Naming the North Natuna : Considerations and stages in sea naming in Multamia RMT LAUDER* and Allan F. LAUDER†

Recently, Indonesia named an area of the falling within its EEZ as the North . This act of naming can be seen as a determination of state sovereignty. It also is made with consideration to historical realities. The present paper reports on this particular issue, as a case study based on a literature review and interviews with government officials. The case study is presented in the context of a general discussion of Indonesia’s management of its boundaries and the role that naming plays in this. The discussion refers to Indonesia’s character as a large archipelagic nation. Indonesia, with its more than 17 thousand islands, is the largest archipelagic country in the world, stretching east west over three-time zone. This means that managing its entire territorial area is a challenging job. Indonesia must manage maritime boundaries with a number of neighboring countries, namely India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste, and Australia. Managing all of these different bilateral relationships requires a coordinated approach. Indonesia’s management of its maritime boundary is best understood in a historical and legal context. Indonesia has taken a largely diplomatic approach that follows global rules and is consultative. In Indonesia’s case, the most important legislation relates to the Djuanda Declaration of 1957 in which the country is stated to be an archipelago. This was ratified shortly after in Law No.4 / PRP / 1960. The next major piece of legislation was the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982. This international convention formulates the rights and obligations of each country with regard to its surrounding sea, including guidelines for managing its marine resources including commercial activities and environmental issues. Indonesia ratified UNCLOS 1982 through legalization of Law No. 17 of 1985. The impact of the Djuanda Declaration and subsequent legislation on the extent of Indonesia’s maritime territories is significant. During colonial times, Indonesia’s internal sea territory extended only 3km from the coast. Beyond this, the were considered open international waters. In the present day after UNCLOS 1982, Indonesian waters have

* Professor, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia † Visiting Professor, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 125

expanded substantialy. The total area of its water has increased from 2.027.087 km ² to 6,000,000 km ². The other important issue arising is that it gives Indonesia the right as sole claimant to the marine resources within its territorial borders. This obviously has both economic and political consequences. All countries with sea borders have the right to an (EEZ) which extends up to 200 miles from the coastline. The country has the rights to all naturally occurring maritime resources in this area, including the application of its legal system, freedom of navigation, flight paths, and the planting of cables and pipelines. The paper will look at the North Natuna Sea naming process in the context of these things and will also discuss the process of naming, in particular the stages that the government must go through for the process to be successful. Key words: maritime boundary, national sovereignty, EEZ, sea naming, territorial management

INTRODUCTION

In 2017, Indonesia made public that they had given the name North Natuan Sea to an an area lying within its territorial waters to the north of the Natuna Islands. The event was shown on television and widely discussed in various news and academic forums as well as on television and social media. It also generated responses in the academic sphere (Hunt, 2017, Supriyanto, 2017). This is all set against a relatively robust literature which focuses on wider stragegic issues in the South China Sea (Chapsos and Malcolm, 2017, Fels and Vu, 2016, Gindarsah and Priamarizki, 2015, Hellendorff, 2016, Parameswaran, 2016). The language used in the media reports is exemplified in the small selection following and gives an indication of the perspective and concerns of this literature: Indonesia, Long on Sidelines, Starts to Confront China’s Territorial Claims. Recently, with the naming of the North Natuna Sea, Indonesia has taken a more assertive posture with regard to intrusion by foreign vessels, in particular Chinese fishing vessels, to the resource rich area around the Natuna Sea (Cochran, 2017). Indonesia’s new North Natuna Sea: What’s in a name? Indonesia, under Jokowi, is taking a firm stand against Chinese intrusions into its EEZ waters. (Connelly, 2017) The media message was woven around the collocation of South China Sea and words like confront, intrusion, and firm stand. Much of the literature and the discussion on this issue is geostrategic and political. The present paper looks at the naming of seas and the case of the North Natuna Sea from another perspective, that of toponymy, the study of names. The paper traces Indonesia’s geospatial identity, including its relations with neighboring countries with which it has borders, its character as an archipelagic state and the consequences of that, and its engagement with conventions and treaties governing the seas around it.

126 SESSION IV

The case of the naming of the North Natuna Sea is looked at from a review of the process of sea name standardization and the practical difficulties involved in documenting and standardizing the names in such a large maritime country. Following is a review of the general principle of sea naming, a historical perspective on sea names in Indonesia and a study of the name Natuna including an etymology and a systematic analysis of the name based on a set of principles set out by Ormeling (2000). This allows us the see both the semantic and the connotational implications related to power or governance for the name. The question of whether the naming of the North Natuna Sea is a case of dual naming is also raised. This paper is the result of both a review of the literature and interviews and other interactions with government officials who have knowledge of the case of the North Natuna Sea. The approach that they have taken is, naturally, diplomatic and focuses around the idea that the naming is lawful, widely recognized and disadvantages no other country. One key point strongly iterated to us was that Indonesia has no border with China and the media story of conflicts is not relevant here.

