Assessment on geoarchaeological sensitivity value of the almost forgotten ancient river relocation in Prambanan Temple Complex, Indonesia

Assessment on geoarchaeological sensitivity value of the almost forgotten ancient river relocation in Prambanan Temple Complex, Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assessment on geoarchaeological sensitivity value of the almost forgotten ancient river relocation in Prambanan Temple Complex, Indonesia Anugrah Aditya Insani, Sugeng Riyanto, Hery Priswanto, Baskoro Daru Tjahjono This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Prambanan Temple is one of Indonesia's UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Its construction in the 9th century AD required a series of geoecological prerequisites. To meet these requirements and protect the temple complex from erosion, the course of the Opak River was relocated and the third temple’s courtayard fence was repositioned by ancient javanese people in the context of anthropogenic relocation of landform. However, the relocation of Opak River course has received relatively little attention in discussions about the anthropogenic landform relocation on Prambanan Temple construction. Consequently, the relocated river course faces risks of damage and is increasingly disconnected from its archaeological context. This research aims to (1) conduct a geoarchaeological significance assessment; (2) conduct a threat assessment based on the probability and impact of possible disasters; (3) conduct a vulnerability assessment on the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attributes; (4) assess the geoarchaeological sensitivity index based on geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability in the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The findings reveal that the relocated segment of the Opak River that flows through Prambanan Temple can be considered a geoarchaeological attribute of Prambanan Temple and has high significance values, yet it faces low threats and medium vulnerability. The geoarchaeological sensitivity index shows a low value. However, attention to its existence needs to be considered given its intrinsic and extrinsic values, even though the geoarchaeological sensitivity index shows a low value. Opak River Anthropogenic Landform Modification Prambanan Temple Geoarchaeology Spatial Archaeology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction The Prambanan Temple, located northeast of Yogyakarta in Indonesia, is the largest Hindu temple complex in Indonesia. As stated in the Sivargha inscription, the temple was constructed in the 9th century AD by Rakai Pikatan (Ibrahim, 1996 ). The journal of C. A. Lons in 1733 AD constituted the initial scientific documentation to disseminate information about the Prambanan Temple, which had previously remained obscured for an extended period (Soejono, 1990; Santiko, 1992 ). The site has been the focus of numerous research endeavors, with the first documented studies conducted by H.C. Cornelis in 1805 and subsequent systematic measurements recorded by Santiko in 1992 (Santiko, 1992 ). In 1952, the Shiva Temple, a prominent structure within the Prambanan Temple complex, underwent restoration and was formally inaugurated through a modest ceremony (Kempers, 1985 ). Subsequent studies on these sites and buildings have been produced, encompassing subjects such as sculpture, architecture, religion, and the political history of ancient Java. De Casparis ( 1956 ) utilized this Sivargha inscription as a fundamental component in determining the chronology of the construction of Prambanan Temple. According to de Casparis, the construction period of Prambanan Temple was during the reign of King Pikatan, as indicated by the Siwagrha inscription, which dates back to 856 AD. Lines 11–25 of the inscription refer to a series of temples that were consecrated during the reign of King Pikatan. Moreover, a particularly intriguing element pertaining to the inscription's content merits attention. Within the Sivargha Inscription, a sentence has been recorded that reads, "Lwāh ya inalih hakén apaniyānid ik palmahan" which translates to "then the flow of the river is diverted because it touches the temple grounds" (Tjahjono & Widianto, 1994 ). The alteration of river courses by human societies cannot be underestimated. The anthropogenic modifications occurred in the past of Opak River, particularly before the Industrial Revolution, has significant intrinsic, extrinsic, geological-geomorphological, and archaeological value that need to conserv. This is because human-induced river alterations are uniquely significant in their existence, serving as archaeological records and water management-type of anthropogenic interventions from the past. These aspects can be identified through perspectives on geoconservation, anthropogenic geomorphology, and the paleoanthropocene (Nir, 1983 ; Szabó, 2010 ; Braje & Erlandson, 2013 ; Foley et al., 2013 ; Crofts et al., 2020 ). Regrettably, the relocated course of the Opak River near the Prambanan Temple, along with its potential values, has not been further studied, at least since 1994 (Tjahjono & Widianto, 1994 ). Yet, the modified Opak River course is an integral part of the cosmological landscape of Prambanan Temple and the spatial archaeology of the Ancient Mataram Kingdom remain constelations. Additionally, challenges related to research, education, and cultural heritage preservation pose significant issues in the management of the Prambanan Temple complex (Riyanto, 2007 ). 2. Research Aim In principle, Prambanan Temple is an archaeological record, a cultural heritage site whose existence must be interpreted as an archaeological phenomenon in a broad cultural context. The interpretation of an archaeological phenomenon in a broad context, the cultural context, includes the environment, technology, and actions, as well as the context as a “text” or discourse that can be read (Hodder, 1986). In this case, information about the environmental aspects of Prambanan Temple and actions in the past was obtained from the contents of the Sivagrha inscription, which mentions the “diversion of a river” during the construction of this temple. Based on this, it can be ascertained that the river was an integral part of Prambanan Temple as an archaeological record as a whole and was a geoarchaeological phenomenon. This research aims to (1) conduct a geoarchaeological significance assessment; (2) conduct a threat assessment based on the probability and impact of possible disasters; (3) conduct a vulnerability assessment on the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attributes; (4) assess the geoarchaeological sensitivity index based on geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability in the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The limitations of this research include (1) the Opak River channel, which Tjahjono & Widianto (1984) refer to as a river whose course was altered so that it would not touch the temple grounds; (2) anthropogenic geomorphology as a science for identifying human intervention in nature in geomorphological terms (Szabó, 2010 ); and (3) geoarchaeological heritage as a term for heritage with primary geological, geomorphological, and archaeological value. This study is, to a certain extent, related to spatial archaeology, which examines the relationship between objects, between objects and sites, or between sites and their physical environment as resources (Mundardjito, 1993 ). 3. The Study Area The study area is the Opak River in the western part of the Kewu Plain, which Tjahjono and Widianto ( 1994 ) documented as a river that was relocated for the construction of Prambanan Temple. The Kewu Plain (also known as the Prambanan Plain) is a geographical region characterized by an average elevation of + 140 meters above sea level. This plain is currently situated within two distinct administrative regions: the Special Region of Yogyakarta and Central Java Province (Fig. 1 ). The term "Kewu Plain" is more frequently employed in studies of ancient Mataram archaeology than in the context of physiography. The region's significance stems from its rich archaeological heritage, dating back to the ancient Mataram period. This heritage encompasses various sites such as palace complexes, Buddhist and Hindu temples, monumental statues, and ancient mining areas. The Kewu Plain's relative fertility is attributable to its proximity to the Merapi Volcano, which regularly emits mineral-rich material, and its traversal by rivers. Furthermore, the strategic importance of the Baturagung (or Abhayagiri) Mountain Range, which features a notable disparity in altitude, is accentuated by the topography of the plain, rendering it a significant military defensive asset. Consequently, this plain—in conjunction with the Kedu Plain (frequently designated as the Kedu-Kewu axis)—emerged as the epicenter of cultural and historical evolution in central Java over the course of several centuries (Wirasanti, 2023 ). In the context of heritage management, the western portion of the Kewu Plateau and a segment of the Baturagung Mountain Range are encompassed within the Jogja National Geopark. Concurrently, the Kewu Plain is also home to the Klaten Aspiring Geopark. However, the archaeological remains from the Ancient Mataram period in Prambanan, in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, have not yet been fully incorporated as cultural heritage in the Jogja Geopark. Instead, they are classified as part of cultural heritage sites at the regional, national, and international levels through the designation of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In this regard, Prambanan Temple is currently designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Concurrently, within Prambanan in Central Java Province, the archaeological sites originating from the Ancient Mataram period have been incorporated into the cultural heritage of the Klaten Aspiring Geopark. Materials and Method The present study comprises four key components of assessment: (1) the evaluation of geoarchaeological significance; (2) the assessment of threats based on the probability and impact of potential hazards; (3) the evaluation of vulnerability; and (4) the calculation of the geoarchaeological sensitivity index, derived from the integration of geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability within the Prambanan–Opak River relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The data employed in this research include previous studies, field observations, geomorphological and land use maps obtained from the Indonesian Bureau of Geospatial Information, and high-resolution imagery sourced from Google Earth layers. This study applies an assessment of geoarchaeological significance, threat level, and vulnerability to the geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex, specifically the Opak River relocation in Prambanan. The assessment indicators are presented in Tables 1 and 2 . Table 1 outlines the criteria, indicators, and values for the geoarchaeological significance assessment, while Table 2 presents those used in the vulnerability assessment. The criteria, indicators, and scoring values were adapted to reflect the specific characteristics of the site and the objectives of the evaluation. The threat index, on the other hand, was determined through a matrix-based assessment of probability and impact following the frameworks of Cox ( 2008 ), Levenson (2011), Arda et al. ( 2023 ), and Kubalíková & Balková ( 2023 ). The final scores for significance, threat, and vulnerability were obtained by summing the individual indicator values assigned to each study object and then calculating the percentage relative to the ideal total value. The threat index calculation involved several specific stages. First, priority hazards were identified. Second, an assessment of probability and impact was conducted, and their product that representing the degree of risk (Cox, 2008 ; Levenson, 2011; Arda et al., 2023 ; Kubalíková & Balková, 2023 ) was calculated. This was referred to as the threat degree. Subsequently, a reclassification process was undertaken, reducing the original four threat classes (Cox, 2008 ; Levenson, 2011; Arda et al., 2023 ; Kubalíková & Balková, 2023 ) into three, to align with the other assessments. In this reclassification, the high and severe categories were merged into a single class (3), while moderate and low were assigned values of 2 and 1, respectively. All hazard values, both natural and anthropogenic, were aggregated, and their percentages calculated by comparing the actual scores with the ideal total value. Finally, the geoarchaeological sensitivity index was then derived using Formula 1. Formula 1. Geoarchaeology sensitivity value equations $$\:\text{G}\text{A}\text{S}\text{V}=\frac{\text{T}\text{V}\text{*}\text{V}\text{V}}{\text{S}\text{g}\text{V}}$$ 1 …………………………………………………………………………………. Table 1 Criteria, Indicator, and Value of Geoarchaeological Significance No Criteria Indicator Value 1 Geological-geomorphological Rarity Value The geoarchaeological site is rare in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view 3 The geoarchaeological site is not so rare in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view 2 The geoarchaeological site is common in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view 1 2 Archaeological Rarity Value The geoarchaeological site is rare in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view 3 The geoarchaeological site is not so rare in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view 2 The geoarchaeological site is common in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view 1 3 Geological-geomorphological Representativess Value The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of the earth 3 The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of a country 2 The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of a region in some of country 1 4 Archaeological Representativess Value The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of the earth 3 The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of a country 2 The geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of