Content uploaded by Bill Jeffery
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bill Jeffery on Nov 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Appendix 1: The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2004) 33.1: 106–121
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2004.009.x
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
william.jeffery1@jcu.edu.au Phone: 61 7 4781 5822
World War II Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites in Truk
Lagoon: Considering a Case for World Heritage Listing
Bill Jeffery
Department of Archaeology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, 4810, Australia
This paper explores a number of issues in regard to the world heritage listing of the World War II underwater cultural heritage
sites located in Truk Lagoon. The destruction of the Japanese Naval Base at Truk was an important event in the American
strategy to end World War II and it had a profound effect on the indigenous inhabitants. Divers from all over the world visit
Truk Lagoon to dive the 50 shipwrecks and numerous aircraft. The paper investigates the significance of the sites in accordance
with the criteria for world heritage listing, and in context with Pacific Island Nations requirements.
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
Key words: Wor ld War II, Truk Lagoon, shipwreck, World Heritage Site.
Introduction
This paper is part of a larger research
project to assess the world heritage
significance of the World War II
underwater cultural heritage sites located in Truk
Lagoon, Chuuk. A number of excellent books on
the shipwrecks of Truk Lagoon have been
published (Lindemann, 1982; Bailey, 2000),
primarily aimed at the sport diver, for whom these
sites are of world renown. This paper is intended
not to duplicate such work, but to discuss the
significance of the historic sites to the Pacific
Islanders and the international community.
Chuuk is located approximately in the middle
of the Federation States of Micronesia (FSM),
just over 7° N of the equator, and on a line of
longitude (152° E) similar to the east coast of
Australia (Fig. 1). Truk Lagoon is about 64 km
in diameter and has been formed by a barrier reef
enclosing an area of 2,125 sq. km (Fig. 2). It is
the most populated region of Chuuk, enclosing
19 high volcanic islands with lush tropical vege-
tation, warm, clear waters and great abundance
of fish—‘a tropical paradise’ (Gladwin and
Sarason, 1953). ‘Truk’ was the spelling adopted
during the German annexation of Micronesia
(1898–1914). In 1986, Truk reverted to its
traditional pronunciation and spelling of Chuuk,
although many Chuukese use both, particularly
in the name of the lagoon.
This paper concentrates on the World War II
sites in Truk Lagoon. It is not intended, in
highlighting this brief, but significant, period of
the history of Chuuk, to diminish the signific-
ance of the indigenous culture, traditions, and
surviving historic sites. Chuuk has a rich history,
and indigenous voyaging, navigation and the
associated people and craft are more important
to the cultural identity of this region, from which
emanated some of the last great Pacific Island
navigators (Gladwin, 1970) (Fig. 3).
During World War II, Truk was a major
strategic base for Japan’s advance into the Pacific.
In 1944 America, as part of its push toward
Tokyo, bombed Truk over an 18 month period,
effectively taking it out of the war. Today, the
Figure 1. Location of Chuuk. (Judi Francis)
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 107
World War II underwater sites in Truk Lagoon
provide Chuuk with its single biggest tourist
attraction. Scuba divers from all over the world
visit Truk Lagoon to dive the sunken Japanese
ships and aircraft, ‘a World War II enthusiast’s
dream’ (Bailey, 2000: xi) and ‘one of the great
undersea wonders of the world’ (Giddings, in
Lindemann, 1982).
The author, contracted as a maritime archae-
ologist with the FSM government, considered
world heritage listing of the Truk Lagoon
underwater cultural heritage sites an issue worthy
of investigation. Particularly because no cultural
heritage sites located underwater have been
included on the list because of their ‘outstanding
universal value.’ This paper will explore some of
the background and issues associated with world
heritage listing in this region, as well as this type
of cultural heritage site. No nomination has been
put forward by the FSM government for world
heritage listing of the Truk Lagoon sites, and the
opinions expressed in this paper are personal and
do not reflect the views of the FSM government
or any other agency or group.
Chuuk’s environment and society
The Chuuk islands are fringed with many
mangroves that support a large and diverse
marine life. The fertile high islands contain native
trees and plants comprising breadfruit, coconuts,
mango, banana, and taro that, in association
with fish, have supported a subsistence lifestyle
for the Chuukese for many years. However, a
significant increase in population, from 9,185 in
Figure 2. Truk Lagoon. (Judi Francis)
Figure 3. Indigenous craft in Truk Lagoon. (Courtesy of the Micronesian Seminar)
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
108 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
1946 to 60,000 in 2002 (half of the population of
the FSM), and the move to a cash-based economy,
has resulted in a greater reliance on imported food.
‘Government employment is the biggest single
source of income in Micronesia’ and in Chuuk
(Young et al., 1997). Commercial fishing is the
biggest export industry and tourism is a major
source of revenue. The World War II shipwrecks
are the major tourist attraction. However, most
Chuukese gain little from these industries and it
is essentially an impoverished society.