INDONESIA AS AN ARCHIPELAGIC STATE

Indonesia is the world’s largest archipalegic country. The terms archipelagic state and archipelago are defined in Article 46(a,b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982). Article 46. Use of Terms For the purposes of this Convention: a. “archipelagic State” means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; b. “archipelago” means a group of islands, including parts of islands,interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such. (United Nations, 2009: 23)

GEOSPATIAL DESCRIPTION

The territory of the Republic of Indonesia stretches from Rondo island off the northern tip of (Latitude 6° 05' North) to the southwest point of Roti island (Lat. 11° 15' South), and from Longitude 94° 58' to 141° 00' East. This geographical extent excludes that portion of Timor Island which forms the nation of Timor-Leste, and that part of Island which belongs to Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) and Brunei. With an overall distance of nearly 5,000 km from east to west Indonesia covers an area which is almost as great as that of Europe. (Forbes, 2014). Indonesia’s territory stretches over three time zones, from Breueh in the west to Sibir Island in Humboldt Bay () in the east (Cribb and Ford, 2009).

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 127

Indonesia’s land territory covers 1,913,578.68 km2. while its territorial waters extend over 3.1 million km2 (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 388). Forbes (2014) states that nearly 80 % of the area between Indonesia’s geographical extremities consists of seas. A more recent figure for the sea area, obtained from the Indonesian government, puts the sea area at 6,000,000 km ² up from 2.027.087 km ². This would mean that 84% of Indonesia’s territory is seas.

NUMBER OF ISLANDS

Indonesia has five major islands and 35 smaller groups of islands and (Forbes, 2014). The question of what the total number of islands is problematical and a number of different estimates have been put forward. Some just give an estimate, “In total, there are about 19,000 islands and islets of which about 6,000 are inhabited” (Forbes, 2014). Others try to be more specific, “The Indonesian government has up to now given the number of islands in Indonesia as 17,504 and this number is much quoted” (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 388). “By the latest official count, the archipelago consists of 18,108 islands” (Cribb and Ford, 2009: 3). So, how many islands are there and why is this so problematic? The answer to why there are discrepancies is that before 2005, the number was based on surveys done by local government and the military. However, even ignoring the scale of identifying and inventorying islands in Indonesia, these efforts ran into some unexpected problems. The first of these was the question of what counts as an island. There are many features in the sea that do not qualify as islands (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 388). The international standard for the definition of what an island is is found in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) in Part 8 Regime of Islands, Article 121. The key features that distinguish between islands and rocks are (1) that an island is “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high ”, and (2) that rocks “which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or ” (United Nations, 1982) (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 389). With an island, the state has full rights to all natural resources for 200 nautical miles around. On the other hand, if the feature is decided to be only a rock, then the country is only allowed a 12 nautical mile limit. This has an impact on fishing rights and also on any oil that may be found beneath the sea bed within the area (Phillips 2013). Previous to 2005, the surveys to identify and document islands relied heavily on satellite imagery. These high resolution photographs showed many small features in the seas around Indonesia, many of which had bright green vegetation covering them. The problem bcame apparent when the navy during the island survey made a journey to the feature and found that there was no land permanently above the water; it was clearly not an island. This simple fact was one important reason why the entire national island inventorying process was redesigned. The other important obstacle was cases where the island was contested by a neighboring country. This happened to Indonesia with the dispute over the and Ligitan islands. The case was brought for adjudication to the International Court of Justice, and in 2002 the Court awarded the islands to Malaysia (Laksmana and Supriyanto, 2018). The court’s decision was made on the basis of Malaysia’s “effective occupation” and the absence of any other