a region in some of country 1 5 Geological-geomorphological Scientific Value There is international scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 3 There is national scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 2 There is no published paper which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 1 6 Archaeological Scientific Value There is archeological national scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 3 There is archeological international scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 2 There is no published scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site 1 7 Geoarchaeological Relatedness Value The main geoarchaeological object are directly related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas 3 The main geoarchaeological object are indirectly related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas 2 The main geoarchaeological object is not related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas 1 Table 2 Criteria, Indicator, and Value of Vulnerability of Geoarchaeological Significance No Criteria Indicator Value 1 Legal Protection There is national legislative protection 3 There is regional legislative protection 2 No legal protection 1 2 Geoarchaeological Integrity Value The main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) is well preserved 3 The main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) not so well preserved because of some minor degradation 2 The main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) is completely altered 1 3 Community Awareness The geoarchaeological site is known by public 3 The geoarchaeological site is known by some of certain community (eg. Scientific community) 2 The geoarchaeological site is unknown 1 5. Theory and Calculation 5.1. The Geoecological Requirement to Build a Temple Natural resources were among the primary considerations in temple construction (Mundardjito, 2002 ; Wirasanti, 2023 ). According to Mundardjito ( 2002 ), the establishment of temples in the Yogyakarta region took into account a range of (geo)ecological aspects. These considerations were guided by the Manasara Silpasastra and Silpaprakasa texts, which state that only fertile land, with permeable soils capable of absorbing water and located near a water source, particularly at the confluence of two rivers (tempuran in Javanese), was deemed suitable for the construction of sacred structures. The Silpaprakasa text further prohibits temple construction on dry land or in areas far from water sources. This reflects the traditional understanding that temples are sacred edifices (Soekmono, 2017 ). Soekmono ( 1974 , 2017 ) also asserted that a sacred place possesses inherent sanctity due to its own natural potential, implying that the selection of land holds a position of great importance in temple construction. Mundardjito ( 1993 , 2002 ) reinforced this notion, emphasising that the choice of land was of paramount importance. It indeed even more significant than the temple itself. From the perspectives of Soekmono ( 1974 , 2017 ) and Mundardjito ( 1993 , 2002 ), it can be understood that a sacred structure must be established upon land considered equally “sacred”. Such land, regarded as sacred, embodies (geo)ecological characteristics capable of supporting both the material and spiritual needs of human life. Beyond the availability of land resources, the concept of worship within sacred architecture is intrinsically linked to the management of water resources, viewed as both a sacred and purifying entity. Therefore, the geomorphological characteristics of the landscape played a crucial role in determining the location and establishment of sacred buildings. 5.2. Geoarchaeology and Geoarchaeological Heritage Geoarchaeology is an interdisciplinary field that integrates the study of archaeology and geomorphology, aiming to understand how natural and human processes have shaped and transformed landscapes over time (French, 2003 ; Christopher & George, 2014). One of the principal objectives of geoarchaeology is to apply empirical approaches from the natural sciences to the archaeological record (Christopher & George, 2014). Through this, an integrated model of the interactions between human and environmental systems can be established, enabling a deeper understanding of how both natural and anthropogenic factors influence landscape evolution (French, 2003 ; Christopher & George, 2014). Heritage that embodies both natural and cultural characteristics from the past is referred to as geoarchaeological heritage (Fouache & Rasse, 2009 ; Fouache et al., 2012; Melelli et al., 2016 ; Reynard & Giusti, 2018 ; Filippo et al., 2019 ; Piau et al., 2023 ). This concept encompasses heritage that is significant not only for its cultural or historical human value but also for its geological and natural dimensions, aligning closely with the principles and definitions of geoarchaeology. The sites that exemplify such interactions are known as geoarchaeosites or geoarchaeological sites (Fouache & Rasse, 2009 ; Piau et al., 2023 ). Geoarchaeological heritage reflects the outcomes of past interactions between humans and their natural environments, providing valuable insights into how human societies have adapted to, utilised, and even modified their surrounding landscapes. This interplay has resulted in a rich and complex legacy that endures today. Through the diversity of sites it encompasses, geoarchaeological heritage offers a distinctive perspective on understanding the past—one that tells not only the story of humankind but also the story of the Earth itself, which served as the stage upon which civilisations developed. 5.3. Anthropogenic Geomorphology Anthropogenic geomorphology is a branch of geomorphological study that focuses on artificial landforms, emphasising their material composition, origin, evolution, and spatial distribution (Nir, 1983 ; Panizza, 1996 ; Szabó, 2010 ). This field is closely associated with human interventions in the natural environment. Human intervention is defined as a disturbance to the existing equilibrium of nature (Nir, 1983 ). Such disturbances manifest in various forms, including interference with gravitational processes, the acceleration or deceleration of natural geomorphic dynamics, the concentration of human activities within limited areas yet of high intensity, and the degradation of existing ecosystems (Nir, 1983 ). Anthropogenic interventions can be categorised as either primary or secondary, depending on the motivation behind human activities (Szabó, 2010 ). For instance, agricultural terraces created through planation for cultivation purposes represent a form of primary anthropogenic intervention, whereas mounds of material left over from planation activities constitute secondary anthropogenic intervention (Szabó, 2010 ). Anthropogenic landforms may also be classified based on whether their impacts are direct or indirect, as human-induced geomorphic processes do not always act independently within the Earth system (Szabó, 2010 ). Direct anthropogenic interventions are those driven by processes distinct from natural ones and are undertaken with explicit intent or purpose (Szabó, 2010 ). In contrast, indirect anthropogenic interventions refer to human influences that accelerate or decelerate natural geomorphic processes without necessarily having a clear or deliberate motive (Szabó, 2010 ). A comprehensive classification of anthropogenic interventions is thus based on the motivation or nature of human activity (Szabó, 2010 ). These categories include: montanogenic (related to mining or excavation), industrogenic (industrial activity), urbanogenic (urban development), traffic-related, water management, agrogenic (agricultural modification), warfare-related, and those associated with tourism and recreation (Szabó, 2010 ). 5.4. Considerations of Abiotic and Cultural Environment in the Construction of Prambanan Temple The phrase “Lwāh ya inalih hakén apaniyānid ik palmahan,” meaning “thus the river’s course was diverted because it touched the temple courtyard,” implies that the river was intentionally redirected westward (Tjahjono & Widianto, 1994 ). Tjahjono and Widianto (1984) discussed this passage in conjunction with palaeogeomorphological evidence derived from geomorphological mapping conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). According to their analysis, the river that was diverted lies to the west of the Prambanan Temple, identified as the Opak River. Originally, the Opak River flowed across the temple courtyard before being redirected westward in a straight course for approximately one kilometre, then turning eastward for about 500 metres, before meandering back westwards (Tjahjono & Widianto, 1994 ). Contemporary geomorphological observations (Figs. 4 ) confirm the existence of this diverted river segment west of the Prambanan Temple, corresponding to the Opak River. In other words, both the inscriptional evidence and modern geomorphological data refer to the same spatial phenomenon. When this analytical framework is applied to recent geomorphological data at a scale of 1:50,000, it is evident that a section of the Opak River indeed flows westward in a straight channel before turning east. The meandering pattern of the river only appears further south of the Prambanan Temple Complex. Referring back to the inscriptional phrase “Lwāh ya inalih hakén apaniyānid ik palmahan” from the Sivagrha inscription, it can be determined that an ancient anthropogenic intervention took place in the Prambanan–Opak River system. Based on the analysis of Tjahjono and Widianto (1984) and the corresponding spatial review, it can thus be confirmed that the river diversion formed an integral part of the Prambanan Temple’s construction process. In addition to the river being redirected, the same inscription mentions that the outer enclosure wall and the third courtyard of the Prambanan Temple were “rotated” in position (Fig. 3 ) (Jordaan, 2009 ). This realignment of the wall is consistent with the redirection of the Prambanan–Opak River, as both actions were undertaken to protect the temple from erosion while maintaining its proximity to the water body. However, at present, the third enclosure wall has suffered damage and has been cut through by the course of the modern Opak River. Result 6.1. Geoarchaeological Significant Value (SgV) The assessment of geoarchaeological significance in this study is based on the following criteria: geological–geomorphological rarity value, archaeological rarity value, geological–geomorphological representativeness value, archaeological representativeness value, geological–geomorphological scientific value, archaeological scientific value, and geoarchaeological relatedness value. The Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex attained the maximum score for both rarity values. This is attributed to the exceptional scarcity of such attributes not only along the Kedu–Kewu corridor but also across Indonesia as a whole. A comparable example in the country is the construction of the Gomati Canal by the Tarumanegara civilisation in West Java. Both representativeness values were assigned a moderate score (2), as the site does not represent geological–geomorphological or archaeological features that exemplify globally or regionally unique processes, but rather those relevant primarily at the national scale, specifically within the Indonesian context. In terms of scientific value, the geological–geomorphological scientific value was rated at 1, while the archaeological scientific value received a score of 2. The limited scientific attention is evidenced by the fact that the article by Tjahjono & Widianto (1984) remains the only nationally published archaeological journal article that specifically addresses this site. No published geological or geomorphological papers on this particular area have been identified to date. Finally, the geoarchaeological relatedness value received the highest score (3), reflecting the strong interconnection between anthropogenic and natural geomorphological processes in the formation of this cultural landform, as well as its integration within an archaeological context. Overall, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex achieved a total score of 16 out of a possible 21, corresponding to a percentage of 76.19%, which classifies the site as possessing high geoarchaeological significance. 