Jung has been involved with aviation archeology and underwater archeology
with Northern Territory University. Also, landmark legislation to
protect wreck sites, and advocate for their protection as archaeological
sites. In an interview with Pacific Wrecks, he shares details
about his work and roles in preservation.
|
Silvano Jung on an
Australian wreck survey |
Tell a little about yourself
& your interest in WWII
I was born in Adelaide, South Australia
in 1966. I left there in 1985 to commence my studies in archaeology
at the University of New England (U.N.E.), Armidale, New South Wales.
I then came to Darwin, Northern Territory, in 1991 to look for work
after completing my Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Letters at the
U.N.E. I found employment at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern
Territory (MAGNT) as a research officer in maritime archaeology. Although
I had been trained in Australian Aboriginal archaeology, I decided that
I would stick with maritime archaeology, as it was a combination of
two of my interests: SCUBA diving and archaeology. While working for
the museum, I became involved in developing a shipwreck database for
the Northern Territory, which in turn led to my interests in the events
that occurred in the South West Pacific Area during World War Two. For
instance, like so many other Australians, I was unaware of the ‘Pearl
Harbor’ type scenario that occurred on our front door-step, and
how there remains today an archaeological record at the bottom of Darwin
Harbour, relating to that event.
Speak a bit about your research
with PBYs
I became involved in researching PBY histories and archaeology
as a result of a contract, which I had undertaken at the MAGNT in 1995.
I was employed to compile a gazetteer of submerged material culture
sites for the then proposed Beagle Gulf Marine Park. Within the proposed
marine park are found five PBY Catalina wreck sites, of which only one
was positively identified – the RAAF’s first Catalina: Catalina
A24-1. The identity of the others had become lost from living memory
and one wreck site, the sixth, is still to be relocated. The Darwin
Catalinas had suffered an ignominious end and I thought that they deserved
better than that. I decided that, after ten years since my last degree,
I would once again return to university and try to unravel the lost
histories of the Darwin PBYs and to learn something about their current
condition. I graduated with a Master of Arts in maritime archaeology
from the Northern Territory University (Darwin) during 2001. My thesis
is titled: ‘Wings beneath the sea: the aviation archaeology of
Catalina flying boats in Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory’.
The study of Flying boats represents a study in maritime activity. It
is through the study of the remains of these amazing machines and the
people that were associated with them that archaeologists and historians
learn more about a way of life that is no longer.
Tell about the legislation
in NT & WA related to wrecks
Heritage legislation
in the Northern Territory is flawed. The Minister for the
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, who
administers heritage sites and issues, has the power of veto. As result, any nominations
made to the Heritage Advisory Council for places or objects
to be included in the Heritage Register of the Northern Territory,
under the terms and conditions of the Northern Territory Heritage
Conservation Act 1991, will only succeed if the Minister sees
that it is fitting thing to do. The problem lies in the ability
of one person (the Minister) to ignore the advice of professionals
(archaeologists and historians) if there is a conflict between
heritage conservation and development invariably heritage
looses out. But it’s not all doom and gloom. Western Australia Flying Boat Wreckage Site Roebuck Bay Broome, Place number: 04859 via registration report October 1, 2015
The wreck of a B-24J
‘Milady’ 42-73134 on Cox Peninsula near Darwin has been
included in the Heritage Register, but it is, however, not threatened
by development – at this stage. It is the first World War II aircraft
wreck site to be protected by legislation in Australia – a wonderful
initiative by the NT Government.
What sets the Western Australian Legislation
apart from the Northern Territory’s approach is that it is the
first state in Australia to declare submerged World War II aircraft
wreck sites (flying boats in Broome’s Roebuck Bay) as heritage
places. This occurred in December 2002. For the first time in Australia,
this provides legislative protection to submerged material culture other
than shipwreck sites – a wonderful initiative by the WA Government.
Mention about your role in the preservation
of PBY sites
When news that the wreck site of the Catalina A24-69 was
threatened by development of a new wharf for Darwin Harbour
in 1994, a ‘free-for-all’ effect took place. First
it was the Royal Australian Navy Reserves who raised an engine
and a number of smaller artefacts as a ‘training exercise’.
