Cover Photographs by Heather Burke and Genevieve Cabrera, 2013 Title page photograph by Genevieve Cabrera, 2013 Dedicated to the late Escolastica B. Tudela-Cabrera 1930 - 2013 She was known by the community of Saipan as “the champion of common causes.” Her energy, knowledge and passion for passing on history made her an inspiration to all that knew her. iii Abstract The focus of this project and planning document is the WWII Battle of Saipan that occurred in June and July of 1944 on the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. This project builds upon two previous American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) projects: 2009-2010 WWII Invasion Beaches Underwater Heritage Trail GA-2255-09-028 and 2011-2012 Management Plan for WWII Submerged Resources in Saipan GA-2255-11-018. However the focus of this grant is on the terrestrial historic properties related to the Battle, specifically cave sites. The project aimed to: 1. conduct consultation and public meetings to gauge interest in protecting archeological cave sites on private property, identify the values associated with such sites, and examine issues/problems/solutions related to their protection; 2. produce public service announcements to increase awareness about the importance of protecting archeological cave sites on private property; and 3. develop an initial planning document for the long-term protection of archeological cave sites on private property. The results of the public consultation process indicate that there is strong local support for protecting WWII-related cave sites on private and public lands. Members of the local community have many memories of using caves or their family members using caves for shelter and protection during WWII. There is also a strong ancestral connection with caves that supersedes WWII, and evidence of this can be found in the rock art on cave walls and the Indigenous artifacts scattered on the cave floors. This document describes many of the natural and cultural factors affecting the preservation of historic cave properties. Tourism and development are the two biggest concerns with regards to the preservation of caves, and sustainable tourism must be implemented in order to preserve these properties for generations to come. This document also describes the process of developing two types of public service announcements – radio and television. It outlines the process, content and delivery of these products with regards to their ability to increase awareness about the importance of protecting historic resources. Finally, this is a planning document that outlines a ten-year plan for both a community-run organization and the Historic Preservation Office. Key strategies are identified and specific actions are outlined yearby-year. This document is meant to empower the local community and government to manage their historical properties and should be read with this sentiment in mind. iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ABPP AMP CNMI CRM CZMP DEQ DFW DLNR DOI DPL FU HPO MARC MVA NEPA NMC NMICH NPS NRHP SHARC Ships SEARCH US UXO WWII American Battlefield Protection Program American Memorial Park Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Coastal Resources Management Zoning Management Program Department of Environmental Quality Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Lands and Natural Resources Department of the Interior Department of Public Lands Flinders University Historic Preservation Office Micronesian Area Research Centre Marianas Visitors Authority National Environmental Policy Act Northern Marianas College Northern Mariana Islands Council for the Humanities National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Swift and Harper Archaeological Research Consultants Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research, Inc. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. United States Unexploded Ordnance World War II v Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 10 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 15 The Battle of Saipan 1911-1944 (after Burns 2008) ................................................................................ 17 Japanese Defences on Saipan............................................................................................................. 17 The Mariana Islands in WWII, 1941-1944 .......................................................................................... 18 Operation Forager .............................................................................................................................. 18 The Battle of Saipan – Operation Tearaway, 1944 ............................................................................. 20 The aftermath of the Battle of Saipan ................................................................................................ 23 Chapter 2: The Battlefield Today ................................................................................................................ 24 The battlefield ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Potential National Register boundary ................................................................................................ 25 Previous cave research in the Mariana Islands ....................................................................................... 28 Oral histories ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Phelan and Denfeld’s cave research in the Pacific .................................................................................. 30 Previously recorded cave sites on Saipan ............................................................................................... 34 The cave sites survey ............................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: Cave Geology and Historical Background ................................................................................. 39 Geology .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Types and locations of caves .............................................................................................................. 