128 SESSION IV superior title. In effect, the key feature had been that Malaysia had provided better management of the island than Indonesia. Indonesia had found itself in a vulnerable position regarding the stewardship of the contested islands. As a result, the country’s most outlying islands changed from being merely distant and less important, to an unrivalled asset which form the front line of national resilience and along with its resources, peoples and cultures, needs to be conserved, managed and protected (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 389). The loss of the islands proved a wake-up call with the country’s leaders. They immediately initiated a a nation-wide inventory on all its islands, and in particular on the outliers. When work started in 2005, the scale of the task became apparent. Of the 17,504 islands officially registered by the Ministry of Home Affairs as reported by all provincial governors and regents at that time, the actual number with names was only 7,870 (Rais, 2006). Work on the survey proceeded with the involvement of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, of the Home Affairs Department, the Navy and of the Geospatial Information Agency (BIG)１. In addition to defining precisely the geo-locational co-ordinates of all islands, the survey requires that every island is visited to gather data that will help determine its status, geology, vegetation and the language and culture of the inhabitants if any (Rais et al., 2008: 125). This meant that the Indonesian navy was needed to play a pivotal role in the task. The survey also has to gather data on the names of all of the islands. Local language names must be identified and evaluated. This task can only proceed if we are aware of the languages that the place name was coined from (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 389). In 2018, the work is nearing completion and is estimated to conclude in 2019. So, how many islands are there? The most recent numbers given for islands in Indonesia come from a meeting of the national toponymy team２. As of Augut 2018, 16,671 islands have been verified. The verification work will continue throughout 2018 and be completed in 2019. Between September and December in 2018, 400 islands will be verified in fifteen provinces and the remainder of islands will be done in 2019. Then we will know how many ther are – exactly.

NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES AND BOUNDARIES

Indonesia has ten neighboring countries: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste, and Australia. It has land borders with three of these countries – with Malaysia on the island of Kalimantan, with Timor Leste on the island of Timor, and with Papua New Guinea, on the island of New Guinea. But it has sea borders with all of them. Indonesia has a longer coastline (in km) than any of its neighboring countries: Indonesia, 95,000;

１ Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG) was formerly known as the National Coordinating Agency for Surveys and Mapping (Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Pemetaan Nasional/ Bakosurtanal). ２ Source, Multamia, RMT Lauder, from information discussed during the following meeting: Rapat Sinkronisasi dan Optimalisasi Kegiatan Pembakuan Nama Rupabumi oleh Tim Nasional Toponimi, 3 August 2018, held by Kementerian Dalam Negeri, Direktorat Jeneral Bina Administrasi Kewilayahan.

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 129

Australia, 36,740; Philippines, 15,260; India, 9,000; Papua New Guinea, 5,000; Malaysia, 3,430; Thailand, 2,960; Vietnam, 2,720; Timor-Leste, 650; Singapore, 60 (Forbes, 2014: 5). There are different kinds of sea boundary, continental shelf boundaries, territorial boundaries, and fishing agreement boundaries. Indonesia has more than one boundary and type of boundary with most of its neighbours. Indonesia has four sea boundaries with Malaysia, consisting of three continental shelf boundaries in the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea totaling 978.0 nautical miles (M), and one territorial seas boundary in the Malacca Straits of 177.5 M. Indonesia has a continental shelf boundary of 226.6 M with Papua New Guinea in the Pacific ; a territorial seas boundary with Singapore in the Singapore Straits of 30.3 M; four continental shelf boundaries with Australia, two in the and two in the , with a total length of 1,125.4 M; a continental shelf boundary with Australia (Papua New Guinea) in the Arafura Sea of 20.4 M; and a provisional fisheries line jurisdiction with Australia in Arafura-Timor of 500.0 M; three continental shelf boundaries with India in the Great Nicobar Channel, the , and the totaling 293.0 M; two continental shelf boundaries with Thailand in the Andaman sea totaling 192.4 M; and a single continental shelf boundary with Vietnam in the South China Sea of 265.0 M (Forbes, 2014: 34). We can summarize this as follows. Indonesia has continental shelf boundaries with Malaysia of a total of 978.0 M; Papua New Guinea of 246.6 M; Australia of 1,125.4 M; India of 294.0 M; Thailand of 192.4 M; Vietnam of 295.0 M, making a total of 3131.4 M. It also has territorial sea boundaries with Malaysia of 177.5 M; and Singapore of 25.0 M, making a total of 202.5 M. It also has a provisional fisheries line in excess of 450 M and a zone of cooperation of 60,500 km2 (now defunct) (Forbes, 2014: 39).

FOUNDATION OF AN ARCHIPELAGIC STATE Indonesia’s management of its maritime delimited borders is best understood in a historical and legal context. Indonesia has taken a largely diplomatic approach that follows global rules and is consultative. In Indonesia’s case, the most important legislation relates to the Djuanda Declaration of 1957 in which the country is stated to be an archipelago (Indonesia. Perdana Menteri. and Djuanda, 1957). This is discussed in (Butcher, 2009). The Djuanda Declaration was ratified shortly after in Law No.4 / PRP / 1960. (Presiden Republik Indonesia, 1960). The next major piece of legislation was the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) (United Nations, 1982). This international convention formulates the rights and obligations of each country with regard to its surrounding sea, including guidelines for managing its marine resources including commercial activities and environmental issues. Indonesia ethnusiastically endorsed The Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 and was positvely involved in issues related to archipelagic waters and straits. It also identified itself with environmental protection of coastal waters (Forbes, 2014: 39). Finally, Law No. 17 of 1985 (Presiden Republik Indonesia, 1985) ratified UNCLOS 1982 further strengthening Indonesia’s status as archipelagic country. There are a number of descriptions of this. One book length treatment is found in Butcher and Elson (2017).