6.2. Threat Value (TV) The Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex are situated within an area simultaneously exposed to both natural and anthropogenic hazards. Based on a multi-scale geomorphological analysis, the identified threats include montanogenic (mining), agrogenic, urbanogenic, water management, traffic-related, lahar flow, ash fall, earthquakes, floods, erosion, and sedimentation processes. A disaster threat matrix encompassing these hazards is presented in Table 4 . Mining activities exhibit a moderate probability (3) and a low impact (1), resulting in a minor risk level (3). Such activities, which may involve material extraction, have the potential to disturb the soil structure or archaeological deposits. However, the scale of mining within the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological area of the Prambanan Temple Complex is limited, thereby minimising its overall risk. Agricultural activities demonstrate a high probability (4) and a significant impact (3), producing a major risk level (12). Intensive farming practices, such as irrigation and the use of fertilisers, may alter soil composition and hydrological patterns, adversely affecting the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex. These disturbances can result in the loss of valuable subsurface archaeological layers. Urbanisation presents an extremely high probability (5) and a significant impact (3), generating a major risk level (15). The expansion of settlements and infrastructure surrounding the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex accelerates the degradation of geoarchaeological resources. Land levelling, excavation, and construction along the riverbanks pose direct threats to the integrity of these sites. Threats associated with water management represent the most severe category, with a very high probability (5) and a significant impact (3), culminating in a severe risk level (15). Geotechnical modifications to river morphology—such as the construction of retaining walls and alterations to the riverbed—have been carried out in the northern part of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological area. These interventions, often linked to modern river engineering practices, may undermine features associated with Prambanan’s historical water management systems. Traffic, encompassing vehicular movement and other forms of transport, has a moderate probability (3) and a low impact (1), corresponding to a minor risk level (5). The presence of several bridges along the river corridor contributes to this risk. Although the impact is relatively small, vibrations caused by traffic can compromise the structural stability of nearby archaeological layers. Lahar flows originating from Mount Merapi exhibit a moderate probability (3) and a significant impact (3), resulting in a moderate risk level (9). These flows can physically damage geoarchaeological structures located along the river corridor. Similarly, volcanic ash fall shows a moderate probability (3) and a significant impact (3), also producing a moderate risk level (9). Ash deposition can blanket the geoarchaeological attributes, complicating conservation and research efforts. Earthquakes present a moderate probability (3) and a severe impact (4), leading to a major risk level (12). Tectonic activity can cause substantial structural damage to geoarchaeological sites and intensify erosional processes, thereby endangering these fragile resources. Table 3 Value of geoarchaeological significant value (SgV) from Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex No Criteria Value from certain sites 1 Geological-geomorphological Rarity Value 3 2 Archaeological Rarity Value 3 3 Geological-geomorphological Representativess Value 2 4 Archaeological Representativess Value 2 5 Geological-geomorphological Scientific Value 1 6 Archaeological Scientific Value 2 7 Geoarchaeological Relatedness Value 3 Total: 16/21; Percentage: 76.19% Class: High Floods, characterised by a high probability (4) but relatively low impact (2), produce a moderate risk level (6). Although flooding is a recurrent phenomenon, its effects are typically temporary; nonetheless, the potential for localised damage to archaeological deposits cannot be disregarded. Erosion displays a very high probability (5) and a moderate impact (3), resulting in a major risk level (15). Erosional processes can strip away essential soil layers that contain archaeological information. Similarly, sedimentation, with a very high probability (5) and a moderate impact (3), also yields a major risk level (15). Sediment accumulation can bury the geoarchaeological attributes, obstructing both access and investigation. Based on the overall threat analysis, the values and classes of threats were determined. Anthropogenic threats accounted for 45.45%, while natural threats represented 40%, yielding a total threat value of 42.3%. This indicates a medium threat class for the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex. Table 3 Threat class of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex Threats Probability Impact Degree of Risk Class (4) Reclass (3) Anthropogenic Threats Montanogenic (mining) 3 1 3 (minor) 1 1 Agrogenic 4 3 12 (major) 3 3 Urbanogenic 5 3 15 (major) 3 3 Water Management 5 3 15 (major) 3 3 Traffic 3 1 3 (minor) 1 1 Natural Threats Lahar Flow 3 3 9 (moderate) 2 2 Ash Fall 3 3 9 (moderate) 2 2 Earthquake 3 4 12 (major) 3 3 Flood 4 2 6 (moderate) 2 2 Erosion 5 3 15 (major) 3 3 Sedimentation 5 3 15 (major) 3 3 Table 4 Threat value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex Threat Anthropogenic Threat 5/11 45.45% Natural Threat 6/15 40.00% Total 11/26 42.30% Class Medium 6.3. Vulnerability Value (VV) The vulnerability value is composed of three indicators: legal protection, geoarchaeological integrity, and community awareness. In terms of legal protection, this attribute remains largely unaddressed and tends to be neglected. This condition stems from the fact that the river has not yet been formally integrated as an integral component of the Prambanan Temple Complex or the broader constellation of archaeological sites within the Kewu Plain. Meanwhile, both geoarchaeological integrity and community awareness received a score of 2. The score of 2 for geoarchaeological integrity is attributed to the presence of minor degradation, particularly in the form of riverbank erosion observed in the southern section of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex. Such processes may result in the loss of undiscovered archaeological data or alter the river’s flow patterns over an extended period. Similarly, the score of 2 for community awareness reflects the limited understanding of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex, which is currently recognised only within the archaeological community, with little to no awareness among the general public. Table 5 Vulnerability value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex No Criteria Value from certain sites 1 Legal Protection 1 2 Geoarchaeological Integrity Value 2 3 Community Awareness 2 Total: 5/9; Percentage: 55.55% Class: Medium 6.4. Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Value (GASV) Based on the SgV, TV, and VV values, the SgV was calculated. The SgV recorded a value of 76.19% (high), the TV registered 42.3% (medium), and the VV reached 44.44% (medium). The results of the GASV calculation indicate a low class, with a value of 24.67%. Accordingly, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex do not require urgent conservation measures, given their relatively low sensitivity value. Effective conservation of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex necessitates a balanced strategy that simultaneously addresses anthropogenic and natural threats. Furthermore, the vulnerability should be reduced by maintaining the integrity of the site without altering its archaeological context, ensuring its protection through legal instruments, and enhancing public awareness among both local communities and the wider public. By prioritising water management without compromising the archaeological context, regulating urbanisation and agricultural activities, mitigating natural hazards, utilising technology, and mobilising as well as involving various stakeholders, a resilient conservation framework can be established. Safeguarding these sites is not merely a matter of preserving cultural heritage but also of securing a legacy for future generations that embodies the harmonious coexistence of nature and human history within the region. Discussion Intrinsically and extrinsically, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex constitute a site of exceptional interest. The intrinsic value of this attributes demonstrates that it is not merely a religious complex as it is widely recognised today, but also a locus of abiotic diversity marked by an anthropogenic feature, namely the deliberate diversion of a river channel. The extrinsic value of this attributes reveals that the site is uniquely Table 4 Geoarchaeology sensitivity value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex Value Percentage Class SgV 76.19% High TV 42.30% Medium VV 55.55% Medium GASV 30.84% Low significant in terms of its hydroarchaeological characteristics when compared with other sites from the Ancient Mataram Kingdom. Typically, hydroarchaeological sites from that period are represented by petirtaan (ritual bathing pools) for purification. In contrast, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex involve a natural river that was intentionally redirected to protect the temple from potential damage. Physical evidence of this ancient river course modification serves as crucial archaeological data, indicating the presence of anthropogenic intervention in river management during the past. The key physical indicator is the river morphology itself, whose flow direction was deliberately altered (Fig. 4 ). Undertaking such a large-scale engineering project in the 9th century AD would have required various tools and technologies: equipment for digging, lifting, and transporting soil; tools for breaking and moving stones; temporary barriers to divert water flow to enable construction work; and instruments for building ancient embankments to prevent erosion on the newly filled riverbanks. Some of these tools may have been abandoned on-site, either due to damage or intentional disposal. If such artefacts alongside the natural and anthropogenic stratigraphy, modified river channel forms, and associated construction materials can still be identified, they would represent highly valuable geoarchaeological evidence. These findings could elucidate human – environment interactions surrounding the Prambanan Temple, particularly in relation to the Opak River environment. Moreover, they would serve as physical corroboration of the written account found in the Sivagrha inscription, which records that the establishment of Prambanan Temple required the diversion of the Opak River to prevent it from encroaching upon the sacred compound. Prambanan Temple could not be separated from its surrounding landscape, which included Mount Merapi, nearby hills, and especially the Opak River located to the west of the temple. The presence of the Opak River is explicitly mentioned in the Sivagrha inscription concerning the temple’s construction. This indicates that the river played a central role in the process of establishing the temple. Before a sacred structure could be built, the designated ground had to be purified. When the consecrated ground intersected with the Opak River’s course, it became necessary to redirect the river to prevent it from disturbing the sanctified area. At present, evidence of the excavated and filled sections of the river channel is difficult to trace, as the riverbanks—particularly in the northern segment—have been reinforced with concrete, rendering them artificial. This modern riverbank construction has also altered the natural surface morphology of the river. While such reinforcement is beneficial today for preventing bank collapse during floods, it simultaneously erases valuable geoarchaeological data from the past. Consequently, this has made it increasingly challenging to verify the historical accuracy of the statement recorded in the Sivagrha inscription regarding the diversion of the Opak River during the construction of Prambanan Temple. Conclusion The Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex represent an ancient anthropogenic intervention associated with water management practices. The evidence supporting this interpretation derives from regional geomorphological characteristics and archaeological records, corroborated by written sources such as the Sivagrha inscription, dated to 856 AD. Consequently, this attributes can be interpreted through both geological–geomorphological and archaeological perspectives. The intrinsic value of the Prambanan–Opak River geocultural site indicates that it is not merely a religious structure as recognised today, but also a locus of abiotic–anthropogenic diversity manifested through the deliberate diversion of a river channel. The extrinsic value of the Prambanan–Opak River geocultural heritage demonstrates its hydroarchaeological uniqueness when compared with other sites associated with the Ancient Mataram Kingdom. The geological–geomorphological value of the Prambanan–Opak River geoarchaeological heritage reflects a tangible form of anthropogenic intervention in river channel morphology. Meanwhile, its archaeological value represents how ancient societies were capable of reshaping their landscapes. Based on the calculated SgV, TV, and VV values, the SgV was determined to be 76.19% (high), whereas the TV and VV recorded 42.3% and 44.44%, respectively—both categorised as medium. The GASV computation produced a value of 24.67%, corresponding to a low class. Thus, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex are considered to possess a low level of sensitivity, indicating that immediate conservation efforts are not urgently required. Are we, therefore, losing a valuable geoarchaeosite? According to the sensitivity (GASV) analysis, the loss is not significant in a physical sense, as the urgency for conservation remains low. However, what has been lost is the collective memory surrounding the Prambanan Temple Complex. In other words, the original environmental context has been diminished, meaning that the Prambanan Temple is no longer comprehensively understood within its full spatial setting. Moreover, due to continued modern anthropogenic interventions, this attribute has become increasingly obscured by recent processes, and its GASV value may rise over time—ultimately heightening the need for conservation in the future Declarations Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process During the preparation of this work the authors used DeepL and Microsoft 365 Copilot in order to translate and increase the readibility of this paper. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication. Data availability statement The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the information, particularly concerning the location and characteristics of cultural heritage objects. However, the data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to ethical considerations and the protection of the research sites. Funding declaration This study was self-funded by the authors. No external funding was received, and the funding source had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation. Clinical trial number Clinical trial number is not applicable. Consent to publish declarations The authors confirm that the manuscript does not include any data that could identify individual persons, and therefore consent for publication of personal data was not required for this study. Ethics Approval This study did not involve human participants or animals. Therefore, ethical approval was not required. Consent to Participate Not applicable. Consent to Publish Not applicable. Author contributions Conceptualization: A.A.I., S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Methodology: A.A.I., B.D.T; Data Curation: S.R.,H.P.; Formal Analysis: A.A.I., B.D.T; Visualization: A.A.I.; Writing—Original Draft: A.A.I., S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Writing—Review & Editing: A.A.I.,S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Supervision: S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Competing interest declarations The authors declare that they have no competing interests Acknowledgement We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who have supported us throughout this research project. References Anom IGN. Candi: Wahana, pelestarian dan pemanfaatan. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan. Panitia Pemugaran Candi Wahana Candi Rara Jonggrang Prambanan, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta; 1993. Arda F, Ghautama G, Wijayanto P, Muthmainah LS, Widiastomo Y. Pedoman Cagar Budaya Tangguh Bencana. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi; 2023. Braje TJ, Erlandson JM. Looking forward, looking back: Humans, anthropogenic change, and the Anthropocene. Anthropocene. 2013;4:116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002 . Bridgland DR. River terrace systems in north-west Europe: An archive of environmental change, uplift and early human occupation. Q Sci Rev. 2000;19:1293–303. de Casparis JG. Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. Prasasti Indonesia II. Bandung: Masa Baru; 1956. Cox A. What’s wrong with risk matrices. Risk Anal. 2008;28(2):497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x . Crofts R, Gordon JE, Brilha J, Gray M, Gunn J, Larwood J, Santucci V, Tormey D, Worboys GL. In: Groves C, editor. Guidelines for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; 2020. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.31.en . de Casparis JG. Prasasti Indonesia: Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. volume II. Bandung: Masa Baru; 1956. Filippo B, Cremaschi M, Manuela P. Estimating the potential of archaeo-historical data in the definition of geomorphosites and geo-educational itineraries in the Central Po Plain (N Italy). Geoheritage. 2019;11(4):1371–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00370-5 . Foley SF, Gronenborn D, Andreae MO, Kadereit JW, Esper J, Scholz D, Pöschl U, Jacob DE, Schöne BR, Schreg R, Vött A, Jordan D, Lelieveld J, Weller CG, Alt KW, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, Bruhn K-C, Tost H, Sirocko F, Crutzen PJ. The Palaeoanthropocene – The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene. 2013;3:83–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002 . Fouache E, Rasse M. Archaeology, geoarchaeology and geomorphosite management: Towards a typology of geoarchaeosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G, editors. Geomorphosites. Münich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil; 2009. pp. 213–23. Fouache E, Ecochard E, Kuzucuoğlu C, Carcaud N, Ekmekçi M, Ulusoy I, Çiner A, Cavalier L, des Courtils J. (2010). Paleogeographical reconstruction and management challenges of an archaeological site listed by UNESCO: Case of the plain of Xanthos and Letoon (Turkey). Journal of Earth Science, 21(SUPPL. 1), 234–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-010-0222-x French C. Geoarchaeology in action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge; 2003. Hill CL, Rapp G. Geoarchaeology. In: Smith C, editor. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. pp. 3158–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_812 . Hodder I. Postprocessual archaeology. In: Schiffer MB, editor. Advances in archaeological method and theory. Volume 8. New York: Academic; 1985. pp. 1–26. Ibrahim M. Kompleks Candi Prambanan dari masa ke masa. Jakarta: Direktorat Perlindungan dan Pembinaan Peninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala; 1996. Jordaan R. Memuji Prambanan: Bunga rampai para cendekiawan Belanda tentang kompleks percandian Loro Jonggrang. Jakarta: KITLV-Jakarta & Yayasan Obor Indonesia; 2009. Kempers AJ, Bernet. Pembinaan kembali Candi Prambanan, menyambut tercapainya puncak Candi Prambanan. Amerta. 1985;1:30–7. Kubalíková L, Balková M. Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2023;99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107024 . Leveson N. (2011). Improving the standard risk matrix (White Paper). Available at: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/Risk-Matrix.pdf Melelli L, Bizzarri R, Baldanza A, Gregori L. The Etruscan Volumni Hypogeum archeo-geosite: New sedimentological and geomorphological insights on the tombal complex. Geoheritage. 2016;8(4):301–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0162-z . Mundardjito. (1993). Pertimbangan ekologis dalam penempatan situs masa Hindu-Buda di daerah Yogyakarta: Kajian arkeologi ruang skala makro (Doctoral thesis). Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta. Mundardjito. Pertimbangan ekologis penempatan situs masa Hindu-Buda di daerah Yogyakarta. Jakarta: Wedatama Widya Sastra - Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient; 2002. Nir D. Man, a geomorphological agent: An introduction to anthropic geomorphology. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House; 1983. Panizza M. Environmental geomorphology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.; 1996. Piau T, Bétard F, Dugast F. Inventory and assessment of geoarchaeosites in the Middle Eure Valley (Paris Basin, France): An integrated approach to geoarchaeological heritage. Int J Geoheritage Parks. 2023;11(4):669–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.05.003 . Reynard E, Giusti C. The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard E, Brilha J, editors. Geoheritage. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2018. pp. 147–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3 . Riyanto S. Candi Prambanan: Pengelolaan dan potensi persoalannya. Berkala Arkeologi. 2007;27(2):66–80. https://doi.org/10.30883/jba.v27i2.953 . Santiko H. Candi Prambanan: Deskripsi, latar belakang agama dan masa pendiriannya (Laporan Penelitian). Jakarta: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia; 1992. Soekmono. (1974). Candi, fungsi dan pengertiannya (Doctoral thesis). Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta. Soekmono. Candi: Fungsi dan pengertiannya. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak; 2017. Szabó J. (2010). Anthropogenic geomorphology: Subject and system. In J. Szabó, L. Dávid, & D. Lóczy, editors, Anthropogenic geomorphology: A guide to man-made landforms (pp. 3–10). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0_1 Tarasov PE, White D, Weber AW. The Baikal–Hokkaido Archaeology project: Environmental archives, proxies and reconstruction approaches. Quatern Int. 2013;290:1–2. Tjahjono BD, Widianto. Lwah Inalih Haken, arti kiasan atau sebenarnya? Berkala Arkeologi. 1994;14(2):47–51. https://doi.org/10.30883/jba.v14i2.642 . Wirasanti N. Candi dan lingkungan: Abad IX–X Masehi di wilayah Jawa bagian tengah. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University; 2023. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8624501","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":594975287,"identity":"953285e7-5822-4018-933c-467260833ecd","order_by":0,"name":"Anugrah Aditya Insani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anugrah","middleName":"Aditya","lastName":"Insani","suffix":""},{"id":594975290,"identity":"12c1a788-c6b1-48ea-8b9e-30e9e109f122","order_by":1,"name":"Sugeng Riyanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Research Organization for Archaeology, Language, and Letters, National Research and Innovation Agency, Republic of Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sugeng","middleName":"","lastName":"Riyanto","suffix":""},{"id":594975296,"identity":"71bce44a-e206-47a3-814a-984974a7cf4c","order_by":2,"name":"Hery Priswanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Research Organization for Archaeology, Language, and Letters, National Research and Innovation Agency, Republic of Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hery","middleName":"","lastName":"Priswanto","suffix":""},{"id":594975300,"identity":"8b4567ed-7eb9-4d72-9e3d-755fbe0a1834","order_by":3,"name":"Baskoro Daru Tjahjono","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Association of Indonesian Archaeologist","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Baskoro","middleName":"Daru","lastName":"Tjahjono","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-17 08:23:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103230364,"identity":"fc486d7a-b980-4aec-ab5a-1041164a7db5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 12:00:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":194722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Prambanan Temple. Photo taken by BPCB DIY.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8624501/v1/e27a2bbffd5305f4824cf79b.png"},{"id":103230365,"identity":"5af9a228-2521-4aa6-9b38-1fee94653bd2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 12:00:02","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1157100,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Study area within Kewu Plain and its surroundings. Layers provided by Google Earth.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8624501/v1/a6ec09e06c1935b0a1369d9a.png"},{"id":103230366,"identity":"8896310e-a8cf-46e7-bad4-d91a77afaee4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 12:00:02","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1089764,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrambanan Temple and its three courtyards configuration. Source: Jordaan, 2009 with modifications\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8624501/v1/d341f4a3cf97f0064dea6159.png"},{"id":103230367,"identity":"1a91386b-e273-4391-80bb-38eb3ae5260d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 12:00:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":199771,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrambanan Temple and Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex shown in Geomorphological Map. This map corroborates the previous findings by Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto (1984) that utilize geomorphological map from JICA. Source: Land Sytem and Landuse Map from Geospatial Information System of Republic of Indonesia\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage41.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8624501/v1/87f8f590d20a55e7564b0a54.png"},{"id":108602584,"identity":"11d9e8b3-3ae3-45a1-a2ee-c6901c3a6a94","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 11:42:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3618955,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8624501/v1/cd2d3109-b5a6-4429-8666-02d077f8dc90.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Assessment on geoarchaeological sensitivity value of the almost forgotten ancient river relocation in Prambanan Temple Complex, Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Prambanan Temple, located northeast of Yogyakarta in Indonesia, is the largest Hindu temple complex in Indonesia. As stated in the Sivargha inscription, the temple was constructed in the 9th century AD by Rakai Pikatan (Ibrahim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The journal of C. A. Lons in 1733 AD constituted the initial scientific documentation to disseminate information about the Prambanan Temple, which had previously remained obscured for an extended period (Soejono, 1990; Santiko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). The site has been the focus of numerous research endeavors, with the first documented studies conducted by H.C. Cornelis in 1805 and subsequent systematic measurements recorded by Santiko in 1992 (Santiko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). In 1952, the Shiva Temple, a prominent structure within the Prambanan Temple complex, underwent restoration and was formally inaugurated through a modest ceremony (Kempers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequent studies on these sites and buildings have been produced, encompassing subjects such as sculpture, architecture, religion, and the political history of ancient Java.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDe Casparis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1956\u003c/span\u003e) utilized this Sivargha inscription as a fundamental component in determining the chronology of the construction of Prambanan Temple. According to de Casparis, the construction period of Prambanan Temple was during the reign of King Pikatan, as indicated by the Siwagrha inscription, which dates back to 856 AD. Lines 11\u0026ndash;25 of the inscription refer to a series of temples that were consecrated during the reign of King Pikatan. Moreover, a particularly intriguing element pertaining to the inscription's content merits attention. Within the Sivargha Inscription, a sentence has been recorded that reads, \"Lwāh ya inalih hak\u0026eacute;n apaniyānid ik palmahan\" which translates to \"then the flow of the river is diverted because it touches the temple grounds\" (Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe alteration of river courses by human societies cannot be underestimated. The anthropogenic modifications occurred in the past of Opak River, particularly before the Industrial Revolution, has significant intrinsic, extrinsic, geological-geomorphological, and archaeological value that need to conserv. This is because human-induced river alterations are uniquely significant in their existence, serving as archaeological records and water management-type of anthropogenic interventions from the past. These aspects can be identified through perspectives on geoconservation, anthropogenic geomorphology, and the paleoanthropocene (Nir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Braje \u0026amp; Erlandson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Foley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Crofts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Regrettably, the relocated course of the Opak River near the Prambanan Temple, along with its potential values, has not been further studied, at least since 1994 (Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, the modified Opak River course is an integral part of the cosmological landscape of Prambanan Temple and the spatial archaeology of the Ancient Mataram Kingdom remain constelations. Additionally, challenges related to research, education, and cultural heritage preservation pose significant issues in the management of the Prambanan Temple complex (Riyanto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Research Aim\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn principle, Prambanan Temple is an archaeological record, a cultural heritage site whose existence must be interpreted as an archaeological phenomenon in a broad cultural context. The interpretation of an archaeological phenomenon in a broad context, the cultural context, includes the environment, technology, and actions, as well as the context as a \u0026ldquo;text\u0026rdquo; or discourse that can be read (Hodder, 1986). In this case, information about the environmental aspects of Prambanan Temple and actions in the past was obtained from the contents of the Sivagrha inscription, which mentions the \u0026ldquo;diversion of a river\u0026rdquo; during the construction of this temple.