39 Prehistoric Indigenous use and adaptation of caves on Saipan .............................................................. 43 Historic and Ethnographic Accounts .................................................................................................. 43 Archeological Evidence ....................................................................................................................... 44 WWII use of caves: pre-, during and post-battle .................................................................................... 46 6 Indigenous and non-Japanese civilians .............................................................................................. 47 Japanese civilians................................................................................................................................ 48 Japanese military ................................................................................................................................ 49 US military .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Archeological Evidence ....................................................................................................................... 55 Post-war cave use .................................................................................................................................... 56 Local community ................................................................................................................................ 56 Japanese bereavement bone collection missions .............................................................................. 56 Chapter 4: Cave, Rockshelter and Tunnel Sites .......................................................................................... 61 Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Uncle John’s Cave ............................................................................................................................... 61 Papagu Cave ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Japanese Field Hospital Cave and Swiftlet Cave................................................................................. 68 Ayuyu Family Caves ............................................................................................................................ 74 Gen’s Research Cave .......................................................................................................................... 79 Camacho Family Cave ......................................................................................................................... 82 “Naftan” Cave at Lao Lao Bay Golf Resort .......................................................................................... 86 Ben Sablan Family Caves .................................................................................................................... 87 1000 Men Cave or Liyang I Falingun Hanum...................................................................................... 89 Achugao Caves.................................................................................................................................... 91 Cabrera Family Cave ........................................................................................................................... 93 Chalan Galaidi Cave ............................................................................................................................ 96 Esco’s Caves ........................................................................................................................................ 97 Kalabera Cave ..................................................................................................................................... 97 Impacts on sites ....................................................................................................................................... 98 Looting, “salting,” or moving artifacts................................................................................................ 98 Spelunking .......................................................................................................................................... 98 Vandalism ........................................................................................................................................... 99 Japanese bereavement bone collecting missions ............................................................................ 100 Refuse dumping ................................................................................................................................ 100 Memorialization ............................................................................................................................... 100 Storm activity and erosion ............................................................................................................... 100 7 UXO detonation ................................................................................................................................ 101 Fire .................................................................................................................................................... 101 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 101 Livestock grazing............................................................................................................................... 101 Hunting ............................................................................................................................................. 102 Chapter 5: Planning: Community Engagement and Public Service Announcements............................... 103 Community engagement and planning meeting ................................................................................... 103 Public service announcements .............................................................................................................. 