Colonial rulers in Micronesia
After nearly 2000 years of independence (Young
et al., 1997), the Spanish (1886–1898), Germans
(1898–1914), Japanese (1914–1945, from 1919 as
a mandated territory under the League of Nations)
and USA (1945–1986) took charge of Micronesia,
which included the islands of the Marshalls,
Marianas, and Carolines (Palau, Yap, Pohnpei,
Kosrae and Truk). The USA was designated
as trustee under the newly-established United
Nations in 1947. In 1986, through the development
of a Compact of Free Association with the USA,
the four states of Yap, Pohnpei, Kosrae and Truk
formed the Independent Nation of the Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM), independent but in
receipt of American aid in return for the presence
of American military bases.
Japan and World War II
Japan, after declaring war on the USA in 1941,
was quick to complete the building of its military
bases in Micronesia. Truk, because of its deep
water and natural protection, was the Imperial
Japanese Navy’s Fourth Fleet base from
November 1939, and the Combined Japanese
Navy Fleet were based there from July 1942 to
February 1944. It was a strategic supply base for
Japan’s advance into the South Pacific, and was
regarded by the USA as the ‘strongest naval base
in the Pacific with the exception of Pearl Harbor’
(Naval Analysis Division, 1947). However,
Japan’s Rear Admiral Chuichi Hara ‘remarked
after the war that when hearing American radio
broadcasts refer to his bailiwick as “The
Gibraltar of the Pacific” he only feared lest the
Americans discover how weak it was’ (Morison,
1975: 317). Over 37,000 Japanese lived and
worked in Truk, dominating the 9,000 Chuukese.
Five airstrips and seaplane bases had been
built in Truk, some initially as civilian facilities,
and only minimal repair facilities, fortifications
and defences had been built when the Japanese
Army arrived en masse in January 1944.
Although numerous coastal defence and anti-
aircraft guns (Fig. 4), pillboxes and bunkers were
established in preparation for an amphibious
invasion they were not equipped for the massive
aerial bombardment that was to come. In
addition, American submarines greatly reduced
the number of ships, equipment and personnel
getting to and from Truk.
The USA strategy for Truk, which initially
included an amphibious invasion, was restructured
to isolating the base from playing any further role
in the war, without a massive invasion and the
potential for further heavy casualties (Ito, 1962:
90). Truk needed to be neutralized to stop its
resources being used against the Americans in
the Marshalls and its drive further west. Once it
was neutralized, the Marshalls included a base
for the USA to launch further west into the
Pacific and on to the road to Tokyo, as well as
provide a launching pad for the continual
bombing and neutralizing of Truk using B24 and
B29 aircraft (Fig. 5).
Impact of the war on the Chuukese
Before the war, Japan provided work, education
and health services, in addition to beginning the
process of alienating the Chuukese from their
land and breaking down their traditional
lifestyles. During the war, most Chuukese were
forced to leave their homes to accommodate the
Japanese military, particularly the 10,000 Army
personnel. The Japanese military facilities greatly
Figure 4. One of the ‘Armstrong Puzzuoli’ type 20 cm
coastal defence guns removed from a Japanese cruiser,
Iwami, Iwate, Nishin or Kasuga. (Bill Jeffery, 2001)
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 109
modified the islands’ environments, and
traditional historic sites in strategic locations
were interfered with. The military also
confiscated local food, as imported food could
not get through the submarine blockade. The
continual bombing destroyed local crops and
made it difficult to farm or collect fish. Chuukese
were forced into slave labour to construct the
many military facilities. Starvation and
malnutrition became common, and torture and
cannibalism were said to have occurred. ‘Those
who experienced the intense suffering during the
Japanese military buildup and the American
campaign describe it as the greatest hardship
they ever endured’ (Turner and Falgout, 2002:
112).
There are a number of Chuukese who witnessed
the war still living locally and who provide a very
real connection with this terrible suffering. A
survey of the remaining World War II sites on the
island of Tonoas (called Dublon by the USA and
Chuukese, and Natsujima (Summer Island) by
the Japanese), carried out in 2001/2002, revealed
many sites and gave an insight into local
memories of the Japanese times (Jeffery, 2003).
World War II underwater sites located
in Truk Lagoon
On 4 February 1944 a US photographic
reconnaissance flight found nearly 60 ships,
including the super-battleship Musashi, the
flagship of the Japanese Navy, two aircraft
carriers, four heavy cruisers, three light cruisers,
nine destroyers, two submarines and over 30
tankers, repair and transport ships (the majority
armed) in two of the four main anchorages
centred around the Japanese Headquarters on
Tonoas in Truk Lagoon (Bailey, 2000: 100). This
alerted the Japanese commanders to a possible
strike on Truk, and as a result most of the fleet,
predominantly the warships, departed for Palau
during the following week. However, many of the
transport ships had to remain to unload their
cargo.
The USA carried out two aircraft carrier
strikes on Truk: the first on 17 and 18 February
1944, called ‘Operation Hailstone’, and the
second on 30 April and 1 May, by a fleet of 12
aircraft carriers and a number of battleships,
cruisers, destroyers and other vessels. In com-
bination with American B24 and B29 aircraft a
total of 6,878 tons of bombs were dropped on
Truk (1,813 tons in June 1944). In addition to the
loss of over 4,000 Japanese, 120 Chuukese and
other Pacific Islanders, and a number of Americans,
52 ships were sunk inside the lagoon and over
400 aircraft destroyed.