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, it can be ascertained that the river was an integral part of Prambanan Temple as an archaeological record as a whole and was a geoarchaeological phenomenon. This research aims to (1) conduct a geoarchaeological significance assessment; (2) conduct a threat assessment based on the probability and impact of possible disasters; (3) conduct a vulnerability assessment on the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attributes; (4) assess the geoarchaeological sensitivity index based on geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability in the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The limitations of this research include (1) the Opak River channel, which Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto (1984) refer to as a river whose course was altered so that it would not touch the temple grounds; (2) anthropogenic geomorphology as a science for identifying human intervention in nature in geomorphological terms (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e); and (3) geoarchaeological heritage as a term for heritage with primary geological, geomorphological, and archaeological value. This study is, to a certain extent, related to spatial archaeology, which examines the relationship between objects, between objects and sites, or between sites and their physical environment as resources (Mundardjito, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3. The Study Area\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study area is the Opak River in the western part of the Kewu Plain, which Tjahjono and Widianto (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) documented as a river that was relocated for the construction of Prambanan Temple. The Kewu Plain (also known as the Prambanan Plain) is a geographical region characterized by an average elevation of +\u0026thinsp;140 meters above sea level. This plain is currently situated within two distinct administrative regions: the Special Region of Yogyakarta and Central Java Province (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The term \"Kewu Plain\" is more frequently employed in studies of ancient Mataram archaeology than in the context of physiography. The region's significance stems from its rich archaeological heritage, dating back to the ancient Mataram period. This heritage encompasses various sites such as palace complexes, Buddhist and Hindu temples, monumental statues, and ancient mining areas. The Kewu Plain's relative fertility is attributable to its proximity to the Merapi Volcano, which regularly emits mineral-rich material, and its traversal by rivers. Furthermore, the strategic importance of the Baturagung (or Abhayagiri) Mountain Range, which features a notable disparity in altitude, is accentuated by the topography of the plain, rendering it a significant military defensive asset. Consequently, this plain\u0026mdash;in conjunction with the Kedu Plain (frequently designated as the Kedu-Kewu axis)\u0026mdash;emerged as the epicenter of cultural and historical evolution in central Java over the course of several centuries (Wirasanti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of heritage management, the western portion of the Kewu Plateau and a segment of the Baturagung Mountain Range are encompassed within the Jogja National Geopark. Concurrently, the Kewu Plain is also home to the Klaten Aspiring Geopark. However, the archaeological remains from the Ancient Mataram period in Prambanan, in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, have not yet been fully incorporated as cultural heritage in the Jogja Geopark. Instead, they are classified as part of cultural heritage sites at the regional, national, and international levels through the designation of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In this regard, Prambanan Temple is currently designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Concurrently, within Prambanan in Central Java Province, the archaeological sites originating from the Ancient Mataram period have been incorporated into the cultural heritage of the Klaten Aspiring Geopark.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study comprises four key components of assessment: (1) the evaluation of geoarchaeological significance; (2) the assessment of threats based on the probability and impact of potential hazards; (3) the evaluation of vulnerability; and (4) the calculation of the geoarchaeological sensitivity index, derived from the integration of geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability within the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The data employed in this research include previous studies, field observations, geomorphological and land use maps obtained from the Indonesian Bureau of Geospatial Information, and high-resolution imagery sourced from Google Earth layers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study applies an assessment of geoarchaeological significance, threat level, and vulnerability to the geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex, specifically the Opak River relocation in Prambanan. The assessment indicators are presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e outlines the criteria, indicators, and values for the geoarchaeological significance assessment, while Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents those used in the vulnerability assessment. The criteria, indicators, and scoring values were adapted to reflect the specific characteristics of the site and the objectives of the evaluation. The threat index, on the other hand, was determined through a matrix-based assessment of probability and impact following the frameworks of Cox (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), Levenson (2011), Arda et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Kubal\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute; \u0026amp; Balkov\u0026aacute; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final scores for significance, threat, and vulnerability were obtained by summing the individual indicator values assigned to each study object and then calculating the percentage relative to the ideal total value. The threat index calculation involved several specific stages. First, priority hazards were identified. Second, an assessment of probability and impact was conducted, and their product that representing the degree of risk (Cox, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Levenson, 2011; Arda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kubal\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute; \u0026amp; Balkov\u0026aacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) was calculated. This was referred to as the threat degree. Subsequently, a reclassification process was undertaken, reducing the original four threat classes (Cox, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Levenson, 2011; Arda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kubal\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute; \u0026amp; Balkov\u0026aacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) into three, to align with the other assessments. In this reclassification, the high and severe categories were merged into a single class (3), while moderate and low were assigned values of 2 and 1, respectively. All hazard values, both natural and anthropogenic, were aggregated, and their percentages calculated by comparing the actual scores with the ideal total value. Finally, the geoarchaeological sensitivity index was then derived using Formula 1.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFormula 1.\u003c/b\u003e Geoarchaeology sensitivity value equations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equ1\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equ1\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:\\text{G}\\text{A}\\text{S}\\text{V}=\\frac{\\text{T}\\text{V}\\text{*}\\text{V}\\text{V}}{\\text{S}\\text{g}\\text{V}}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"EquationNumber\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria, Indicator, and Value of Geoarchaeological Significance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Rarity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is rare in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is not so rare in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is common in area of interest according to its geological-geomorphological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Rarity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is rare in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is not so rare in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is common in area of interest according to its archaeological point-of-view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Representativess Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of the earth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of a country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive geological and geomorphological aspects of a region in some of country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Representativess Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of the earth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of a country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is able to represent the distinctive archaeological aspects of a region in some of country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Scientific Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is international scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is national scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is no published paper which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Scientific Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is archeological national scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is archeological international scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is no published scientific papers which discusses the Geoarcheological Site\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeological Relatedness Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object are directly related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object are indirectly related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object is not related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects in certain areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria, Indicator, and Value of Vulnerability of Geoarchaeological Significance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal Protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is national legislative protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is regional legislative protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo legal protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeological Integrity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) is well preserved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) not so well preserved because of some minor degradation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main geoarchaeological object (related with geological, geomorphological, and archaeological aspects) is completely altered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is known by public\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is known by some of certain community (eg. Scientific community)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geoarchaeological site is unknown\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e5. Theory and Calculation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. The Geoecological Requirement to Build a Temple\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural resources were among the primary considerations in temple construction (Mundardjito, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Wirasanti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). According to Mundardjito (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), the establishment of temples in the Yogyakarta region took into account a range of (geo)ecological aspects. These considerations were guided by the Manasara Silpasastra and Silpaprakasa texts, which state that only fertile land, with permeable soils capable of absorbing water and located near a water source, particularly at the confluence of two rivers (tempuran in Javanese), was deemed suitable for the construction of sacred structures. The Silpaprakasa text further prohibits temple construction on dry land or in areas far from water sources. This reflects the traditional understanding that temples are sacred edifices (Soekmono, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Soekmono (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) also asserted that a sacred place possesses inherent sanctity due to its own natural potential, implying that the selection of land holds a position of great importance in temple construction. Mundardjito (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) reinforced this notion, emphasising that the choice of land was of paramount importance. It indeed even more significant than the temple itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspectives of Soekmono (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Mundardjito (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), it can be understood that a sacred structure must be established upon land considered equally \u0026ldquo;sacred\u0026rdquo;. Such land, regarded as sacred, embodies (geo)ecological characteristics capable of supporting both the material and spiritual needs of human life. Beyond the availability of land resources, the concept of worship within sacred architecture is intrinsically linked to the management of water resources, viewed as both a sacred and purifying entity. Therefore, the geomorphological characteristics of the landscape played a crucial role in determining the location and establishment of sacred buildings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Geoarchaeology and Geoarchaeological Heritage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeology is an interdisciplinary field that integrates the study of archaeology and geomorphology, aiming to understand how natural and human processes have shaped and transformed landscapes over time (French, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Christopher \u0026amp; George, 2014). One of the principal objectives of geoarchaeology is to apply empirical approaches from the natural sciences to the archaeological record (Christopher \u0026amp; George, 2014). Through this, an integrated model of the interactions between human and environmental systems can be established, enabling a deeper understanding of how both natural and anthropogenic factors influence landscape evolution (French, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Christopher \u0026amp; George, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeritage that embodies both natural and cultural characteristics from the past is referred to as geoarchaeological heritage (Fouache \u0026amp; Rasse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Fouache et al., 2012; Melelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Reynard \u0026amp; Giusti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Filippo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Piau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This concept encompasses heritage that is significant not only for its cultural or historical human value but also for its geological and natural dimensions, aligning closely with the principles and definitions of geoarchaeology. The sites that exemplify such interactions are known as geoarchaeosites or geoarchaeological sites (Fouache \u0026amp; Rasse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Piau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeological heritage reflects the outcomes of past interactions between humans and their natural environments, providing valuable insights into how human societies have adapted to, utilised, and even modified their surrounding landscapes. This interplay has resulted in a rich and complex legacy that endures today. Through the diversity of sites it encompasses, geoarchaeological heritage offers a distinctive perspective on understanding the past\u0026mdash;one that tells not only the story of humankind but also the story of the Earth itself, which served as the stage upon which civilisations developed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Anthropogenic Geomorphology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnthropogenic geomorphology is a branch of geomorphological study that focuses on artificial landforms, emphasising their material composition, origin, evolution, and spatial distribution (Nir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Panizza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This field is closely associated with human interventions in the natural environment. Human intervention is defined as a disturbance to the existing equilibrium of nature (Nir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Such disturbances manifest in various forms, including interference with gravitational processes, the acceleration or deceleration of natural geomorphic dynamics, the concentration of human activities within limited areas yet of high intensity, and the degradation of existing ecosystems (Nir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnthropogenic interventions can be categorised as either primary or secondary, depending on the motivation behind human activities (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, agricultural terraces created through planation for cultivation purposes represent a form of primary anthropogenic intervention, whereas mounds of material left over from planation activities constitute secondary anthropogenic intervention (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Anthropogenic landforms may also be classified based on whether their impacts are direct or indirect, as human-induced geomorphic processes do not always act independently within the Earth system (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Direct anthropogenic interventions are those driven by processes distinct from natural ones and are undertaken with explicit intent or purpose (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, indirect anthropogenic interventions refer to human influences that accelerate or decelerate natural geomorphic processes without necessarily having a clear or deliberate motive (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). A comprehensive classification of anthropogenic interventions is thus based on the motivation or nature of human activity (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). These categories include: montanogenic (related to mining or excavation), industrogenic (industrial activity), urbanogenic (urban development), traffic-related, water management, agrogenic (agricultural modification), warfare-related, and those associated with tourism and recreation (Szab\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4. Considerations of Abiotic and Cultural Environment in the Construction of Prambanan Temple\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe phrase \u0026ldquo;Lwāh ya inalih hak\u0026eacute;n apaniyānid ik palmahan,\u0026rdquo; meaning \u0026ldquo;thus the river\u0026rsquo;s course was diverted because it touched the temple courtyard,\u0026rdquo; implies that the river was intentionally redirected westward (Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Tjahjono and Widianto (1984) discussed this passage in conjunction with palaeogeomorphological evidence derived from geomorphological mapping conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). According to their analysis, the river that was diverted lies to the west of the Prambanan Temple, identified as the Opak River. Originally, the Opak River flowed across the temple courtyard before being redirected westward in a straight course for approximately one kilometre, then turning eastward for about 500 metres, before meandering back westwards (Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary geomorphological observations (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) confirm the existence of this diverted river segment west of the Prambanan Temple, corresponding to the Opak River. In other words, both the inscriptional evidence and modern geomorphological data refer to the same spatial phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen this analytical framework is applied to recent geomorphological data at a scale of 1:50,000, it is evident that a section of the Opak River indeed flows westward in a straight channel before turning east. The meandering pattern of the river only appears further south of the Prambanan Temple Complex. Referring back to the inscriptional phrase \u0026ldquo;Lwāh ya inalih hak\u0026eacute;n apaniyānid ik palmahan\u0026rdquo; from the Sivagrha inscription, it can be determined that an ancient anthropogenic intervention took place in the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the analysis of Tjahjono and Widianto (1984) and the corresponding spatial review, it can thus be confirmed that the river diversion formed an integral part of the Prambanan Temple\u0026rsquo;s construction process. In addition to the river being redirected, the same inscription mentions that the outer enclosure wall and the third courtyard of the Prambanan Temple were \u0026ldquo;rotated\u0026rdquo; in position (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) (Jordaan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This realignment of the wall is consistent with the redirection of the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River, as both actions were undertaken to protect the temple from erosion while maintaining its proximity to the water body. However, at present, the third enclosure wall has suffered damage and has been cut through by the course of the modern Opak River.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Result","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Geoarchaeological Significant Value (SgV)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe assessment of geoarchaeological significance in this study is based on the following criteria: geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological rarity value, archaeological rarity value, geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological representativeness value, archaeological representativeness value, geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological scientific value, archaeological scientific value, and geoarchaeological relatedness value. The Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex attained the maximum score for both rarity values. This is attributed to the exceptional scarcity of such attributes not only along the Kedu\u0026ndash;Kewu corridor but also across Indonesia as a whole. A comparable example in the country is the construction of the Gomati Canal by the Tarumanegara civilisation in West Java.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth representativeness values were assigned a moderate score (2), as the site does not represent geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological or archaeological features that exemplify globally or regionally unique processes, but rather those relevant primarily at the national scale, specifically within the Indonesian context. In terms of scientific value, the geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological scientific value was rated at 1, while the archaeological scientific value received a score of 2. The limited scientific attention is evidenced by the fact that the article by Tjahjono \u0026amp; Widianto (1984) remains the only nationally published archaeological journal article that specifically addresses this site. No published geological or geomorphological papers on this particular area have been identified to date.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the geoarchaeological relatedness value received the highest score (3), reflecting the strong interconnection between anthropogenic and natural geomorphological processes in the formation of this cultural landform, as well as its integration within an archaeological context. Overall, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex achieved a total score of 16 out of a possible 21, corresponding to a percentage of 76.19%, which classifies the site as possessing high geoarchaeological significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Threat Value (TV)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex are situated within an area simultaneously exposed to both natural and anthropogenic hazards. Based on a multi-scale geomorphological analysis, the identified threats include montanogenic (mining), agrogenic, urbanogenic, water management, traffic-related, lahar flow, ash fall, earthquakes, floods, erosion, and sedimentation processes. A disaster threat matrix encompassing these hazards is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMining activities exhibit a moderate probability (3) and a low impact (1), resulting in a minor risk level (3). Such activities, which may involve material extraction, have the potential to disturb the soil structure or archaeological deposits. However, the scale of mining within the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological area of the Prambanan Temple Complex is limited, thereby minimising its overall risk. Agricultural activities demonstrate a high probability (4) and a significant impact (3), producing a major risk level (12). Intensive farming practices, such as irrigation and the use of fertilisers, may alter soil composition and hydrological patterns, adversely affecting the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex. These disturbances can result in the loss of valuable subsurface archaeological layers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrbanisation presents an extremely high probability (5) and a significant impact (3), generating a major risk level (15). The expansion of settlements and infrastructure surrounding the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex accelerates the degradation of geoarchaeological resources. Land levelling, excavation, and construction along the riverbanks pose direct threats to the integrity of these sites. Threats associated with water management represent the most severe category, with a very high probability (5) and a significant impact (3), culminating in a severe risk level (15). Geotechnical modifications to river morphology\u0026mdash;such as the construction of retaining walls and alterations to the riverbed\u0026mdash;have been carried out in the northern part