Chapter I: Introduction
(continued)

Research Design

The role played by modern warfare in human conflict resolution has been the focus of anthropological inquiry for some time (e.g., Bohannon 1967, Muckleroy 1978, Gould 1983). The remains of the USS ARIZONA, the USS UTAH, the Japanese planes and submarines that initiated the attack and even the bullet holes in the buildings of Hickam and Wheeler fields, comprise a material statement that archeologically and symbolically preserves the reality of World War II in a manner that could never be replicated by books, films or pictures.

The guiding principle for all phases of this project was to document archeological remains of the attack and to relate the findings to the popular notions of what had happened, as gleaned from the historical record.

Figure 1.5. BBC cameraman John Beck (in glasses) coordinates underwater filming sequence with Project Director Lenihan. (NPS photo by Larry Murphy)

Research design statements were developed for each phase of the Pearl Harbor work. The design changed as the objectives expanded from a straightforward mapping operation of the ARIZONA to include an interpretive video program, structural integrity study, documentation of the USS UTAH and a general survey of WWII remains in, and immediately outside of, Pearl Harbor.

An overriding theme for the researchers was to generate information useful to managers responsible for stewardship of a major American war memorial. The documentation process itself became a tool for further educating the public to the significance of the site, and for generating new insights into the human dynamics involved in modern warfare among industrialized societies.

The challenge was to archeologically document the material remains of the attack in a manner that was accurate as to ship architecture, and also sensitive to the minor details that could be helpful in understanding human behavior in a comparative framework. For this reason, even modern debris lying on the deck was recorded by the team as an integral part of the site.

Among the technical problems was developing an image of a 608-foot battleship on the harbor bottom with very little relevant documentation available. Although some plans exist, many of the operational modifications were not well-documented, nor were any of the traumatic changes to the hull that resulted from the attack or the extensive salvage that followed.

Furthermore, the research design had to be totally nondestructive in nature, both in the documentation phase and also in the search for new materials in the harbor. Low-impact, low-tech methods were chosen that utilized a large number of personnel skilled in diving but possessing no scientific background. A detailed discussion of the methods used in each phase of the documentation research is presented in Chapter III.

Relevant questions were particularly hard to define for the corrosion and biofouling study, even the type of experts necessary. Many scientists have addressed the problems of metal corrosion but rarely with the variables encountered at Pearl Harbor: an immense steel object with water on both sides of the plates, existing in an environment rich in biological organisms and full of stray currents from many possible sources. The water was presumably aerobic on the hull's exterior but the oxygen content of water in the interior was unknown. The hypotheses generated for determining relevant variables and for eventually being able to roughly predict the implications for structural failure are discussed in detail in Chapter IV

Research parameters for the discovery-phase survey for sites in the harbor involved development of a predictive model, which is presented in the historic record narrative in Chapter II. Discussion of the deep-water side-scan survey methodology is in Chapter III, while the corresponding predictive model falls in Chapter II.

<<< PREVIOUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTINUE >>>