforth (Ed.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific regional conference on underwater cultural heritage. Manila: Asian Academy for Heritage Management.
Nady, P. (2012). The current status and challenges for maritime archaeology in Cambodia. In H. Tan (Ed.), Marine archaeology in Southeast Asia: Innovation and adaptation. Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.
Nayati, P. (1998). Ownership rights over archaeological/historical objects found in Indonesian waters: Republic of Indonesia act no. 5 of 1992 on cultural heritage objects and its related regulations. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2, 142–174.
Niziolek, L. C. 2014. The Java Sea shipwreck: Portal to the past. In The Field. Chicago: Field Museum.
Norris, M. J. (1958). The law of salvage. Mount Kisco, NY: Baker, Voorhis and Co., Inc.
O’Keefe, P. J. (1978). Maritime archaeology and salvage laws: Some comments following Robinson v. The Western Australian Museum. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 7, 3–7.
O’Keefe, P. J. (1996). Protection of the underwater cultural heritage: Developments at UNESCO. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 25, 169–176.
O’Keefe, P. J. (2002). Shipwrecked heritage: A commentary on the UNESCO Convention on underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
O’Toole, P. (2014). Remembering the battle of Bach Dang River (1288): Heritage, landscape and cultural values. In M. Di Stefano (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th ICOMOS general assembly and scientific symposium, November 2014 Florence, Italy, pp. 228–232.
Orillaneda, B. (2012). The Santa Cruz shipwreck excavation: A reflection on the practice of underwater archaeology in the Philippines. In H. Tan (Ed.), Marine archaeology in Southeast Asia: Innovation and adaptation. Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.
Page, J. (2013, December 2). Chinese territorial strife hits archaeology. The Wall Street Journal.
Papa Sokal, M. (2005). International law for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage: Can our past be salvaged? Culture Without Context.
Pearson, N. (2016a). Finders, not keepers. Inside Indonesia, p. 124.
Pearson, N. (2016b). Heritage adrift. Inside Indonesia, p. 125.
Pearson, N. (2016c). Shipwrecked? The ethics of underwater cultural heritage in Indonesia. TAASA Review, 25, 10–11.
Pearson, N. (2017). Ghost ships: Why are World War II naval wrecks vanishing in Indonesia? The Conversation. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from https://theconversation.com/ghost-ships-why-are-world-war-ii-naval-wrecks-vanishing-in-indonesia-72799.
Power, J. (2016, February 12). Australian farmer finds national treasure, a trumpet that went down with the USS Houston. Sydney Morning Herald.
Prott, L. V. (Ed.). (2003a). Finishing the interrupted voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
Prott, L. V. (2003b). The need for ratification: Urgency and uniformity. In L. V. Prott (Ed.), UNESCO Asia-Pacific workshop on the 2001 convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Hong Kong SAR, China: Institute of Art and Law.
Prott, L. (2014). The significance of world-wide ratification of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. In G. Henderson & A. Viduka (Eds.), Towards ratification: Papers from the 2013 AIMA conference workshop. Fremantle: Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
Prott, L. V., & O’Keefe, P. J. (1992). “Cultural heritage” or “cultural property”? International Journal of Cultural Property, 1, 307–320.
Ridwan, N. N. H., Kusumah, G., Semeidi Husrin, S., Attamimi, A., Adhityatama, S., & Tahir, Z. (2016). The vulnerability of HMAS Perth shipwreck site, Banten Bay, Indonesia, IKUWA6: The Sixth International Congress on Underwater Archaeology, 28 November – 2 December 2016 Western Australian Museum, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Rodrigues, J., Prott, L. V., O’Keefe, P. J., Seglenieks, A., Henderson, G., Richards, V., Green, J., & Stanbury, M. (2005). The UNESCO Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. A one-day workshop held on 23 May 2004 Perth: Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum.
Ruane, M. E. (2016, February 2). A broken trumpet from a sunken warship holds its secrets from WWII. The Washington Post.
Schoenbaum, T. J. (2004). Admiralty and maritime law. St. Paul: MN Thomson/West.