Shipwrecks
Appendix 1, compiled from primary and
secondary archival sources and field surveys, lists
the ships sunk at Truk Lagoon (Lindemann,
1982; Carrell, 1991; Hezel and Graham, 1997;
Bailey, 2000; Jeffery, 2003). It includes eight
warships, some smaller landing craft and 42
armed transport ships and tankers (Figs 6 and 7).
In addition, many smaller craft not included in
this list were reported to have been sunk (Naval
Analysis Division, 1947: 14; Bailey, 2000: 247).
Figure 5. One of the leaflets dropped on Truk and other
Japanese held Pacific Islands in 1944. The translation reads:
‘“Each Bomb Brings Death”. One bomb after another brings
destruction and death. We can bring bomb load after bomb
load, without end. You are cut off: Your air force cannot
protect you. Why continue resistance and cause further use-
less shedding of blood?’ (Courtesy, Australian War Memo-
rial, J158)
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
110 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
Aircraft
A total of nine Japanese and two American
aircraft are known to be located within the
lagoon waters, although the number is potentially
much higher, since no thorough search has been
conducted. Of a total of more than 416 Japanese
aircraft, the majority were destroyed on the
ground before they took off. Twenty six
American aircraft; one to four British planes (the
British carried out a carrier attack in June 1945);
and five or six B-24s were destroyed during the
campaign against the base (Naval Analysis
Division, 1947). The Japanese aircraft that have
been found inside the lagoon include ‘Zero’
fighters (Fig. 8), dive bombers, a larger two
engine bomber, and a four-engine flying boat
(Fig. 9).
Legislation and management of the
WWII underwater sites
The remains of the World War II Japanese ships
and aircraft located under water in the lagoon are
protected in three ways: Truk State Law No. 21–
5, 1971 (Truk Lagoon District Monument, and its
amendments); FSM National Legislation, Public
Law 1,048 (1979) Title 26, Historical Sites and
Antiquities; and the USA National Historic
Preservation Act 1966. The ‘Truk Lagoon
Underwater Fleet’, as it is known, has also been
declared a USA National Historic Landmark,
being one of about 2,500 such sites in the USA
and its other jurisdictions and given a ‘threatened’
status as at 2002.
While the management of the Japanese
shipwrecks and aircraft located under water (no
Chuuk State legislation exists for sites above high
water) could be seen to be well-served with
legislation, the associated programme of activities
which are a key to successful management are
not being effectively implemented, and sites
continue to suffer. Hezel and Graham (1997)
have outlined many issues that need to be
addressed, the main ones being curtailing the
illegal recovery of artefacts, stopping the practice
of dynamite fishing, and putting into place a
better mooring system. Two of the live-aboard
charter operators have installed a number of
screw moorings adjacent to some of the
shipwrecks, and more are planned, but sites
continue to be damaged from boat anchors.
Recent work in Chuuk has attempted to
address some of these issues through the
implementation of three Historic Preservation
Fund Special Projects: a side-scan sonar survey
of the underwater sites (Green, 2002: 128); a
Figure 6. The Kiyosumi Maru (8,614 tons), typical of the majority of the ships sunk at Truk. (Courtesy of the National
Maritime Museum, Greenwich)
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 111
Figure 7. The bow gun on the 6,938 ton Fujikawa Maru and showing fresh corrosion on the two metal bitts—a result of frequent dynamite fishing. (Greg Adams, 2002)
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
112 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
Figure 8. The ‘upside down zero’ (a ‘Site Surveyor’ survey commenced on this site in 2002). (Greg Adams, 2002)
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 113
Figure 9. The four engine Japanese ‘Emily’ flying boat which has greatly suffered from diver interference. (Greg Adams, 2002)
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
114 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
corrosion survey (MacLeod, 2003) (Fig. 10); and
interpretation of some sites through production
of a booklet, and six signs to be placed on two of
the islands (Jeffery, 2003).
The World Heritage Convention
In November 1972, UNESCO adopted a
‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage’ with aims
to ‘Provide for the protection of a select list
of properties that are the most outstanding
from an international viewpoint’ (WHC, 1972).
At 3 July 2003, there were 754 properties on
the World Heritage List, of which 582 have
been listed because of their cultural heritage
significance, the majority being located in
Europe. One of the major attractions in listing is
the financial benefit it can bring from UNESCO
and sponsors. It can also bring potential
restrictions on what site owners can do with their
properties given the need to preserve them in an
authentic state. However, site preservation is
primarily the responsibility of a country through
its domestic legislation according to a manage-
ment plan, not through the World Heritage Con-
vention which essentially only recognises places
of ‘outstanding universal value’ and establishes
a process, and provides facilities to help preserve
them.
Article 1 of the Convention states that
‘Cultural Heritage’ is defined as including: ‘a
monument, cave dwellings, buildings, groups of
building’ and sites which are ‘works of man or
the combined works of nature and man, and
areas including archaeological sites which are of
outstanding universal value from the historical,
aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point
of view’.