130 SESSION IV

Indonesia’s approach to establishing its maritime boundaries has started in acceptace of UNCLOS and proceeded through negotiations with its neighbors. So far, Indonesia has negotiated no less than 17 sets of maritime boundaries with seven maritime neighbors. Two of these boundaries delimit the territorial sea, one delineates a provisional fishing and surveillance enforcement line, and one establishes a zone of cooperation for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons from the substratum of the Timor Sea and the remainder are specified as seabed/continental shelf boundaries (Forbes, 2014: 39). Successful negotiations have produced signed agreeents with Australia, India, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. There remain at least five segments of maritime boundaries that are still being negotiated or awaiting ratification. These are between Indonesia and Malaysia; Indonesia and the Philippines; and Indonesia and Timor-Leste. There is also a boundary between Indonesia and Australia which is waiting to be ratified (Forbes, 2014: 40). The impact of the Djuanda Declaration and subsequent legislation on the extent of Indonesia’s maritime territories is significant. During colonial times, Indonesia’s internal sea territory extended only 3 km from the coast. Beyond this, the seas were considered open international waters. Archipelagic states are accorded a number of benefits of this status. They include extent of maritime jurisdiction, the rights to exploration and exploitation of natural resources, within and adjascent to the area within the boundaries of its archipelagic waters. It also comes with certain managerial responsibilities such as conservation and protection of its marine resources and environment and also monitoring and policing functions regarding piracy, smuggling and illegal movement of people (Forbes, 2014: 2-3). Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends up to 200 miles from the coastline. The EEZ has increased the total area of the country from 2.027.087 km ² to 5,193,250 km ². The seas around Natuna have very large deposits of oil and gas and fish stocks. Managing such a large archipelago naturally is challenging (Cribb and Ford, 2009). In order to meet this challenge, a refocusing of priorities to highlight Indonesia’s maritime and archipelagic character goes some way to addressing a wide range of issues including security, crime and piracy, theft of national resources, such as illegal fishing, and degradation of the environment.

GEOSPATIAL NAMES IN INDONESIA

Indonesia is an active participant in UNGEGN, the United Nations’ entity tasked with the standardization of geographaical names. Geographical names and their use are governed under Indonesian Law No. 24/2009 on the National Flag, National Language, State Emblem, and National Emblem (Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2009). In Article 36 (1) it mandates that geographical names shall be in the . However, it provides some flexibility in the use of either a local, indigenous language, or a foreign language. In 36 (4) it states that names “may use the local language or foreign language if it has historical, cultural, customary, and or religious value.” (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 386).

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 131

Figure 1. The Indonesian archipelago (Cribb and Ford, 2009) The Indonesian government has set a priority for the standardization of names as follows: (1) name the outer islands as this concerns national sovereignty and all other natural name features such as mountains, rivers and lakes, (2) work to define the names of administrative places such as provinces, villages and districts, and (3) manage names in urban areas, for example for streets, businesses and housing estates (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 388). Name standardization in Indonesia requires that primary data on names is collected from the field. This involves a number of steps which can be described briefly as follows:  Step 1 involves obtaining basic information about the history, language and culture of the local community;  Step 2 consists of doing field work to collect the geographical names used by the local community and attempting to identity the generic place names in the local language;  Step 3 involves making accurate notes of place names, place name spellings and their pronunciations recorded from local language speaker informants;  Step 4 is the investigation of the origins of geographical names (etymology) in order to understand the history and culture of the local community. (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 396). Essentially, the procedure for the standardization of geographical names in Indonesia is a bottom-up process, with data originating in the field and moving up the administrative hierarchy. A good deal of coordination and decision making is required for data collection. The head of the district (camat) or other administrative area should perform an inventory of geographical names in their area. The inventory of geographical names should cover all the geographical features whether they do not yet have names or already do. Where it is found that an existing name violates the principles for geographical naming, then a new name should be suggested by the senior government official there (village head, district head, or other official in charge) after taking into consideration the names submitted by the local community. The resulting inventory of names of geographical features should be delivered by the local government head to the District or City Committee.