105 Chapter 6: Preserving WWII Cave Sites from the Battle of Saipan .......................................................... 107 Areas currently protected ..................................................................................................................... 107 Land protection options ........................................................................................................................ 108 Public and private property easements ........................................................................................... 108 Leasing .............................................................................................................................................. 109 Land purchase .................................................................................................................................. 109 Zoning and local ordinances ............................................................................................................. 110 Community battlefield group ................................................................................................................ 110 Preservation partners ............................................................................................................................ 110 Sustainable tourism ............................................................................................................................... 111 Restricting access .................................................................................................................................. 111 Education ............................................................................................................................................... 112 Enforcement .......................................................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 7: Recommended Actions ........................................................................................................... 113 Part 1: Community actions .................................................................................................................... 113 Form a community organization ...................................................................................................... 113 Apply for funding .............................................................................................................................. 113 Form partnerships ............................................................................................................................ 113 Work with landowners ..................................................................................................................... 113 Maintain momentum ....................................................................................................................... 114 Part 1: community action plan .............................................................................................................. 114 2014-2015......................................................................................................................................... 114 2015-2016......................................................................................................................................... 114 2016-2017......................................................................................................................................... 114 8 2017-2018......................................................................................................................................... 115 2019-2020......................................................................................................................................... 115 2021-2022 more ............................................................................................................................... 115 2022-2023 more ............................................................................................................................... 116 2023-2024......................................................................................................................................... 116 Part 2: HPO actions ................................................................................................................................ 116 Conduct a grey literature survey and develop a database of known sites ...................................... 116 Develop a management plan ........................................................................................................... 116 Form partnerships ............................................................................................................................ 117 Develop interpretation ..................................................................................................................... 117 Work with landowners ..................................................................................................................... 117 Develop a monitoring program ........................................................................................................ 117 Develop a tour guide certification program ..................................................................................... 118 Develop a restricted access, user fee system at Kalabera Cave* ..................................................... 118 Develop an archeological project ..................................................................................................... 118 Maintain momentum ....................................................................................................................... 119 Part 1: HPO action plan ......................................................................................................................... 119 2014-2015......................................................................................................................................... 119 2015-2016......................................................................................................................................... 