Paragraph 24 of the Operational Guidelines
for the World Heritage Convention provides six
criteria for determining whether a site is eligible
to be included on the WHL and which briefly
are: that it represents a masterpiece of human
creative genius; exhibits an important interchange
of human values; bears a unique or at least
exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition;
is an outstanding example of a type of building
or architectural or technological ensemble or
landscape; is an outstanding example of a
traditional human settlement; can be directly or
tangibly associated with events of outstanding
universal significance (WHC, 2002).
The process of proposing a site for the WHL
is for a State Party to prepare a ‘Tentative List’
of sites it considers to be of ‘outstanding
universal value’, and which they intend to
nominate during the next five to ten years. In
addition to meeting one of the criteria stated
above, the World Heritage Bureau requires
documentation on site authenticity, management,
legal status and ownership.
In the light of this, to justify the suggestion
of listing the Truk Lagoon sites, it is relevant
to research some of the sites on the WHL that
could be compared with the Truk lagoon sites,
including: their history (World War II); their
setting (the Pacific Ocean); and the nature of the
remains (underwater cultural heritage sites/
shipwrecks).
World War II sites
There are two World War II sites on the WHL—
Auschwitz Concentration Camp, and the
Hiroshima Peace Dome. Auschwitz was listed
in 1979 using the grounds that it was ‘directly
or tangibly associated with events or living
traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic
and literary works of outstanding universal
significance’. However ‘the Committee decided to
enter Auschwitz … as a unique site and to restrict
the inscription of other sites of a similar nature’
(WHC, 1979). The Hiroshima Peace Dome
(Genbaku Dome) was listed in 1996 using the
same criterion because it is ‘the only struc-
ture left standing in the area where the first
atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945’
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/775.htm. China and
the USA both expressed reservations about the
listing of the Peace Dome, on the grounds of
Figure 10. Conservators Ian MacLeod and Andy Viduka
carrying out the first ever corrosion survey in Truk Lagoon.
This is a tank on the Nippo Maru. (Bill Jeffery, 2002)
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 115
singling out one episode and one country among
many who suffered, and a lack of historical
perspective (WHC, 1997b).
While it is not known exactly how many sites
are related to warfare, in one way or another,
there are a number on the list, including
Hadrian’s Wall, the Great Wall of China, the
medieval city of Rhodes, and the Fortress of
Soumenlinna. The listing of just two sites related
to a war (World War II) that ‘was thus the most
violent and prolonged self-inflicted injury on
mankind of which history has record’ and in
which ‘was waged by 56 nations and cost well
over 50 million lives’ (Pitt, 1968: 2677) would
not only appear to offer ‘a lack of historical
perspective’ about this war, but also a lack of
historical balance between World War II, World
War I, and the many other wars, battles and
conflicts that have taken place in the world.
Underwater cultural heritage sites
and shipwrecks
While an area surrounding Robben Island in
South Africa, encompassing about 20
shipwrecks, is on the WHL, the value of the
shipwrecks was not one of the justifications for
listing. Similarly with the Great Barrier Reef, off
the eastern coast of Australia. In the World
Heritage Newsletter No. 3 December 1997, in a
short article on the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage, the following statement was
made: ‘It will be recalled that the underwater
heritage is not covered by the World Heritage
Convention’.
Other statements, however, would appear to
support world heritage listing of underwater
cultural heritage. For example Henry Cleere the
former ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator,
stated (1993: 25) that shipwrecks ‘are not
excluded by the terms of the convention itself;
however, the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
lay down (para. 26) that “Nominations of
immovable property which are likely to become
movable will not be considered”’. He cites the
raising of the Vasa and Mary Rose as examples.
However, Cleere (1993: 25–6) also says ‘if the
limitation of the Operational Guidelines quoted
above is disregarded (which is legitimate, since
these rules are formulated by the World Heritage
Committee for its own use and do not have the
legal force of the Convention itself), there would
seem to be no conceptual or juridical reasons
why underwater heritage properties should not be
inscribed on the WHL.’ And he concluded by
stating that the ‘time would seem to be right for
a similar study of the underwater heritage … as
is happening with cultural landscapes, industrial
heritage and twentieth century architecture,
which also do not appear on the WHL’. No study
of world heritage listing of underwater cultural
heritage sites has yet been carried out.
The ICOMOS International Committee on the
Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH), formed
in 1991, has been aware of this issue for some
years, but it has been concentrating its efforts
in assisting in formulating, and gaining the
acceptance of, a UNESCO Convention on the
Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage,
and for which the final wording was adopted by
UNESCO on 2 November 2001 (O’Keefe, 2002).
This Convention places a priority on the in-situ
management of shipwrecks and other 100 year
old underwater cultural heritage, rather than
other forms of management such as excavation,
although not excluding it. The author has
recently commenced investigating which under-
water cultural sites are of ‘outstanding universal
value’ in conjunction with ICUCH.
In a recent development, the Sri Lankan
government are proposing to apply for an
extension of the boundaries of the world heritage
site of Galle (16th and 17th century Portuguese
and Dutch forts) to include the 25 shipwrecks
and other significant underwater archaeological
sites located in Galle Harbor (pers. comm. M.