132 SESSION IV

The District or City Committee should conduct an inventory and review of the proposed standardization of the names of the topographic features submitted by all the villages (or other buroughs) in the region. The completed review should be reported to the Provincial Committee. The Provincial Committee should inventorize and review these submissions from the District or City level Committees in their area. These completed reviews should in turn be reported to the National Team. The National Team should review the names of geographical features suggested for standardization by the Provincial Committees (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 397). The data collected in the field and the decision-making process by the national and regional teams is the basis for producing a standardized list of names which are recorded in the Gazetteer. The National Gazetteer of geographic names is the official list of geographical names in the country and is used as the main reference standard for names. The Gazetteer includes a list of (1) the names of all the islands and natural geographical features; (2) administrative areas; (3) man-made features. The Gazetteer includes not only the single standard name for a feature, but also all the variants which have been collected (Lauder, 2014) (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 397). The names in the Gazetteer are to be the authoritative and sole reference for use in society. This includes names in all official documents, the mass media, and school text books. Also, importantly, it is the main reference source for map editors. Maps provide various views of the natural and manmade environment on or below the ’s surface. All government produced maps must use the standardized names from the Gazetteer because privately produced maps sometimes use official maps as an authority. Official maps are produced by BIG and they create a master map which is to be the sole basis for all other maps such as maps for mining, for tourism, for property development, or for natural disaster prediction. It is important that maps which are used as an important reference are reliable and standardized with reference to names and labels (Lauder, 2014) (Lauder and Lauder, 2015: 398).

SEA NAMES IN INDONESIA AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

Historical Perspective on Sea Names The literature on sea naming within the wider field of toponymy or hydronymy. For example, in the extensive and comprehensive treatment of The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming (Hough, 2016), there are chapters on river names (Strandberg, 2016) and island names (Gammeltoft, 2016), but no chapter on sea names. The conference proceedings Sea Names: Heritage, Perception and International Relations (The Society for the East Sea, 2015) is a rare exception. This overall coverage may have something to do with the relative number of seas versus other toponymic features such as islands or mountains. Yet when sea names are looked at systematically, we can see that they are worthy of our attention. One way to learn about the practice of naming seas in Southeast Asia is through the study of historical maps (Suarez, 2012). Ormeling (2010) in a study based on evidence from historic cartography provides analysis of this sort for sea names in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. He explains that though foreign influence on Indonesian toponymy is negligible, the same is not the case with the names of seas or other bodies of water. Apart from the South Sea

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 133

(Samudra Kidul or Laut Kidul) there was no indigenous tradition in naming specific water bodies and the naming of Indonesian seas was due to foreign or colonial intervention. In the earliest sources of maps of Indonesia and Southeast Asia are pilot books and maps, sea names are almost totally absent. It is possible to find names of other maritime features such as bays, straits and capes (Ormeling, 2010). The first world atlas produced was by Greek philosopher Ptolemy. Ptolemy refers to names that don’t exist today, and there have been many attempts to match those names with identifiable present day locations (Richardson, 2000). The atlas refers to the Indian Ocean and two seas in the area, Magnus Sinus, most likely present day or the China Sea, and the Sinus Gangeticus, or Gulf of Bengal. Between these is the Golden Chersonese, referring either to the Malay Peninsula, or to the whole Southeast Asian peninsula. Subsequently, navigational such as sea straits, reefs and begin to be named. The Dutch maps of the archipelago from the beginning of the 1700s show a number of sea straits, such as the Sunda Straits, Strait Drioens (Selat Durian), Strait Singapura, Strait Bangka, Strait Madura, Strait Bali, Strait Lombok and Strait Alas (Ormeling, 2010). In the earliest use of sea names, the seas are not demarcated as they are today. Rather, they mostly refer to the waters around a piece of land. So, the Sea refers to the seas around the island of Java, and the Timor Sea to the sea that Timor is located in. The boundaries of these seas are not clearly defined. However, by the 19th century, surrounding seas begin to be divided into smaller individual areas. For example, the begins to refer only to the sea located of the northern coast of Java and the sea off the south coast is called the Indian Ocean. During this period, mariners give attention to the straits and passages used by the clipper ships running for the tea trade. Straits were a priority because of the navigational challeng they presented (Ormeling, 2010). The 19th century also saw a greater interest in marine issues and more seas were named in reference and educational works. The Greater and Lesser Sunda Islands were named and the seas also gradually were given names. Whereas in the past, the seas had been seen as an inconvenience or barrier and not requiring a name, in this period, due to scientific research, the seas became interesting enough to deserve names (Ormeling, 2010). Sometimes confusion arose over sea names and their extent. One example is the Karimata Sea which was the name the Dutch used for what is presently the southernmost part of the South China Sea. It appears that for a while the South China Sea’s southerly extent was at the edge of the Natuna and Anambas islands. In the first half of the 19th century, much of the confusion was cleared up as a consensus was reached on how to define the extent of the different stretches of sea and their names (Ormeling, 2010). Etymology of Name Natuna Van der Meulen (1974) makes a case that Indian traders from the first century as reported in both Ptolemy and Sanskrit and other sources gave reports about a place called Chrysê Chersonêsos which in Greek means Island of Gold. He concludes that

