Chapter I: Introduction
(continued)

Archeology of War

Richard Gould in Shipwreck Anthropology (Gould 1983) discusses a range of issues pertaining to the archeology of war that are germane to the Pearl Harbor research. Gould states that examination of material remains of battles enhances our understanding of human behavior in warfare, providing more information than an exclusive dependence on written or oral history. Societies have certain responses to the stress of warfare and the anticipation of warfare that are not totally conscious, and that correspond more to general laws of human behavior. These behaviors leave signatures in the material record that serve as "unambiguous indicators and identifiers of the particular kinds of behavior that produced them" (Gould 1983: 106).

To illustrate his case, Gould compares the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588 with the Battle of Britain in 1940, and offers a proposition: "The greater the defensive isolation of the combatants, the greater will be the efforts by that combatant to salvage and recycle items and/or materials of strategic value from any wrecks that fall within its territory."

Building on Gould's paradigm, the residues of the Pearl Harbor attack show clearly a high degree of stress on the part of the American Pacific Command. Although the United States was certainly not in a desperate position regarding its military-industrial potential to rebuild fleet losses, its response was very much in line with behavior Gould would ascribe to an isolated combatant. One of the most intense salvage operations ever undertaken ensued at Pearl Harbor over the two years after the attack. Hawaii is isolated by 2,500 miles from the U.S. mainland, and within what the Japanese considered the aegis of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Stephan 1984).

It may be that the signs of intensive salvage and recycling evident all through the ARIZONA's remains result from a sense of strategic vulnerability. That does not explain, however, why so many of the easily salvaged items of ship's apparel, armament and groundtackle on the UTAH were left in place. Perhaps the very nature of the ARIZONA as a memorial and its symbolic significance to the American people explain the salvage behavior of 1942.

This dual nature -- archeological site and war memorial -- is not restricted to the material remains at Pearl Harbor. The duality creates a particularly compelling research focus for archeologists and historians because of the symbolic lode of the remains. Historian Edward Linenthal has offered instructive observations on the role of the battlefields as reservoirs of spiritual power.

For many, the Little Big Horn was one of America's sacred places, hallowed by the blood of America's warriors. As a sacred place, the Little Big Horn is part of a constellation of martial centers where Americans celebrate the formative acts that give shape to the nation. Gettysburg, the Alamo, Lexington, and Concord are all places of power, power that can be ritually recalled (Linenthal 1983:268).

Archeologists, as students of human behavior, would miss a great deal if they failed to recognize the normal transformational processes that make the USS ARIZONA and USS UTAH what they are today are largely conditioned by cultural perceptions of the sites. An entity composed of steel and silt and encrusting marine organisms has become something more than an object -- it is now a "place." People visit this place, build structures over it and venerate it much as one venerates a religious relic. This role as secular shrine is an important one in a society that has become increasingly detached and even cynical in regard to its military accomplishments.

It would be interesting to monitor over time the manner in which Americans treat this site as a shrine. If we stay far from the spectre of contemporary warfare, will its importance fade? Will distance increase its power? Will the memorial tend to serve as a barometer of the general sense of social well-being? It may be hypothesized, in the sense of Linenthal, that Americans will draw upon this site for strength as if it were a reservoir of spiritual power, less intensely in times when the perceived threat is reduced. In any event, the archeology of the historic remains at Pearl Harbor doesn't end with this descriptive report. A study conducted 100 years from now by archeologists of an anthropological persuasion will probably tell us a great deal more about how our society deals with its mythic sense of the past and its role in warfare with other nations.

<<< PREVIOUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTINUE >>>