Site Formation Process Studies as Aircraft Site Identification: A WWII-Era Flying Boat Case Study

Abstract

Compared to the study of shipwrecks, the investigation of submerged aircraft is relatively recent in underwater archaeology. With the passing of time and the addition of World War II (WWII) sites to historical registers, the inclusion of aircraft in the Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004, and the continued expansion of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency's (DPAA) mission to recover lost pilots and crew, these studies have become increasingly important to a variety of stakeholders. Site formation process (SFP) studies stipulate that a crucial aspect of the accurate investigation and interpretation of a site rst requires a thorough understanding of the processes that created and subsequently altered the site. For terrestrial archaeologists, as well as maritime archaeologists studying shipwreck sites, a well-established database of such knowledge already exists. For submerged aircraft, however, this database is small, yet growing. This paper will contribute to the understanding and interpretation of submerged aircraft sites through the study of the processes that created and subsequently affected a submerged WWII-era PB2Y Coronado aircraft located in Tanapag Lagoon, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Archaeological and historical evidence is examined through the lens of SFP studies to identify the speci c aircraft, determine its cause of crash, and understand cultural and natural factors that have impacted the site and may affect it today. Site Formation Research and AircraftBefore archaeologists can identify and interpret an archaeological site, they must have a complete understanding of the site, how it came to be, and what factors have impacted it since wrecking. Developed in the milieu of 1960s and 1970s archaeology, the study of site formation began as a processual analysis. Stated simply by Michael Schiffer (1987:5), "the past…does not come to us unchanged." The site that archaeologists observe today is not a perfect re ection of the past; certain processes have occurred between its deposition and later excavation that may have changed its structure, layout, and composition. We cannot accept, at face value, that "the proveniences of artifacts in a site correspond to their actual locations of use in activities" (Schiffer 1972:156). Archaeologists created a theoretical framework, which they called site formation process (SFP) studies, in order understand how the archaeological record changes and allows "genuinely intersubjective statements to be made about the past" (Schiffer 1972:157). Schiffer (1987:7) states that "neither the historic nor the archaeological record gives up its secrets about the past easily." The archaeologist cannot just read those records; instead, they must investigate the formation processes involved and correct for their effects. These formation processes fall into two categories: cultural and noncultural transformations, respectively abbreviated c-transforms and ntransforms (Schiffer and Rathje 1973:170). Cultural transformation processes are those "processes o...