134 SESSION IV this island is Sumatra and shows that contacts between Europe, via India to Sumatra and beyond had been going on throughout the various kingdom periods, , Majapahit and so on. Chinese sources mentioning gold appear in the 14th century distinguishing the high quality gold from Sumatra from the gold from Thailand and Patani. If Suvar• advîpa (or whatever a Gold Island was called in the language they used) for the pilots of the first century was an island in the strict sense of the word and a particular one, from the end of the seventh century onward there is no doubt at all that this island was Sumatra (Van der Meulen, 1974: 8) Describing a journey made by early traders, we are told they “continued to the southeast across the mouth of the Sinos River (South China Sea) and arrived, after passing Cape Notion (Natuna?), at the Animal Gulf, viz., Datuk Bay at the northwest tip of Borneo.” In a subsequent article, (Van der Meulen, 1975), he provides an etymological analysis of Natuna based on Ptolemy’s description. The first feature we should encounter after the mouth of the river Sinos is Notion Akron, presumably a Greek name meaning a moist or rainy cape. For Ptolemy, promontories or capes are general names for any kind of landmark or seamark, while river mouths primarily indicate opportunities for trade. We have associated this cape with the largest island of the Great (North) Natuna or Bunguran Besar group (the different names are used by different authors). This island, with its Ranai Peak (more than 3,000 feet) is without a doubt the main seamark on the crossing from Fu-nan to Datuk Bay . The name Bunguran (a kind of tree) is Malay, while Natuna sounds like Sanskrit and may indeed be a (corrupted) Sanskrit derivation in view of the fact that the Anambas group more to the west also sports a Sanskrit sounding name (anambhas means waterless, dry). If these non-Malay names are indeed of Sanskrit origin, Natuna could have developed from nâti-unna, not very or not too wet, through any of the more than ten centuries of Indian shipping and cultural influence. Nevertheless it would seem that Ptolemy's Sanskrit source was already familiar with the name nâti-unna, probably as an equivalent of ranai (drizzling or dripping), and that the Greek translator did his best to capture both the sound and the meaning of the original in his "notion." (Van der Meulen, 1975: 15). It is interesting that Sanskrit nâti-unna (Natuna) is an equivalent of Greek ranai (drizzling or dripping). Today, on Great Natuna or Bunguran, we find the capital of the region has the name Ranai, and there is also a Mt. Ranai, the highly visible peak on the island that was used for millenia by mariners as a navigation point. There is also the strangely complementary nature of the names for the adjacent Natunas group and that for the Anambas group. They both refer to weather conditions, one wetish, the other dry. A search of the web will easily bring up photographs of the mountain with a cap of clouds, or on a grey, rainy day.

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 135

Figure 2. Alif Stone with Ranai Mountain Background Natuna (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aksarafilms/34295849784) Sea Name Categories and Understanding North Natuna Sea Ormeling (2000) identifies a number of categories for sea names based on the type of referent. Referents he uses include cardinal directions, nations, people, places, attributes, rivers flowing into the sea, adjacent areas, and countries. This systematic approach allows us to examine sea names from an objective perspective, with regard to the type, origin, and territorial implications of the choice of name. We will look at the name North Natuna Sea using this approach. First of all, while North Natuna Sea is a new name, the Natuna Sea is not. It has been in use for a long time appearing in early European and Indian manuscripts. In terms of Ormeling’s sea name categories, the North Natuna Sea is named for the adjascent areas to them, namely the Natuna islands. The North Natuna Sea is a relatively small body of water. So, why was it not named the North Natuna Gulf or the North Natuna Bay. One possible reason is that both gulf and bay suggest partial enclosure by land formation, whereas Natuna Sea suggests being surrounded by the sea. Ormeling (2000: 57) suggests that the terms gulf and bay refer to smaller bodies of water and so are more localized. Sea naming can have semantic and other connotations, depending on the category and the structure of the name. In the case of the name North Natuna Sea, it is a sea named after the adjacent area of Natuna Island. It has the structure Direction + island name + Generic. North Natuna Sea has the basic meaning of adjacent to Natuna Island. The meaning construed is the sea ‘beyond’ or ‘off’ Natuna island. The possessive or