Souter, C. (2001). Cultural tourism and diver education. In M. Staniforth & M. Hyde (Eds.), Maritime archaeology in Australia – A reader. Blackwood: Southern Archaeology.
Spirek, J. D., & Scott-Ireton, D. A. (Eds.). (2003). Submerged cultural resource management: Preserving and interpreting our sunken maritime heritage. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Staniforth, M. (2012, November 8). First wrecked, now pillaged: Vietnam’s underwater treasure. The Conversation.
Staniforth, M. (2014a, November 14). Raising awareness about underwater cultural heritage in Vietnam. 18th ICOMOS General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Florence, Italy.
Staniforth, M. (2014b). The role of ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS in underwater cultural heritage protection in the pacific. In H. Van Tilburg, S. Tripati, V. Walker, B. Fahy, & J. Kimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific regional conference on underwater cultural heritage, 12–16 May, Honolulu, Hawai’i.
Staniforth, M. (2014c). Shared underwater cultural heritage in Vietnam: opportunities for collaboration. In M. Staniforth & L. Lê Thi. (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on underwater archaeology in Vietnam and Southeast Asia: Cooperation for development, 15–16 October 2014, Quang Ngai, Vietnam.
Staniforth, M., & Shefi, D. (2010). Protecting underwater cultural heritage: A review of In situ preservation approaches to underwater cultural heritage and some directions for the future. 2010 World Universities Congress Proceedings Volume II, 2010 Canakkale, Turkey. Canakkale Onseklz Mart University, pp. 1546–1552.
Staniforth, M., Kimura, J., & Lê Thi., L. (2014). Defeating the fleet of Kublai Khan: The Bach Dang River and Van Don naval battlefields research project. Archeologia Postmedievale, 18, 29–44.
Strati, A. (1999). Draft convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage: A commentary prepared for UNESCO by Dr. Anastasia Strati. UNESCO.
Throckmorton, P. (1998). The world’s worst investment: The economics of treasure hunting with real-life comparisons. In L. E. Babits & H. Van Tilburg (Eds.), Maritime archaeology. New York; London: Plenum Press.
Tjoa-Bonatz, M. L. (2016). Struggles over historic shipwrecks in Indonesia: Economic versus preservation interests. In B. Hauser-Schäublin & L. V. Prott (Eds.), Cultural property and contested ownership: The trafficking of artefacts and the quest for restitution. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Troa, R. A., Dillenia, I., Triarso, E., & Wirasantosa, S. (2016). Preserving underwater cultural heritage sites in Natuna: Multidisciplinary approach to utilization towards marine eco-archaeological park, The 2nd SEAMEO SPAFA International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology. Bangkok, Thailand.
UNESCO. (2001). Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
UNESCO. (2016b). Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage – States parties – List by alphabetical order. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13520&language=E&order=alpha.
Vatcharangkul, E. (2012). Thailand and three decades of safeguarding underwater cultural heritage. In H. Tan (Ed.), Marine archaeology in Southeast Asia: Innovation and adaptation. Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.
Vosmer, T. (2010). The jewel of Muscat: Reconstructing a ninth-century sewn-plank boat. In R. Krahl, J. Guy, J. K. Wilson, & J. Raby (Eds.), Shipwrecked: Tang treasures and monsoon winds. Singapore: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC; National Heritage Board, Singapore; Singapore Tourism Board.
Wilder, M. A. (2000). Application of salvage law and the law of finds to sunken shipwreck discoveries. Defense Counsel Journal, p., 67.
Williams, T. (2015). Preservation in situ: Not an ethical principle, but rather an option amongst many. In M. Van Den Dries, J. Van Der Linde, & A. Strecker (Eds.), Fernweh: Crossing borders and connecting people in archaeological heritage management. Essays in honour of prof. Willem J.H. Willems. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pearson, N. (2019). Protecting and Preserving Underwater Cultural Heritage in Southeast Asia. In: Hufnagel, S., Chappell, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54405-6_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54405-6_31
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54404-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54405-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)