Abeyratne, 2003).
World Heritage Pacific Global Strategy
At the November 1999 World Heritage Commit-
tee (WHC) meeting in Morocco it was acknow-
ledged that ‘the Pacific continues to be most
underrepresented sub-region on the WHL and
there are still few Pacific Island signatories to the
Convention’. It was seen that there was a need
‘to raise the awareness of Pacific Island Member
States as to the relevance of the Convention to
the conservation of the outstanding cultural
landscapes (including spiritually-valued natural
features and cultural places)’ (WHC, 1999a: 21).
Only one site located in the western Pacific is
on the WHL—East Rennell in the Solomon
Islands, being the largest raised coral atoll in the
world.
In 1992, UNESCO developed its ‘World Heritage
Global Strategy’ to develop a ‘framework
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
116 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
reference and methodology for the implementation
of the World Heritage Convention’, one of the
aims of which was to develop regional action
plans. The regional action plan for the Pacific
was a major outcome of a meeting in Morocco
in 1999 which included increasing awareness
and understanding, adherence to the WHC,
preparation of tentative lists, and developing
collaborative strategies (WHC, 1999a: 21–23).
The Pacific Island Nations also concluded that
‘World Heritage sites in the Pacific Islands region
are likely to be serial sites and multi-layered
cultural landscapes, which attest to the history of
voyaging, land and sea routes, and of trade, the
first landings, activities, settlements and
agriculture in the Pacific Islands region. As serial
sites they form lines crossing the boundaries
between countries and are therefore transborder
and transnational sites’ (WHC, 1997a).
One of the concerns of the Pacific Island
Nations in 1999 was in regard to the UNESCO
Convention for the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage. They were aware that
underwater cultural heritage should be protected.
However, they noted ‘at the moment, this seems
to refer more often to underwater wrecks from
World War II, despite the existence of other
underwater sites such as sacred cultural sites
existing in many areas of the Pacific’ (WHC, 1999b).
World heritage criteria applicable to the
Truk Lagoon sites
The world heritage criteria considered most
appropriate for the World War II underwater
cultural heritage in Truk Lagoon is the same
as that used for the Hiroshima Peace Dome
and Auschwitz which is ‘directly or tangibly
associated with events of outstanding universal
significance.’ The sites provide a tangible symbol
of World War II which can be used to highlight
the impact of, and transformations of, the
Chuukese and Pacific Islanders in general. Poyer
et al. (2001) through a combination of research
and interviewing over 300 Micronesians, found
that ‘physical mementos of war hold little
historical interest for most Micronesians … but
they want to preserve this history and to correct
the imbalance that makes Islanders nearly
invisible in American and Japanese accounts of
the Pacific war’.
The remains in Truk Lagoon also serve as a
reminder of the role played by seaborne warfare,
and represent over 3,000 shipwrecks and numerous
aircraft destroyed during the war and known to
be located throughout the Pacific. They are also
associated with the development of the aircraft
carrier: ‘The strike on Truk demonstrated a virtual
revolution in naval warfare; the aircraft carrier
emerged as the capital ship of the future, with
unlimited potentialities’ (Morison, 1975: 329–32).
In addition, the Truk Lagoon World War II
underwater cultural heritage sites could also be
considered in accordance with another criterion:
‘an outstanding example of a type of landscape
which illustrates significant stages in human
history’. The Truk Lagoon sites have been
referred to by leading marine biologist Sylvia
Earle (Earle and Giddings, 1976: 602) as the
‘world’s largest collection of artificial reefs’, and
her visit in 1976 ‘gave us new insights into many
aspects of reef ecology’. It is considered that the
site meets the World Heritage criteria in this
regard as the underwater remains have evolved
into a cultural landscape through ‘association
with and in response to its natural environment’.
Few underwater sites could lay claim to such an
association with the natural environment, as well
as a highly significant historic event.
Pacific Island Nation context for the
Truk Lagoon sites
In terms of the World War II underwater cultural
heritage sites in Truk Lagoon within the Pacific
World Heritage Global Strategy, Pacific Islanders
want to see them considered in context with the
sacred cultural sites (underwater and on land)
and customs of the region as a whole, and for any
heritage listing and conservation to involve
partnership with traditional owners.
To include this wider remit a new assessment
would need to be made using the world heritage
criteria. On face value, it could be argued that the
sites do meet the criterion ‘directly or tangibly
associated with events of outstanding universal
significance’, though whether collectively they
meet the cultural landscape criterion is more
debatable. In addition, the inclusion of
indigenous cultural sites with the underwater
sites needs to consider authenticity, land
ownership and site management.