119 2016-2017......................................................................................................................................... 119 2017-2018......................................................................................................................................... 120 2019-2020......................................................................................................................................... 120 2021-2022......................................................................................................................................... 120 2022-2023......................................................................................................................................... 121 2023-2024......................................................................................................................................... 121 Chapter 8: Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 122 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 123 References ................................................................................................................................................ 125 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... 131 Appendix B................................................................................................................................................ 138 Appendix C................................................................................................................................................ 140 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................... 142 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Photograph from website of handling human remains inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). 16 Figure 2. Photograph from website of handling human remains inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). 16 Figure 3. Photograph from website of handling WWII artifacts inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). 16 Figure 4. Invasion beaches of Saipan (Ships of Discovery 2009). .................................................. 20 Figure 5. Study area as defined by KOCOA analysis (McKinnon 2014). ........................................ 26 Figure 6. Core area as defined by KOCOA analysis (McKinnon 2014). .......................................... 27 Figure 7. Sketch of a series of H-caves found in Peleliu (Phelan 1945:7)...................................... 31 Figure 8. Sketch of U-cave found in Peleliu (Phelan 1945:7). ....................................................... 31 Figure 9. Sketch of Y-cave found in Peleliu (Phelan 1945:11). ...................................................... 32 Figure 10. Map of approximate cave locations based on Operation Forager accounts (H. Burke 2013).............................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 11. Project team. Front Row: Genevieve Cabrera; Middle Row, Left to Right: Jun Kimura, Jason Raupp, Jennifer McKinnon, and Julie Mushynsky; Back Row, Left to Right: Heather Burke, Herman Tudela, and Betty H. Johnson (missing from photo Toni Carrell, Fred Camacho, and John San Nicolas). .................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 12. General geology of Saipan (Carruth 2003). .................................................................. 40 Figure 13. Cross-section of geological section on Saipan (Carruth 2003). .................................... 41 Figure 14. Locations of cave development on carbonate islands. Category D (complex island) represents Saipan's carbonate island karst model (Stafford et al. 2002:2). ................................. 42 Figure 15. Skulls in Kalabera ca. 1920s (Hans Hornbostel Collection; Cabrera 2009:18).............. 44 Figure 16. "Man in canoe" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (J. Mushynsky 2012). ......... 45 Figure 17. "Headless man" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (J. Mushynsky 2012).......... 45 Figure 18. "Gecko/lizard" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (Julie Mushynsky 2012). ...... 46 Figure 19. Supply and storage uses for caves: food and other stores inside a Saipan cave (www.ww2incolor.com). ............................................................................................................... 49 Figure 20. Natural cave enhanced by Japanese (Department of Defense USMC 83566). ............ 53 Figure 21. Marines using flamethrower in the approach to Paradise Valley, the Marianas (www.ww2incolor.com). ............................................................................................................... 54 Figure 22. War memorial by the MHLW on Saipan (http://www.mhlw.gov.jp). .......................... 57 Figure 23. Current state of recovered human remains in the Asia-Pacific region (http://www.mhlw.go.jp, accessed 20 Jan 2012). ........................................................................ 58 Figure 24. Uncle John's Cave entrance, note reinforced cement on entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 10 Figure 25. Shell on downward slope outside Uncle John's Cave (J. McKinnon 2013). .................. 62 Figure 26. Sinkhole containing Uncle Frank Diaz's Cave (J. Mushysnky 2013). ............................. 63 Figure 27. Opening of cave (J. Raupp 2013). ................................................................................. 64 Figure 28. Inside cave looking out at entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). ............................................ 64 Figure 29. Tea kettle (J. McKinnon 2013). ..................................................................................... 65 Figure 30. Japanese ceramics (H. Burke 2013). ............................................................................. 66 Figure 31. Norbert Diaz standing in the cave (G. Cabrera 2013)................................................... 