136 SESSION IV territorial implications of the name North Natuna Sea arise from its category of being adjascent to Natuna Island(s). Dual Naming Dual naming is a term that covers a number of slightly different states and conditions but at its heart is, as the name suggests, a manner of namng a place with a name constructed from two names. This might be done with a hyphen, or the word ‘and’ or just by putting the two names together. Dual naming has been discussed for example by Choo (2007, 2010). Dual naming has been suggested as an appropriate for naming places in Australia with indegnous names in addition to the English language one. This has occurred in cases where an ‘introduced’ name, usually in English is already well-established so its outright replacement with an Aboriginal one would not be realistic(Hodges, 2007: 393). Dual naming is usually positively motivated and is found widely with city names, and street names, but less so with country names. An example is Budapest which is the combination of Bud and Pest, in Hungary. You can also find exonym-endonym examples such as the dual use of Borneo with Kalimantan. See the map of the Indonesian archipelago above. The principles involved in dual naming concern whether the area is unified or divided, whether the area is clearly defined or has blurred borders, and whether its intention is to memorialize or respect cultural heritage or cultural identity, all of which can be seen as positive. The dual naming approach seems appropriate where the parties do not wish to divide the consted area into two separately named entities. Dual naming is a way of looking at a single area that is shared. In the case of the North Natuna Sea, the sea is sovereign territory of Indonesia. Neither the whole of that or any part of it is shared with any other state.

CONCLUSION This paper has looked at the naming of the North Natuna Sea by Indonesia in 2017. All sea and other maritime feature names including island names are the responsibility of the government. The processes that Indonesia has use to date involve adherence to international conventions, UNCLOS and IHO, and willingness to engage in bilateral negotiations where there may be constested claims from neighboring countries. In the case of Natuna and the North Natuna Sea, this is not a renaming of part of an area that is the South China Sea. It is the state’s sovereign right to name a section of its own marine territory, including its EEZ. Niether is it a case of dual naming. Indonesia has given no indication that they regard the area of the North Natuna Sea to be a part of the South China Sea. The South China Sea is an example of a sea that was first named in antiquity and which did not have a clear demarcated boundary. The boundaries of the South China Sea have changed over the centuries. Indonesia has maritime boundaries with a

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 137 number of countries, but China is not one of them. The act of giving the area the name North Natuna Sea occurs at a time when Indonesia has the responsibility to protect the area from illegal fishing and from any threats to its oil and gas exploratioin. The name North Natuna Sea is a sign that underscores Indonesia’s territorial rights to those waters. The main focus of our paper is the task of managing and standardizing the names of its seas and islands. Indonesia’s size and scale mean that the inventorying of islands requires a committed and sustained investment of different resources and coordination among several government and armed agencies.

REFERENCE Butcher, J. G. (2009). Becoming an archipelagic state: The Juanda declaration of 1957 and the 'Struggle' to gain international recognition of the archipelagic principle. In Cribb, R. and Ford, M. (eds.), Indonesia Beyond the Water's Edge: Managing an Archipelagic State (pp. 28-48). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Butcher, J. G., and Elson, R. E. (2017). Sovereignty and the sea: How Indonesia became an archipelagic state. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Chapsos, Ioannis, and Malcolm, James A. (2017). Maritime security in Indonesia: Towards a comprehensive agenda? Marine Policy, 76, pp. 178-184. Choo, S. (2007). Recent progress for restoring the name East Sea and future research agenda. Journal of the Korean Cartographic Association, 7(1), pp. 1-9. Choo, S. (2010). Geopolitics of the East Sea and the issue of its naming. Journal of the Korean Cartographic Association, 10(2), p. 1-11. Cochran, J. (2017). "Indonesia, long on sidelines, starts to confront China’s territorial claims". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-09-10. Connelly, A. L.(2017). "Indonesia’s new North Natuna Sea: What’s in a name?". The Interpreter. Retrieved 2017-07-18. Cribb, R., and Ford, M. (2009). Indonesia as an archipelago: Managing islands, managing the seas. In Cribb, R. and Ford, M. (eds.), Indonesia Beyond the Water's Edge: Managing an Archipelagic State (pp. 1-27). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Fels, E., and Vu, T.M. (2016). Introduction: Understanding the importance of the disputes in the South China Sea. In Fels, E., and Vu, T.M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (pp. 3-24). New York: Springer. Forbes, V. L. (2014). Indonesia’s delimited maritime boundaries. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Gammeltoft, P. (2016). Island names. In Hough, C.(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming (pp. 125-134). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gindarsah, I., and Priamarizki, A. (2015). Indonesia’s Maritime Doctrine and Security Concerns. RSIS Policy Report, 9(9). Hellendorff, B. (2016). ‘Coopetition’ and risk tolerance in the South China Sea: Indonesia and Malaysia’s middle power strategies. In Fels, E., and Vu, T.M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (pp. 289-318). New York: Springer. Hodges, F. (2007). Language planning and placenaming in Australia. Issues in Language Planning, 8(3), pp. 383-403. Hough, C. ed. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