Some surveys have been carried out and partly
cover some of these aspects. For example, in
regard to terrestrial sites Colt Denfield (1981: vii)
found that ‘[Truk] has in situ as many guns as all
of Europe’ and surveys by Craib (1997) and
Jeffery (2003) provide a glimpse of the quantity
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 117
and quality of the general World War II
terrestrial sites. Surveys of traditional terrestrial
sites can be found in Edwards and Edwards
(1978), King and Parker (1984) and others, and
in which it was found that the Japanese
occupation and use of the islands had a great
impact on these. Many of the terrestrial sites have
been modified, and therefore the issue of
authenticity comes into question, although their
disturbance and change is contemporary to the
Japanese colonial period (1914–1945), which is
part of the history of these sites. In regard to the
complex and sensitive issue of site ownership, it
needs to be stated that private ownership of land
is an understandable sensitive issue given the
wholesale alienation of the land by the Japanese,
and is therefore a potential stumbling block to
the ‘protection’ of sites. Chuukese are now very
guarded about any outside interest in their land.
Either the FSM and/or the USA has had an
interest in the following sites for world heritage
listing: Nan Madol (Pohnpei); Lelu Ruins
(Kosrae); and the Yap ‘Stone Money’. The
nomination of Nan Madol (Ayers, 1983), a 1,500
year old canal city comprising over 4,900 ha
of residential complexes, ritual structures and
tombs, to the WHL was prepared by the USA in
1985 (Anon, 1985), but it is not known if this was
presented to the World Heritage Bureau (Fig. 11),
as it was compiled just prior to the independence
of the FSM in 1986. Anecdotal information
obtained since has suggested that the nomination
was not progressed because not all landowners
were in support. The USA has a policy of
requiring 100% ownership consent for world
heritage listing (Araoz, 2002).
If the Truk Lagoon sites were singled out by
the FSM government for world heritage listing,
and it was successful, a number of possible
benefits could follow. It is known through listing
sites such as the Galle Fort in Sri Lanka that
recognition brings an increase in tourism and
Figure 11. One of the many stone buildings in Nan Madol, a 1,500 year old canal city in Pohnpei, FSM. (Bill Jeffery, 2001)
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
118 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
financial assistance for a number of issues,
including conservation and research projects.
However, in the Galle case, it has escalated
housing prices, which means wealthy individuals
buy out local owners and it has placed conditions
on building renovations which create a number of
problems for the local owners.
An increase in tourism and financial support
in Truk Lagoon could similarly bring both
advantages and disadvantages to the Chuukese.
UNESCO are currently investigating establishing
a regional (Asia-Pacific) training centre in under-
water archaeology in Galle. Perhaps something
similar, such as a centre to investigate and
monitor the social, tourist and environmental
impacts of the World War II sites throughout the
Pacific could be established in Truk Lagoon, if
it was world heritage listed and received the
recognition and financial support required to
do this. A possible disadvantage is that any
limitations imposed on the Chuukese and their
property through listing, and the associated
management plan, could alienate their support in
the management of the sites.
Other pre-conditions for world heritage
listing of the Truk Lagoon sites
As a comparison to the collective of terrestrial
and underwater sites, it was thought appropriate
to consider the issues of authenticity, effective
site management and ownership as they relate to
just the underwater sites. Although some salvage
is reported to have been carried out on the
shipwrecks a few years after the war, they remain
in much the same condition as when they were
sunk in 1944, still containing much of the cargo
they were attempting to discharge at the time
of the bombing, and showing the great scars
inflicted by the bombing and machine. In
addition, while some Japanese human remains
have been recovered from the shipwrecks on two
occasions, some still remain to highlight the war-
grave nature of the shipwrecks. It is therefore
considered that they meet world heritage’s ‘test of
authenticity in design, material, workmanship or
setting and in the case of cultural landscapes
their distinctive character and components’.
The second issue is, are they adequately
managed? While legislation is in place, and some
resources have been committed toward managing
the sites, the current management is ineffective.
There are a number of reasons for this, which
are further explained in Jeffery (2004). It is
considered that a more cooperative management
approach might prove valuable if it involved all
the stakeholders (the Chuukese community and
government, the Japanese and the Americans)
contributing in all aspects of management.
The third major issue is site ownership. Japan
relinquished claim on its war property through
the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, and
while it is unclear at this stage if subsequent
treaties and legislation have any affect, it would
appear that ownership of the World War II
underwater cultural heritage sites rests with
either the USA or the FSM. In the case of the
lagoon, certain village clans claim ownership of
the reefs within the lagoon, and the outer reef
(King and Parker, 1984: 78), but the lagoon itself
appears not to be owned by any particular clan.
‘Establishing a historical park or reserve to
manage and protect the sunken World War II
wrecks of Truk Lagoon would not have any
major effects on the traditional system of marine
tenure which exists over lagoon waters. The sunken
wrecks are already regarded as public domain.
No clan or village has made claim of ownership
or use rights to the wrecks’ (Anon, 1989: 75).
Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to highlight the issues
involved in addressing the potential world
heritage listing of the Truk Lagoon World War II
underwater cultural heritage sites. In addition to
operational issues, these include: should war sites
be listed; are shipwrecks movable and therefore
ineligible; and what do Pacific Islanders want
listed.