66 Figure 32. WWII era metal artifacts including a fuel container, bucket and cooking pot (G. Cabrera 2013). ............................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 33. Norbert Diaz rappelling into his cave (H. Burke 2013). ................................................ 68 Figure 34. Fish and Wildlife sign outside hospital cave entrance (J. Musynsky 2013). ................. 69 Figure 35. Inside the hospital cave looking out with team member standing on rock wall (J. McKinnon 2013). ........................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 36. Outside the hospital cave looking in with concrete platform in foreground (J. McKinnon 2013). ........................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 37. Hospital cave entrance, note cement platform in background (G. Cabrera 2013). ..... 71 Figure 38. Memorial offering in back of hospital cave (J. McKinnon 2013). ................................. 71 Figure 39. Walking into the second cave entrance (H. Burke 2013). ............................................ 72 Figure 40. Looking out from the second cave (J. Mushynsky 2013). ............................................ 72 Figure 41. Wooden stupa in the second cave (H. Burke 2013). .................................................... 73 Figure 42. Concentration of artifacts in second cave (likely collected and placed in location) (J. Mushynsky 2013). ......................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 43. View looking out of cave (H. Burke 2013). ................................................................... 75 Figure 44. Green bento box lid (J. Kimura 2013). .......................................................................... 76 Figure 45. Alcohol bottles (J. Kimura 2013)................................................................................... 76 Figure 46. Rockshelter (J. McKinnon 2013). .................................................................................. 77 Figure 47. Tunnel with Ayuyu family members (J. Mushynsky 2013). .......................................... 77 Figure 48. Gas mask and components (H. Burke 2013). ............................................................... 78 Figure 49. WWII era artifacts outside of tunnel (H. Burke 2013). ................................................. 79 Figure 50. Cave entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). .............................................................................. 80 Figure 51. Rock art (J. Kimura 2013). ............................................................................................. 80 Figure 52. Wooden barrel parts (J. Kimura 2013). ........................................................................ 81 Figure 53. Hair comb (J. Kimura 2013). ......................................................................................... 81 Figure 54. Bottle and shoe parts (J. Kimura 2013). ....................................................................... 82 Figure 55. Entrance to cave (G. Cabrera 2013). ............................................................................ 83 Figure 56. Looking out from the inside of cave (J. McKinnon 2013). ............................................ 83 Figure 57. Indigenous mortar fragment (J. Mushynsky 2013). ..................................................... 84 Figure 58. Haphazard tin can pile (J. Mushynsky 2013). ............................................................... 84 Figure 59. Japanese ceramics (H. Burke 2013). ............................................................................. 85 Figure 60. Metal drum and gray ash (H. Burke 2013). .................................................................. 85 Figure 61. Naftan cave entrance and memorial offerings (J. Mushynsky 2013). .......................... 86 Figure 62. Small, restricted cave entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). ................................................... 87 11 Figure 63. Team member standing inside rock ring (H. Burke 2013). ........................................... 88 Figure 64. Second small cave (H. Burke 2013). ............................................................................. 88 Figure 65. Entrance to cave, note the mermaid statue immediately outside the entrance (H. Burke 2013). .................................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 66. Inside cave looking out (H. Burke 2013). ...................................................................... 90 Figure 67. Scaffolding bridge erected inside cave (H. Burke 2013). .............................................. 90 Figure 68. Hair comb (H. Burke 2013). .......................................................................................... 91 Figure 69. Wall of pocket caves (J. Mushynsky 2013). .................................................................. 92 Figure 70. Gathered artifacts and memorials (J. Mushynsky 2013). ............................................. 92 Figure 71. Gathered human remains (J. Mushynsky 2013). .......................................................... 93 Figure 72. Genevieve Cabrera at the entrance of her family's cave (J. McKinnon 2013). ............ 94 Figure 73. Inside the large open space beneath the road bed (H. Burke 2013). .......................... 95 Figure 74. Adult and child shoe soles (J. Mushynsky 2013). ......................................................... 95 Figure 75. Chalan Galadi cave (J. McKinnon 2013)........................................................................ 96 Figure 76. Inside the cave suspected to be used by Esco (J. Mushynsky 2013). ........................... 97 Figure 77. Graffiti panel 1 with canoe pictograph (Swift et al. 2009:71). ..................................... 99 Figure 78. Graffiti panel 2 with canoe pictography (Swift et al. 2009:72). ................................. 100 Figure 79. Cow inside the Ayuyu family tunnel (H. Burke 2013). ................................................ 102 Figure 80. Newspaper advertisement announcing public meetings (J. McKinnon 2012). .......... 