The idea of preservation in the maritime realm is a complex, multidimensional subject with many aspects presenting dualistic meaning, sometimes in opposition to one another, and other times relying on each part to represent its meaning. For example, ‘authenticity’, has subjective and objective narratives. The ‘authentic’ experience has different meaning for the outsider as it does for the visitor or tourist. Also ‘material’ preservation and ‘knowledge’ preservation are linked in a way that one without the other cannot exist. Lastly the idea of preservation of technology can hardly be shown without the linear framework of ‘time’ in arrangement with the other icons that have come before and after the object. Placing an object frozen on timeline allows a reference for the practitioner or to begin to explain the object’s position, role, and history in its community. While grappling with these aspects of preservation several unifying topics emerge. Through the discussion of the role of the heritage vessels, it is possible to show the importance of ‘function’ and ‘place’ in the present time and begin to explain authentic meaning for the groups that have used, and will use the vessel throughout history, and into the future. It is these groups, and in this place, that the functional vessel has emerged and in which the ‘authentic’ knowledge, maritime skills, and heritage has accumulated surrounding its tangible frame. The communities who reside on or near the sea and are familiar with its evolution, understand how the heritage vessels have formed from the need to perform some specific societal functions, and what these functions mean, are best equipped to be the one to preserve and interpret this knowledge and the objects associated with them rather than outside groups or national bodies. The preservation of these objects and the preservation of knowledge are two entirely different concepts. While in the curation of a preserved object the function and location of the tangible material can be explained in an informal manner, as on an information board or recording to explain to the passive observer its meaning and relate understanding. The observer will experience the sight and description, but the deep meaning of the object cannot be understood without an actual experience presented in its natural environment. This analogy is similar to studying animal behavior in a zoo. One can hardly expect to understand the full behaviors of the captive tiger, or any of the other great cats in a closed breeding structure; for that understanding the animals must instead be observed in their native habitat of the savannah. A great deal of maritime heritage preservation efforts focus preserving objects rather than the intangible aspects of knowledge that these objects represent. Maritime heritage does include these objects, and relies on them, but removing them from their native habitat, or functional location, diminishes the possibility for the transmission of intangible heritage, which includes the ideas, stories, songs and lore; that body of cultural knowledge that is tied to the vessels themselves. It is when the functional object, the boat, is in the location of its creation that the deep meaning of the objects’ role, and place within the environment, community and culture, comes into view. The modes of teaching and learning are relevant here, as the form of curation required to extend the intangible aspects of maritime heritage, cannot be conveyed in a passive sense. The constructivist instructional approach as described by Bruner (1991) is one where the learner creates understanding through personal experience and interaction with external environment. This is a student-centered method that uses learning by doing, or an experiential model. It is contrasted with an instructor-focused ‘ex cathedra’ approach where the student is a passive receptor of knowledge and the instructor there to explicate meaning to the group. In the case of intangible heritage much of the learning required to perform tasks come in the variety of intrinsic knowledge that is transmitted though tacit learning as described in chapter 1. Entwistle (2000) contrasts the two methods stating surface learning is “matter of memorizing and reproducing knowledge in ways acceptable to the teacher.” Deep learning creates “personal meaning by transforming information and ideas in terms of their own previous knowledge and understanding” (ibid:4). In the case of the curation of intangible heritage, the need for a constructivist instruction to allow for deep learning to transpire is most evident. The previous chapters have built upon several themes that outline the current state of preservation in the Adriatic and define elements necessary for their existence in the past and into the future. The guidelines set in order to have the highest level of intergenerational intangible heritage follows as shown in the semiotic square in chapter 1 (Figure 1) The in place/functional vessel supports the highest level of intangible knowledge being passed down. The need for an economic role of the vessel is clearly shown as not only the reason why the gajeta from Murter has survived in great numbers up to this point, as shown in Part II but, also the symbolic role as a član obitelji or family member, supports the preservation of the vessel. This meaning, economic or otherwise which the local island community has created has helped in its preservation. This has allowed for the conservation of the great numbers of these vessels. The preservation of the gajeta has occurred though defining and redefining a relevant purpose for the vessel in the society in which it resides. This brings about the question of the importance of authenticity. Authenticity and functionality in this domain can be used interchangeably. In regards to preservation of intangible heritage, functionality is paramount to authenticity. An objects authenticity can be on a spectrum from truly authentic to symbolically authentic. The importance that the tools are functional for the educational process to occur, and the passing of knowledge to occur generationally, is more relevant than the object or the tangible aspects of the lesson itself. For example, the terms used on the boat can be learned from the use of a model, with each line in its proper place, and even the knots used could conceivably be passed on, but the movement of the vessel in varying wind conditions needs to be learned on the boat in the sea. The importance here is the educational aspects of the voyage, not the authentic nature of the boat, or the model. The important feature of the program is only that the intangible aspects are being portrayed. Creating a methodology of curating the intangible aspects of maritime heritage, one that allows participants to learn and understand the meaning of this knowledge, is a challenge. The first step in meeting that challenge is to present a functional vessel in the place in which it resides. The methodology of the maritime heritage trail allows the geographic flexibility, which can serve to unite several island and coastal regions, which are in process of maintaining local maritime, ecological, and cultural knowledge for future generations. Synthesizing a vast array of topics, the maritime heritage trail as a methodology serves to unite several areas in the maritime region while allowing the participants to independently develop, curate, and manage the body of knowledge and artifacts that have been acquired throughout the centuries. Utilizing this framework would put people in the center, and artifacts and museums would align to help build on the ideas, knowledge, and lore of the story that is being passed down. It is a fundamental shift in the nature of heritage curation. Each member of the larger organization would be responsible for its own heritage and the viewer is an active participant in the process rather than a passive observer of the object itself. If the preservation of intangible maritime heritage is one that the local society values, then the methodology of functional preservation should be adopted and linked to other member organizations along a route that chooses similar conceptual ideas. Looking to the future, the curation, preservation and education activities surrounding heritage vessels in the Adriatic can be supported by such a network. However, each of these categories cannot be separated from one another. The education of the younger generation cannot occur without the physical object in which to perform the task and understand the meaning. The curation of the objects provides a role for the community within the modern tourist economy that is present along the coast. Lastly, youth education and cultural tourism can provide meaning for the community members and outsiders who visit or live in the region that the programs serve. The Adriatic coast and islands is a rich and bountiful region with a cultural legacy that retained many of its historic maritime craft, a collection that has few rivals. The preservation of these objects implicitly ties knowledge, lore, and heritage together. Utilizing the functional methodology of preservation will ensure the conservation of this legacy and safeguard intangible maritime heritage for future generations.