of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological area. These interventions, often linked to modern river engineering practices, may undermine features associated with Prambanan\u0026rsquo;s historical water management systems. Traffic, encompassing vehicular movement and other forms of transport, has a moderate probability (3) and a low impact (1), corresponding to a minor risk level (5). The presence of several bridges along the river corridor contributes to this risk. Although the impact is relatively small, vibrations caused by traffic can compromise the structural stability of nearby archaeological layers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLahar flows originating from Mount Merapi exhibit a moderate probability (3) and a significant impact (3), resulting in a moderate risk level (9). These flows can physically damage geoarchaeological structures located along the river corridor. Similarly, volcanic ash fall shows a moderate probability (3) and a significant impact (3), also producing a moderate risk level (9). Ash deposition can blanket the geoarchaeological attributes, complicating conservation and research efforts. Earthquakes present a moderate probability (3) and a severe impact (4), leading to a major risk level (12). Tectonic activity can cause substantial structural damage to geoarchaeological sites and intensify erosional processes, thereby endangering these fragile resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue of geoarchaeological significant value (SgV) from Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue from certain sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Rarity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Rarity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Representativess Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Representativess Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeological-geomorphological Scientific Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological Scientific Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeological Relatedness Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal: 16/21; Percentage: 76.19%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eClass: High\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFloods, characterised by a high probability (4) but relatively low impact (2), produce a moderate risk level (6). Although flooding is a recurrent phenomenon, its effects are typically temporary; nonetheless, the potential for localised damage to archaeological deposits cannot be disregarded. Erosion displays a very high probability (5) and a moderate impact (3), resulting in a major risk level (15). Erosional processes can strip away essential soil layers that contain archaeological information. Similarly, sedimentation, with a very high probability (5) and a moderate impact (3), also yields a major risk level (15). Sediment accumulation can bury the geoarchaeological attributes, obstructing both access and investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the overall threat analysis, the values and classes of threats were determined. Anthropogenic threats accounted for 45.45%, while natural threats represented 40%, yielding a total threat value of 42.3%. This indicates a medium threat class for the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreat class of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreats\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree of Risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass (4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReclass (3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnthropogenic Threats\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMontanogenic (mining)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (minor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgrogenic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrbanogenic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraffic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (minor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural Threats\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLahar Flow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (moderate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsh Fall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (moderate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarthquake\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (moderate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eErosion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSedimentation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (major)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreat value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnthropogenic Threat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5/11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.45%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural Threat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6/15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11/26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedium\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Vulnerability Value (VV)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vulnerability value is composed of three indicators: legal protection, geoarchaeological integrity, and community awareness. In terms of legal protection, this attribute remains largely unaddressed and tends to be neglected. This condition stems from the fact that the river has not yet been formally integrated as an integral component of the Prambanan Temple Complex or the broader constellation of archaeological sites within the Kewu Plain. Meanwhile, both geoarchaeological integrity and community awareness received a score of 2. The score of 2 for geoarchaeological integrity is attributed to the presence of minor degradation, particularly in the form of riverbank erosion observed in the southern section of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex. Such processes may result in the loss of undiscovered archaeological data or alter the river\u0026rsquo;s flow patterns over an extended period. Similarly, the score of 2 for community awareness reflects the limited understanding of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex, which is currently recognised only within the archaeological community, with little to no awareness among the general public.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerability value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue from certain sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal Protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeological Integrity Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal: 5/9; Percentage: 55.55%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eClass: Medium\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4. Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Value (GASV)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the SgV, TV, and VV values, the SgV was calculated. The SgV recorded a value of 76.19% (high), the TV registered 42.3% (medium), and the VV reached 44.44% (medium). The results of the GASV calculation indicate a low class, with a value of 24.67%. Accordingly, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex do not require urgent conservation measures, given their relatively low sensitivity value. Effective conservation of the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex necessitates a balanced strategy that simultaneously addresses anthropogenic and natural threats. Furthermore, the vulnerability should be reduced by maintaining the integrity of the site without altering its archaeological context, ensuring its protection through legal instruments, and enhancing public awareness among both local communities and the wider public. By prioritising water management without compromising the archaeological context, regulating urbanisation and agricultural activities, mitigating natural hazards, utilising technology, and mobilising as well as involving various stakeholders, a resilient conservation framework can be established. Safeguarding these sites is not merely a matter of preserving cultural heritage but also of securing a legacy for future generations that embodies the harmonious coexistence of nature and human history within the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIntrinsically and extrinsically, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex constitute a site of exceptional interest. The intrinsic value of this attributes demonstrates that it is not merely a religious complex as it is widely recognised today, but also a locus of abiotic diversity marked by an anthropogenic feature, namely the deliberate diversion of a river channel. The extrinsic value of this attributes reveals that the site is uniquely\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeoarchaeology sensitivity value of Opak river relocation geoarchaeological attributes of prambanan temple complex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSgV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.19%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedium\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.55%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedium\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGASV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.84%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLow\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003esignificant in terms of its hydroarchaeological characteristics when compared with other sites from the Ancient Mataram Kingdom. Typically, hydroarchaeological sites from that period are represented by petirtaan (ritual bathing pools) for purification. In contrast, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex involve a natural river that was intentionally redirected to protect the temple from potential damage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical evidence of this ancient river course modification serves as crucial archaeological data, indicating the presence of anthropogenic intervention in river management during the past. The key physical indicator is the river morphology itself, whose flow direction was deliberately altered (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Undertaking such a large-scale engineering project in the 9th century AD would have required various tools and technologies: equipment for digging, lifting, and transporting soil; tools for breaking and moving stones; temporary barriers to divert water flow to enable construction work; and instruments for building ancient embankments to prevent erosion on the newly filled riverbanks. Some of these tools may have been abandoned on-site, either due to damage or intentional disposal. If such artefacts alongside the natural and anthropogenic stratigraphy, modified river channel forms, and associated construction materials can still be identified, they would represent highly valuable geoarchaeological evidence. These findings could elucidate human \u0026ndash; environment interactions surrounding the Prambanan Temple, particularly in relation to the Opak River environment. Moreover, they would serve as physical corroboration of the written account found in the Sivagrha inscription, which records that the establishment of Prambanan Temple required the diversion of the Opak River to prevent it from encroaching upon the sacred compound.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrambanan Temple could not be separated from its surrounding landscape, which included Mount Merapi, nearby hills, and especially the Opak River located to the west of the temple. The presence of the Opak River is explicitly mentioned in the Sivagrha inscription concerning the temple\u0026rsquo;s construction. This indicates that the river played a central role in the process of establishing the temple. Before a sacred structure could be built, the designated ground had to be purified. When the consecrated ground intersected with the Opak River\u0026rsquo;s course, it became necessary to redirect the river to prevent it from disturbing the sanctified area. At present, evidence of the excavated and filled sections of the river channel is difficult to trace, as the riverbanks\u0026mdash;particularly in the northern segment\u0026mdash;have been reinforced with concrete, rendering them artificial. This modern riverbank construction has also altered the natural surface morphology of the river. While such reinforcement is beneficial today for preventing bank collapse during floods, it simultaneously erases valuable geoarchaeological data from the past. Consequently, this has made it increasingly challenging to verify the historical accuracy of the statement recorded in the Sivagrha inscription regarding the diversion of the Opak River during the construction of Prambanan Temple.