105 12 List of Tables Table 1. Mariana Island natural cave types, descriptions and locations (Mylroie and Mylroie 2007:61-62; Stafford et al. 2002:11-13). ....................................................................................... 43 Table 2. Number of individuals recovered since 2007 (http://www.mhlw.go.jp). ....................... 58 Table 3. Recovery missions by date (http://www.mhlw.go.jp)..................................................... 59 Table 4. Identification results for DNA analysis (http://mhlw.go.jp). ........................................... 60 Table 5. Conservation areas of Saipan. ....................................................................................... 108 13 Acknowledgements This project would not have occurred without the help of a number of individuals and groups. First and foremost we would like to thank the CNMI Historic Preservation Office for their continuous support. Special thanks are extended to Herman Tudela (no longer at HPO) and “JP” John Palacios. The agencies and organizations that have supported this project on island include: the National Park Service American Memorial Park; the NMI Humanities Council; and Power 99. Thank you to the volunteers on the project as well as general support while on island: John D. San Nicolas, Scott Eck, Betty H. Johnson, and Fred Camacho. Thank you to the archeological team for your assistance and knowledge: Jason Raupp, Heather Burke, Genevieve Cabrera, Herman Tudela, Jun Kimura and Julie Mushynsky. Thank you to the local community who were very enthusiastic and supportive of this project and protecting their heritage. Special thanks go to Flinders University for providing staff time and equipment, and East Carolina University for providing staff time to this project. Thank you to Windward Media for their support and assistance with this project and the fine products they produce. A big thank you should be extended to the American Battlefield Protection Program for providing the funding for this project. We would particularly like to thank Kristen McMasters for her availability and willingness to help us through this process. Jennifer McKinnon, Greenville, NC Toni Carrell, Santa Fe, NM 14 Chapter 1: Introduction This project involved a planning and consensus-building effort focused on the protection of threatened caves on private property that were occupied and used prior to, during and after the WWII Battle of Saipan by Japanese and US troops and civilians. The project was designed to assess local interest in protecting sites on private property and sought to increase awareness and advocacy of their protection into the future. This was accomplished through a series of public meetings, consultation with land owners, Historic Preservation Office (HPO), National Park Service (NPS), and other stakeholders, and the development and implementation of radio and television (TV) public service announcements (PSAs) that focus on the conservation and protection of cave sites. This project was developed as a result of local and international concern for archeological cave sites on Saipan. A range of cave types exist in various forms from natural, to modified, to fully human-made intricate tunnel systems. Due to the excellent preservation environment of caves, these sites still contain valuable historical and archeological material culture and context which is actively being compromised and destroyed by cave explorers, souvenir hunters and tourists. During 2010 while Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research, Inc. (Ships) archeologists were on island conducting research as part of a previous ABPP grant, it was reported that photographs of cave sites and their locations were being publicized on the Internet through a private blog (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html), a Flicker account (https://www.flickr.com/photos/saipanpictures/sets/72157623893765702/) and on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/SaipanPictures?feature=watch). The photographs and videos show individual(s) picking up both artifacts and human remains, which is prohibited by both Commonwealth and Federal law (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). This raised concern with the HPO and NPS about access to sites and their protection, particularly on private property. It also alarmed local Indigenous community members who were concerned with the publication of Indigenous rock art on the Internet. Inappropriate or unmonitored public access to archeological sites can contribute to an overall loss of archeological and historical context and affect the structural integrity of the sites and their long-term survival, particularly if individuals are seeking to remove or move artifacts. Whether harm is intentional or unintentional these impacts are irreversible and therefore an understanding of public access is crucial to developing a plan for how these sites can be protected and managed. 15 Figure 1. Photograph from website of handling human remains inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). Figure 2. Photograph from website of handling human remains inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). Figure 3. Photograph from website of handling WWII artifacts inside a cave on Saipan (http://saipanpictures.blogspot.com/2010/05/caves-in-saipan.html, accessed February 2014). Further, because many of these sites are on private property owned by Chamorro and Carolinian peoples it is crucial to gauge their understanding of these sites, what values they hold and how they might be involved in their protection into the future. Involving the community in this effort is vital to the success of any plan for protecting sites. Local voices must be heard and considered and the local community must be at the center of the movement to protect these sites. Over the course of the project, researchers from Ships and Flinders University (FU) traveled to Saipan several times to evaluate the caves, conduct research, speak with stakeholders, hold community