138 SESSION IV

Hunt, L. (2017). "Indonesia new North Natuna Sea: A response to an old China problem". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2014-10-03. Indonesia. P. M., and Djuanda. (1957). Djawaban Pemerintah atas pemandangan umum babak ke-I D.P.R., diutjapkan oleh Perdana Menteri Hadji Djuanda dalam rapat pleno D.P.R. mengenai keterangan Pemerintah tentang usaha² menormalisasi keadaan R.I. Djakarta: Kementerian Penerangan R.I. Laksmana, E. A., and Supriyanto, R. A. (2018). Abandoned at sea: The tribunal ruling and Indonesia's missing archipelagic foreign policy. Asian Politics & Policy, 10(2), pp. 300-321. Lauder, A. F., and Lauder, Multamia. R.M.T. (2015). Ubiquitous place names: standardization and study in Indonesia. Wacana, 16(2), pp. 383-410. Lauder, Multamia. R.M.T. (2014). Memahami Manfaat Toponimi bagi Jatidiri Bangsa. Paper read at Rapat Pendampingan Dekonsentrasi Pembinaan & Pembakuan Nama Rupabumi Unsur Alami. Hotel Acacia, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 20, 2014. Ormeling, F. (2000). Sea names categories and their implications. Journal of Geography Education, 44, pp. 54-61. Ormeling, F. (2010). Changing Indonesian Sea names. In Proceedings of the 16th International Seminar on Sea names (pp. 133-147). Den Haag. Parameswaran, P. (2016). Delicate Equilibrium: Indonesia’s Approach to the South China Sea. In Fels, E., and Vu, T.M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (pp. 319-336). New York: Springer. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 1960. Law No. 4/ PRP on Indonesian Waters. 18 Feb 1960. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 1985. Act no. 17 of 1985 on the Ratification of UN Convention concerning the Law of the Sea. 31 December 1985. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 2009. Law No. 24/2009 on the National Flag, National Language, State Emblem, and National Emblem. 9 July 2009. Rais, J. (2006). National standardization of geographical names in Indonesia. eds. Rais, J., Lauder., Santoso, W. E., Suparwati, T. In Proceedings of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Training Course on Toponymy (pp. 21-24). Cibinong, Indonesia. 11-23 September 2005. National Coordination Agency for Surveys and Mapping (BAKOSURTANAL): Cibinong, Indonesia. Rais, J., Lauder, Multamia R.M.T., Santoso, W. E., Suparwati, T., and Wiryaningsih, A. (2008). Prinsip dan prosedur Pembakuan Nama Rupabumi [Principles and procedures for standardizing geographical names]. In Rais, J. (eds.), Toponimi Indonesia: Sejarah Budaya yang Panjang dari Permukiman Manusia dan Tertib Administrasi. (pp. 83-95). Jakarta: Pradya Paramita. Richardson, W. A. R. (2000). East and South-East Asia: Cartographers' attempts to reconcile the maps of Ptolemy and Martellus with Marco Polo's Travels and with Portuguese charts. Terrae Incognitae, 32(1), pp. 1-22. Strandberg, S. (2016). River Names. In Hough. C.(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming (pp. 104-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suarez, Thomas. 2012. Early mapping of Southeast Asia: The epic story of seafarers, adventurers, and cartographers who first mapped the regions between China and India. Singapore: Periplus. Supriyanto, R. A. (2017). Indonesia’s Natuna Islands: Next Flashpoint in the South China Sea. In Kassim, Y.R. (eds.), South China Sea Disputes: The: Flashpoints, Turning Points and Trajectories (pp. 315-318). New Jersey & London: World Scientific Publishing Company. The Society for the East Sea ed. (2015). Sea Names: Heritage, Perception and International Relations: Proceedings of the 21st International Seminar on Sea Names, Helsinki, Finland, 23-26 August 2015.

Multamia RMT LAUDER and Allan F. LAUDER 139

United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea: United Nations. United Nations. (2009). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Van der M., W.J. (1974). Suvar• advîpa and the Chrysê Chersonêsos. Indonesia, 18, pp. 1-40. Van der M., W.J. (1975). Ptolemy's geography of mainland Southeast Asia and Borneo. Indonesia (19), pp. 1-32.

140 SESSION IV