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex represent an ancient anthropogenic intervention associated with water management practices. The evidence supporting this interpretation derives from regional geomorphological characteristics and archaeological records, corroborated by written sources such as the Sivagrha inscription, dated to 856 AD. Consequently, this attributes can be interpreted through both geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological and archaeological perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intrinsic value of the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River geocultural site indicates that it is not merely a religious structure as recognised today, but also a locus of abiotic\u0026ndash;anthropogenic diversity manifested through the deliberate diversion of a river channel. The extrinsic value of the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River geocultural heritage demonstrates its hydroarchaeological uniqueness when compared with other sites associated with the Ancient Mataram Kingdom. The geological\u0026ndash;geomorphological value of the Prambanan\u0026ndash;Opak River geoarchaeological heritage reflects a tangible form of anthropogenic intervention in river channel morphology. Meanwhile, its archaeological value represents how ancient societies were capable of reshaping their landscapes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the calculated SgV, TV, and VV values, the SgV was determined to be 76.19% (high), whereas the TV and VV recorded 42.3% and 44.44%, respectively\u0026mdash;both categorised as medium. The GASV computation produced a value of 24.67%, corresponding to a low class. Thus, the Opak River relocation geoarchaeological attributes of the Prambanan Temple Complex are considered to possess a low level of sensitivity, indicating that immediate conservation efforts are not urgently required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre we, therefore, losing a valuable geoarchaeosite? According to the sensitivity (GASV) analysis, the loss is not significant in a physical sense, as the urgency for conservation remains low. However, what has been lost is the collective memory surrounding the Prambanan Temple Complex. In other words, the original environmental context has been diminished, meaning that the Prambanan Temple is no longer comprehensively understood within its full spatial setting. Moreover, due to continued modern anthropogenic interventions, this attribute has become increasingly obscured by recent processes, and its GASV value may rise over time\u0026mdash;ultimately heightening the need for conservation in the future\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the preparation of this work the authors used DeepL and Microsoft 365 Copilot in order to translate and increase the readibility of this paper. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the information, particularly concerning the location and characteristics of cultural heritage objects. However, the data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to ethical considerations and the protection of the research sites.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was self-funded by the authors. No external funding was received, and the funding source had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number is not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors confirm that the manuscript does not include any data that could identify individual persons, and therefore consent for publication of personal data was not required for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study did not involve human participants or animals. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: A.A.I., S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Methodology: A.A.I., B.D.T; Data Curation: S.R.,H.P.; Formal Analysis: A.A.I., B.D.T; Visualization: A.A.I.; Writing—Original Draft: A.A.I., S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Writing—Review \u0026amp; Editing: A.A.I.,S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T; Supervision: S.R.,H.P.,B.D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interest declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who have supported us throughout this research project.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnom IGN. Candi: Wahana, pelestarian dan pemanfaatan. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan. Panitia Pemugaran Candi Wahana Candi Rara Jonggrang Prambanan, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta; 1993.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArda F, Ghautama G, Wijayanto P, Muthmainah LS, Widiastomo Y. Pedoman Cagar Budaya Tangguh Bencana. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraje TJ, Erlandson JM. Looking forward, looking back: Humans, anthropogenic change, and the Anthropocene. Anthropocene. 2013;4:116\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBridgland DR. River terrace systems in north-west Europe: An archive of environmental change, uplift and early human occupation. Q Sci Rev. 2000;19:1293\u0026ndash;303.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Casparis JG. Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. Prasasti Indonesia II. Bandung: Masa Baru; 1956.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCox A. What\u0026rsquo;s wrong with risk matrices. Risk Anal. 2008;28(2):497\u0026ndash;512. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrofts R, Gordon JE, Brilha J, Gray M, Gunn J, Larwood J, Santucci V, Tormey D, Worboys GL. In: Groves C, editor. Guidelines for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.31.en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.31.en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Casparis JG. Prasasti Indonesia: Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. volume II. Bandung: Masa Baru; 1956.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFilippo B, Cremaschi M, Manuela P. Estimating the potential of archaeo-historical data in the definition of geomorphosites and geo-educational itineraries in the Central Po Plain (N Italy). Geoheritage. 2019;11(4):1371\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00370-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12371-019-00370-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoley SF, Gronenborn D, Andreae MO, Kadereit JW, Esper J, Scholz D, P\u0026ouml;schl U, Jacob DE, Sch\u0026ouml;ne BR, Schreg R, V\u0026ouml;tt A, Jordan D, Lelieveld J, Weller CG, Alt KW, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, Bruhn K-C, Tost H, Sirocko F, Crutzen PJ. The Palaeoanthropocene \u0026ndash; The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene. 2013;3:83\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFouache E, Rasse M. Archaeology, geoarchaeology and geomorphosite management: Towards a typology of geoarchaeosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G, editors. Geomorphosites. M\u0026uuml;nich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil; 2009. pp. 213\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFouache E, Ecochard E, Kuzucuoğlu C, Carcaud N, Ekmek\u0026ccedil;i M, Ulusoy I, \u0026Ccedil;iner A, Cavalier L, des Courtils J. (2010). Paleogeographical reconstruction and management challenges of an archaeological site listed by UNESCO: Case of the plain of Xanthos and Letoon (Turkey). Journal of Earth Science, 21(SUPPL. 1), 234\u0026ndash;236. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-010-0222-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12583-010-0222-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrench C. Geoarchaeology in action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHill CL, Rapp G. Geoarchaeology. In: Smith C, editor. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. pp. 3158\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHodder I. Postprocessual archaeology. In: Schiffer MB, editor. Advances in archaeological method and theory. Volume 8. New York: Academic; 1985. pp. 1\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIbrahim M. Kompleks Candi Prambanan dari masa ke masa. Jakarta: Direktorat Perlindungan dan Pembinaan Peninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala; 1996.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJordaan R. Memuji Prambanan: Bunga rampai para cendekiawan Belanda tentang kompleks percandian Loro Jonggrang. Jakarta: KITLV-Jakarta \u0026amp; Yayasan Obor Indonesia; 2009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKempers AJ, Bernet. Pembinaan kembali Candi Prambanan, menyambut tercapainya puncak Candi Prambanan. Amerta. 1985;1:30\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKubal\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute; L, Balkov\u0026aacute; M. Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from H\u0026aacute;dy quarries (Brno, Czech Republic). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2023;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeveson N. (2011). Improving the standard risk matrix (White Paper). Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://sunnyday.mit.edu/Risk-Matrix.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://sunnyday.mit.edu/Risk-Matrix.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelelli L, Bizzarri R, Baldanza A, Gregori L. The Etruscan Volumni Hypogeum archeo-geosite: New sedimentological and geomorphological insights on the tombal complex. Geoheritage. 2016;8(4):301\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0162-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12371-015-0162-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMundardjito. (1993). Pertimbangan ekologis dalam penempatan situs masa Hindu-Buda di daerah Yogyakarta: Kajian arkeologi ruang skala makro (Doctoral thesis). Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMundardjito. Pertimbangan ekologis penempatan situs masa Hindu-Buda di daerah Yogyakarta. Jakarta: Wedatama Widya Sastra - Ecole fran\u0026ccedil;aise d'Extr\u0026ecirc;me-Orient; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNir D. Man, a geomorphological agent: An introduction to anthropic geomorphology. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House; 1983.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePanizza M. Environmental geomorphology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.; 1996.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiau T, B\u0026eacute;tard F, Dugast F. Inventory and assessment of geoarchaeosites in the Middle Eure Valley (Paris Basin, France): An integrated approach to geoarchaeological heritage. Int J Geoheritage Parks. 2023;11(4):669\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.05.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.05.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynard E, Giusti C. The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard E, Brilha J, editors. Geoheritage. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2018. pp. 147\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiyanto S. Candi Prambanan: Pengelolaan dan potensi persoalannya. Berkala Arkeologi. 2007;27(2):66\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30883/jba.v27i2.953\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30883/jba.v27i2.953\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantiko H. Candi Prambanan: Deskripsi, latar belakang agama dan masa pendiriannya (Laporan Penelitian). Jakarta: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia; 1992.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoekmono. (1974). Candi, fungsi dan pengertiannya (Doctoral thesis). Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoekmono. Candi: Fungsi dan pengertiannya. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzab\u0026oacute; J. (2010). Anthropogenic geomorphology: Subject and system. In J. Szab\u0026oacute;, L. D\u0026aacute;vid, \u0026amp; D. L\u0026oacute;czy, editors, Anthropogenic geomorphology: A guide to man-made landforms (pp. 3\u0026ndash;10). Springer Netherlands. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTarasov PE, White D, Weber AW. The Baikal\u0026ndash;Hokkaido Archaeology project: Environmental archives, proxies and reconstruction approaches. Quatern Int. 2013;290:1\u0026ndash;2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTjahjono BD, Widianto. Lwah Inalih Haken, arti kiasan atau sebenarnya? Berkala Arkeologi. 1994;14(2):47\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30883/jba.v14i2.642\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30883/jba.v14i2.642\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWirasanti N. Candi dan lingkungan: Abad IX\u0026ndash;X Masehi di wilayah Jawa bagian tengah. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Opak River, Anthropogenic Landform Modification, Prambanan Temple, Geoarchaeology, Spatial Archaeology","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePrambanan Temple is one of Indonesia's UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Its construction in the 9th century AD required a series of geoecological prerequisites. To meet these requirements and protect the temple complex from erosion, the course of the Opak River was relocated and the third temple\u0026rsquo;s courtayard fence was repositioned by ancient javanese people in the context of anthropogenic relocation of landform. However, the relocation of Opak River course has received relatively little attention in discussions about the anthropogenic landform relocation on Prambanan Temple construction. Consequently, the relocated river course faces risks of damage and is increasingly disconnected from its archaeological context. This research aims to (1) conduct a geoarchaeological significance assessment; (2) conduct a threat assessment based on the probability and impact of possible disasters; (3) conduct a vulnerability assessment on the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attributes; (4) assess the geoarchaeological sensitivity index based on geoarchaeological significance, threats, and vulnerability in the Prambanan-Opak river relocation geoarchaeological heritage attribute. The findings reveal that the relocated segment of the Opak River that flows through Prambanan Temple can be considered a geoarchaeological attribute of Prambanan Temple and has high significance values, yet it faces low threats and medium vulnerability. The geoarchaeological sensitivity index shows a low value. However, attention to its existence needs to be considered given its intrinsic and extrinsic values, even though the geoarchaeological sensitivity index shows a low value.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Assessment on geoarchaeological sensitivity value of the almost forgotten ancient river relocation in Prambanan Temple Complex, Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-23 11:59:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8624501/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cd4d9eb2-caf6-43b4-b423-e82766f408b9","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Withdrawn","date":"2026-05-06T11:28:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T11:41:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-23 11:59:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8624501","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8624501","identity":"rs-8624501","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}