meetings and produce PSAs. The preservation plan for the Battle’s caves is based on thorough evaluation of the resources. It also incorporates the ideas, wants and needs of the community and stakeholders as expressed in the individual and community meetings concerning the future of the sites and battlefield. Protection for significant cave sites rests solely in the 16 hands of local landowners and the government agencies charged with managing these resources. Outlined within this plan are strategies for addressing preservation through partnership opportunities and as well as information about financial and technical sources of support. The ABPP’s willingness to fund this plan demonstrates that preserving these caves and battlefield is more than a local initiative and that the NPS understands the significance of the battlefield and the importance of preserving it into the future. This project demonstrates to the NPS that the community is also serious about preserving the cave sites on their island. It is the purpose of this plan to provide a blueprint for future preservation efforts. The Battle of Saipan 1911-1944 (after Burns 2008) As destructive as World War I was in other parts of the world, the Mariana Islands were spared. Still, the end of the war had important ramifications for the islands. The League of Nations approved Japan’s occupation of the Mariana (sans Guam), Caroline, Marshall, and Palau Islands in 1921 with the stipulation that Japan not develop fortifications in the region. For over a decade Japan complied with the agreement and focused on infrastructural development that strengthened the economy of their possessions. Increasingly expansionist, Japan sought to strengthen its presence in the Pacific in the late 1930s. For example on Saipan, Aslito Airfield on the southern end of the island and a seaplane base at Flores Point (northeast of Garapan) were constructed. Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933 which abrogated their agreement. Barracks, ammunition storage, air raid shelters, and other facilities preparatory for an offensive war were installed elsewhere on Saipan in 1941 (Russell 1984). Japanese Defences on Saipan The Japanese defensive strategy used for Saipan and the other Mariana Islands was identical to that of earlier battles at the Gilbert and Marshall Islands: the enemy was to be met and destroyed at the beaches and, if allowed inland, they were to be pushed into the sea by way of counterattacks (Denfeld 1992). Prior to the outbreak of the war, Japan’s need for troops and material elsewhere in the Pacific hampered the pace of developments on Saipan and the other islands of the Marianas. The Japanese forces established two bases on Saipan by early 1944. The airfield at Aslito (built in the 1930s) served as a repair and maintenance facility for aircraft involved in battles to the east and south. At Tanapag Harbor, a naval base served as a staging area for troops and ships bound elsewhere (Denfeld 1992). Due to needs in other parts of the Empire, Japanese troop numbers were fairly low; in early February 1944, there were only 1,500 troops on Saipan. The impending US campaign against the Marianas hurried Japanese defensive measures and by the end of February thousands of troops were sent to the Marianas to prepare for Battle. US submarine attacks on Japanese transports prevented an estimated 2,000 troops from reaching the islands (Denfeld 1992), but by early June some 30,000 troops were prepared for Battle on Saipan (Rottman 2004b). Once they had sufficient troops and materials available, the Japanese forces commenced defensive improvements on Guam, Tinian, Rota, Pagan, and Saipan. On Saipan, another airfield was built by Lake Susupe near the town of Chalan Kanoa, but this was little more than an 17 emergency landing strip. More airstrips were planned on Saipan and throughout the islands, but most were never completed (Denfeld 1992). Forty-six gun installations were established on the beaches and ridges of Saipan, but twelve were not operational on D-Day. An additional three units lay on railcars awaiting installation at the start of the Battle and another 42 were in storage at the Navy base at Tanapag. Construction of three blockhouses on the beaches of Saipan, each a concrete structure with four ports housing heavy guns, began in early 1944. Between Obyan Point and Agingan Point stand two of the three blockhouses. The third is at Laulau Bay (Purple Beach). None of the three blockhouses housed the large guns intended for the fight against US forces. (Denfeld 1992). The Mariana Islands in WWII, 1941-1944 Across the Pacific, word spread that war was coming, however, only Japan knew when and where it would start. Shortly after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, Japanese forces initiated air attacks over Guam, which they had been openly monitoring since November. Commercial airline buildings, fuel supplies, the US Navy yard, vessels in Apra Harbor, and the capital at Agana were bombed. Poorly defended by the US, Guam fell on 10 December within six hours subsequent to the Japanese invasion. Guam became the only part of the US to fall under enemy occupation during WWII. With this prize under its belt, the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy mounted very successful aggressive operations across the Pacific in the early years of the war (Rogers 1995; Rottman 2004a). As these events were occurring in the Marianas, Allied powers meeting in Egypt agreed upon a Pacific strategy consisting of two offensive drives. The first, led by General Douglas MacArthur, was an advance from New Guinea to the Philippines. The second, led by Admiral Chester Nimitz, was a push through the Gilbert and Marshall Islands across the Central Pacific to take the Marianas. Once accomplished, a strategic bombing campaign could be mounted against the Japanese mainland. By the start of 1944, this broad strategy proved successful for the US and the Japanese government realized an invasion of the Marianas was imminent. As Marine historian O.R. Lodge