Currently, Truk Lagoon would not meet the
conditions for world heritage listing. It is the
author’s view that it does meet two of the criteria
– the test of authenticity and possibly having no
ownership impediments, but the sites are not
adequately managed. World heritage listing does
not bring with it a magic wand that solves
management problems. It brings recognition that
can have a number of benefits but it can also
create problems. Effective management must
come from within the country, utilising and
being proactive with its domestic legislation and
a management plan that has a collaborative
approach with individuals, groups and government
agencies, particularly within Chuuk, but also within
the FSM, USA, Japan and other stakeholders.
The Pacific Islands and the FSM in particular
is strong in oral histories and traditional
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 119
customs, and sites such as Nan Madol in Pohnpei
are important links to the past. World War II
sites are important in the region as they are
associated with an event that transformed Pacific
Islanders towards how they live today.
The desktop studies towards World Heritage
Global Strategy Action Plans for the Pacific
should consider all the necessary Pacific themes
in developing the list of sites. In regard one of
these themes, the ‘War in the Pacific’, the existing
study of significant American sites (Anon, 1986)
should be extended to include sites significant to
the Pacific Islanders, to the Japanese, and the
other nations that took part in the war, such as
Australia and New Zealand. Only then would an
appropriate list be available from which could be
selected the sites of ‘outstanding universal value’.
Considering broader issues, Pacific Islanders
do not want the United Nations, through the new
Convention on the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage or through the World Heritage
Convention, only to have regard for sites that do
not fully represent their cultural identity. They
would like to see these conventions used to define
and conserve ‘transnational serial sites and
layered cultural landscapes’ relevant to their
cultural heritage, which it is taken to mean
could include World War II sites, but not be
limited to them. Pacific Islanders must determine
their own lists of sites. If they do not include
World War II sites, then this should be respected
and seen as a reflection of how they regard their
cultural identity and how they want to be
perceived. With the recent adoption of the
wording for the UNESCO Convention on the
Preservation of Intangible Heritage (17/10/2003)
operating in partnership with the World Heritage
Convention, an appropriate balance of tangible
and intangible heritage protection in the Pacific
Island Nations may perhaps be achieved.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the USA National Parks Service, the Historic Preservation Fund
for the Special Projects funding, and the NPS (San Fransisco) staff David Look, Roger Kelly, Mark Rudo and in particular,
Paula Creech. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues from Australia, Ian MacLeod, Jeremy Green, Andy Viduka,
and Viv Moran for their contributions, and thank Prospero (Rhian Skirving and Ed Punchard) for producing the film of Truk
Lagoon, and Greg Adams for his photography. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of Governor Walter, Ignacio
Stephen, Gradvin Aisek, the Chiefs of Tonoas, Joshua Suka, Arimichy Rudolf, David Welle and Anerit Mailo from Chuuk,
Rufino Mauricio, National Historic Preservation Officer for the FSM, and Fran Hezel, Micronesian Seminar, Pohnpei.
Appendix 1
Shipwrecks located in Truk Lagoon (For more detailed information see Bailey,
2000 and Lindemann, 1982)
Site Name Ship type during war Tonnage
Aikoku Maru Armed transport 10,438
Amagisan Maru Armed transport 7620
CHA 29 No. 28 class Submarine chaser 420
CHA 46 No. 1 class Submarine chaser 130
CHA 66 No. 1 class Submarine chaser 130
Ei-sen No. 761 Tug 300
Fujikawa Maru Armed transport 6938
Fujisan Maru Tanker 9524
Fumitzuki Fast transport destroyer 1590
Futagami Ocean tug 625
Gosei Maru Transport 1931
Hanakawa Maru Armed special transport 4739
Heian Maru Submarine Tender 11,614
Hino Maru No. 2 Gunboat 998
Hoki Maru Transport 7112
Hokuyo Maru Transport 4217
Hoyo Maru Tanker 8691
I-169 Submarine B (1) type 1785
Katsurigisan Maru Transport 2427
Kensho Maru Transport 4862
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1
120 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society
References
Anon, 1985, The Nan Madol Archaeological District, Pohnpei Island, FSM: Nomination to the WHL. Report. USA.
Anon, 1986, World War II in the Pacific: National Historic Landmark Theme Study, Introductory Essay. Unpublished report,
US National Parks Service, San Fransisco.
Anon, 1989, Chuuk Lagoon Historical Park Study. Unpublished report for Federated States of Micronesia, State of Truk,
National Park Service. Micronesian Seminar, Pohnpei.
Araoz, G., 2002, World Heritage: Thirty Years of U.S. Participation, George Wright Forum 19.3.
Ayers, W., 1983, Archaeology at Nan Madol, Ponape, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 4: 135–42. Canberra.
Bailey, D. E., 2000, World War II Wrecks of the Chuuk Lagoon. Redding.
Carrell, T., 1991, Micronesia: Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment. Submerged Cultural Resource Unit, National Park
Service. Santa Fe.
Cleere, H., 1993, The underwater heritage and the World Heritage Convention, Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology 17: 25–26.
Colt Denfield, D., 1981, Field Survey of Truk: World War II features. Micronesian Archaeological Survey, Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, Saipan.
Craib, J. L., 1997, Truk Archaeology. Micronesian Resources Study. US National Park Service. San Fransisco.