Then local dive business had their turn; raising a propeller
and some very important diagnostic artefacts that held clues
as to the identity of the wreck site, which had previously been
unknown. None of this work was conducted to archaeological standards
and none of the artefacts have had professional conservation
treatment, which has resulted in information loss about the
wreck site. The salvors also made quite a mess of the wreck
in their pursuit of relics. What a sad event that all was. No
reports of their activities were produced, except in SCUBA diving
magazines. |
Underwater wreck site
plan of RAAF PBY A24-69
|
Given the developments in archaeological science
and the rise of ‘aviation archaeology’ as a valid
sub-branch of the discipline, I felt that it was no way to treat
our fragile and finite World War II defence heritage wreck sites
in this modern day and age. Who, then, would speak for the Darwin
Catalinas? Spurred on by my then colleagues at the Museum and
Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, I decided that I would
investigate the Catalinas just like any other archaeological
sites, following on from initial investigations by Cosmos Coroneos
in 1995.
I then nominated
the Darwin Catalina wreck sites for inclusion in the Heritage Register
in 1998. Some members of the RAAF were supportive of the move to protect
their aircraft heritage, while research into the United States Navy
machines that were lost in the harbour during the initial air raid on
Australia, indicated that they were protected by sovereign immunity
already. No one in Australia understood what that meant. As a result,
pilfering of artefacts continues to this day on both United States Navy
and RAAF World War II wreck sites. Pilfering of artefacts from aircraft
lost in operational service has meant that Northern Territorians have
lost a lot of defence heritage already.
What do you feel should be
done with remaining MIA sites?
The wreck site of an aircraft lost in fully operational serviceability
while on duty, which has been untouched by vandals, is an extremely
valuable military (sometimes civilian) archaeological resource of the
20th Century. MIA wreck sites, therefore, should not be interfered with
unless disturbance at the wreck sites is conducted according to archaeological
standards. This, of course rarely – if ever happens. Quite often
a new discovery in Papua New Guinea is reported and the only thing you
hear about is the remains of the aircrew being identified and buried
with military honours. But what of the wreck site and the items associated
with it? We mere public mortals don’t get to see any of that stuff.
The wreck site, once the remains of the aircrew are taken out, is often
forgotten.
Some wreck sites are well preserved
– leaving them alone doesn't necessary mean that they will
be lost, indeed, it is the destructive salvors who cause the most damage
– not necessarily the environment in which the wreck sites occur
in. I’m referring to wreck sites preserved in an anaerobic environment
in the sea, and in some instances to wreck sites that occur on land,
but have become buried or buried themselves during impact.
It is impractical to preserve or protect
every archaeological site in the world. Sometimes we don’t even
have a choice in what gets handed down to us through the passing generations
eg, the standing Budhas. Every wreck site must be assessed according
to its specific circumstances. For instance, is the aircraft wreck site
of a rare machine; does it relate to an important event? See the table
below as a guide to assessing significance.
What would you urge people
who visit wreck sites?
There is a simple answer to this question. Treat them as archaeological
sites, which is in fact, by definition, exactly what they are –
obsolete/discarded/forgotten. It is very important to report previously
unlocated wreck sites too; archaeologists rarely have time or resources
to go looking for sites – we rely on other people (often local
people) to find them.
I think people who take artefacts from
wreck sites (either ship or aircraft wrecks) are mere thieves –
exactly the same type of person who steals your car stereo. In respect
to archaeological sites, removing artefacts destroys the fabric of the
place that they come from. Also, people who remove artefacts, or even
the entire wreck site it self, do it without recording the context of
their finds and without recording how they did it – resulting
in an enormous amount of information loss that can never be retrieved
again.
What are your future plans for
this material?
In
2003 I received a Northern Territory University scholarship to undertake
further research into the aviation archaeology at Broome, Western Australia.
I will be conducting field work there from May to November. I hope to
complete my thesis in the next two and half years, but what then?
With the completion of my Master of Arts
on the Darwin Catalinas and with the impending material from my current
research, I hope to write on book on the aviation archaeology of north
Australia. For post-doctoral work, I’m keen on back tracking over
the US Navy’s Patrol Wing Ten retreat from the Philippines.
After seeing and recorded two wreck
sites in Darwin, I've developed the PatWing-10 bug. I dream of
chartering a vessel to go off looking for other PatWing-10 Catalinas
lost in Surabaya (Morokrembangan), Borneo and the Philippines. The Empire
flying boat thing is pretty addictive as well – so many unlocated/unplundered
wrecks to investigate – so short a life.
Share a little of your
research related to Aircraft Significance
I've included a file on archaeological significance criterion.
I've also included significance criterion developed by English Heritage
for your information. Read Jung's Archaeological
Significance Criteria For Aircraft Document. For additional information about archaeological work: Broome
(Western Australia) and Broken
Wings and Broome
Dive Diary.