Earle, S. A. and Giddings, A., 1976, Life springs from death in Truk Lagoon, National Geographic 149.5: 578–612.
Edwards, J. and Edwards, R., 1978, Fauba: A past waiting for a future. Unpublished report. Chuuk Historic Preservation
Office, Chuuk, FSM.
Giddings, A., 1982, Foreword: in Lindemann, K. P., 1982, Hailstorm over Chuuk Lagoon. Singapore.
Gladwin, T., 1970, East Is a Big Bird: Navigation and Logic on Puluwat Atoll. Cambridge, Mass.
Gladwin, T. and Sarason, S. B., 1953, Truk: Man in Paradise. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. New
York.
Green, J., 2002, The application of side scan sonar and magnetometer to the location of archaeological sites, Bulletin of the
Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 26: 119–130.
Kikukawa Maru Ammunition supply 3833
Kiyosumi Maru Armed transport 8614
Kotohira Maru Picket boat 30?
Minsei Converted minelayer 378
Momokawa Maru Transport 3829
Nagano Maru Tr ansport 3824
Nippo Maru Transport 3764
Oite Destroyer (Kamikaze Class) 1523
Ojima Salvage tug 812
Reiyo Maru Transport 5446
Rio de Janeiro Maru Submarine Tender 9626
San Fransisco Maru Transport 5831
Sapporo Maru Provision/storeship 361
Seiko Maru Armed transport 5385
Shinkoku Maru Armed Oil tanker 10,020
Shotan Maru Armed transport 2829
Susuki Patrol Boat No. 34 935
Tachi Maru Transport 1891
Taiho Maru Armed transport 2827
Taijun Maru Transport 1278
Tonan Maru No. 3 Oil Tanker 19,209
Unkai Maru No. 6 Armed transport 3220
Unknown Four landing craft
Unknown Gun boat/ landing craft? ?30
Unknown
Unknown Lighter/water transport 350?
Unknown Picket boat/Submarine chaser
Unknown Transport/Inter-Island Supply 90
Yamagiri Maru Armed Transport 6438
Yamakisan Maru Special Transport 4776
Yubae Maru Transport 3217
Site Name Ship type during war Tonnage
Appendix 1 Continued
B. JEFFERY: TRUK LAGOON: CONSIDERING A CASE FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING
© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 121
Hezel, F. and Graham, C., 1997, Truk Underwater Archaeology. Micronesia Resources Study. United States National Park
Service. San Fransisco.
Ito, M., 1962, The end of the Imperial Japanese Navy. London.
Jeffery, B., 2003, War in Paradise: World War II sites in Truk Lagoon. Chuuk, Federated States of Micronesia.
Jeffery, B., 2004 (in press), World War II underwater cultural heritage sites in Truk Lagoon: multiple cllaimants to this
heritage, CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship. Washington.
King, T. F. and Parker, P. L., 1984, Pisekin Nóómw Nóón Tonaachaw. Archaeology in the Tonaachaw Historic District, Moen
Island. South Illinois University at Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. Occasional Paper No. 3.
Lindemann, K. P., 1982, Hailstorm over Truk Lagoon. Singapore.
MacLeod, I., 2003, Metal corrosion in Chuuk Lagoon: A survey of iron shipwrecks and aluminium aircraft. Unpublished Report.
Perth, Western Australian Museum.
Morison, S. E., 1975, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Volume VII: Aleutians, Gilberts and
Marshalls, June 1942-April 1944. Boston.
Naval Analysis Division, 1947, The Reduction of Truk. A report prepared by the Editorial Division of the US Strategic
Bombing Survey in February 1947, US Navy.
O’Keefe, P., 2002, Shipwrecked Heritage: A Commentary on the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage.
Leicester.
Pitt, B., 1968, The War: An Overview, in B. Pitt (ed.), The History of the Second World War. 6.16 3/6: 2676–81. London.
Poyer, L., Falgout, S. and Carucci, L. M., 2001, The Typhoon of War: Micronesian experiences of the Pacific War. Honolulu.
Turner, J. W. and Falgout, S., 2002, Time Traces: Cultural Memory and World War II in Pohnpei, in The Contemporary Pacific
14.1: 101–131.
WHC, 1972, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris.
WHC, 1979, Report of the Rapporteur on the Third Session of the World Heritage Committee, Cairo and Luxor. UNESCO
Document CC-79/CONF.003/13.
WHC, 1997a, Third Global Strategy Meeting: Identification of World Heritage properties in the Pacific, Fiji. UNESCO
Document WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.8. Paris.
WHC, 1997b, World Heritage Committee, 20th Session, Mexico. UNESCO Document WHC-96/CONF.201/21.
WHC, 1999a, World Heritage Committee, 23rd Session, Morocco. UNESCO Document WHC-99/CONF.209/8, Paris.
WHC, 1999b, Second World Heritage Global Strategy Meeting for the Pacific Islands region. UNESCO, Vanuatu.
WHC, 2002, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, Paris.
Young, J. A., Rosenberger, N. R. and Harding, J. R., 1997, ‘Truk Ethnography.’ Micronesian Resources Study. United States
National Park Service. San Fransisco.