wrote, “A strangling noose was tightening around the inner perimeter guarding the path to their homeland” (Lodge 1954). Operation Forager The US’s plan to take control of the Marianas from Japanese forces was code-named Operation Forager and included the island of Guam. The plan to invade and take control of Saipan was called Operation Tearaway. This massive operation involved thousands of troops from all branches of the military and a bewildering number of vessels, vehicles, and weapons. Japan’s defenses focused on five islands in the Marianas: Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and Pagan. Saipan, home of the administrative center of the Japanese Marianas, was chosen as the first target with Tinian and Guam as secondary. US war planners opted to bypass a full assault on Rota and Pagan (Rottman 2004a). Air attacks were the first phase of Operation Forager. In February 1944, US bombers destroyed the Orote Peninsula airstrip on Guam. General air raiding also began across the Marianas, resulting in US dominance of the skies. In response, Japanese forces prepared Operation A-Go, which relied upon the support of the Imperial Japanese Navy and air forces to support troops on the ground in the Marianas. 18 Operation Forager was in full swing by June 1944 when the invasion of Saipan was planned. The invasion was set for June 15, D-Day. Responsible for this task was the Marine V Amphibious Corps (VAC) that consisted of the 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions, the 27th Infantry Division (Army), and the XXIV Corps Artillery (Army). US military planners considered landing points on all sides of Saipan. On the eastern side of the island, an area designated Brown Beach on the Kagman Peninsula was considered but rejected because it was well-defended and would offer a poor exit. Three other beaches, Purple Beach on Magicienne Bay and White Beach 1 and 2 near Cape Obiam on the southern reach of the island, were kept as alternates. At Tanapag Harbor were the well-defended Scarlet Beaches 1 and 2, and to the north of this area were Black Beaches 1 and 2, which offered insufficient space for the large unit landing that was planned (Rottman 2004a). The lower western side of Saipan was chosen as the primary invasion area. Stretching approximately four miles and divided into several zones, this area was most favorable because the size would allow two Marine divisions to land simultaneously. A landing here also allowed the immediate capture of the airstrip at Chalan Kanoa placing direct pressure on nearby Aslito Airfield. Once secure, these air strips were used to support the penetration northward across Saipan. Afetna Point divided the landing beaches. To the north were Red Beaches 1, 2, and 3 and Green Beaches 1 and 2 while to the south were Green Beach 3, Blue Beaches 1 and 2, and Yellow Beaches 1, 2, and 3 (Rottman 2004a) (Figure 4). As favorable as the lower western side of Saipan was for the US invasion, certain limitations remained. Because of its distance from the northern sector of the island, beaches in this area (Scarlet 1 and 2 and Black 1 and 2) had to be captured in order to facilitate the off-loading of supplies from landing craft. Another problem at the beaches off the lower western side of Saipan was the extensive coral reef that abutted the shore. These had to be negotiated with amphibious vehicles including AMTRACS or Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVTs) and amphibious tanks, also known as Landing Vehicle Tanks (LVT(A)s). Both the 2nd Marine Division and the 4th Marine Division had three AMTRAC battalions each, plus one amphibian tank battalion, for the initial shore assault. This amounted to approximately 1,400 AMTRACS, the largest use to date of amphibious vehicles. Once ashore, the AMTRACS were required to push inland from the beach, a tactic that was equally unprecedented and also potentially dangerous. AMTRACS, with their thin armor and low ground clearance, were not designed for cross-country movement. 19 Figure 4. Invasion beaches of Saipan (Ships of Discovery 2009). The Battle of Saipan – Operation Tearaway, 1944 An intensive barrage presaged the beach invasion foreshadowing the massive confrontation that was set for June 15. On June 12, 200 carrier aircraft bombed Japanese airfields in the southern Marianas, decimating the enemy’s air force. That same day, US B-24 bombers began around-the-clock raids on Saipan and Tinian. The following day (June 13), seven fast battleships leveled the towns of Chalan Kanoa and Garapan and on June 14, more battleships as well as 11 cruisers and 26 destroyers attacked Japanese coastal defenses. 20 On June 14, other crucial preliminary actions took place along the coast of Saipan. Early that morning, Underwater Demolition Teams began their mission to demolish reefs, enemy mines, and mark lanes along the Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow beaches. This effort was largely successful. Simultaneously, a mock attack was held by a “Demonstration Group” off the northwestern coast at Scarlet and Black beaches (refer to Figure 1) in an attempt to trick the Japanese into thinking that the invasion was to occur there. Another was held in the early morning hours of June 15, D-Day. The Demonstration Group consisted of the 2nd Marines, the 1st Battalion, 29th Marines, and the 24th Marines. The feint was supported by naval gunfire as landing craft approached the beach to within 5,000 yards, circled for a few minutes, wheeled about, and returned to their ships. Troops were not embarked, the landing craft drew no fire, and no activity was observed on the shore. Although clearly not convinced by the ploy, the Japanese stopped short of removing troops from here and redeploying them to other beaches. Interestingly, Japanese commanders did wire Tokyo to report that they had repelled an invasion in this area (Rottman 2004a). As the sun rose on June 15, the enormous US amphibian force was assembled for the invasion. AMTRACS and DUKWs were unloaded and LSDs (Landing Ship, Dock) launched LCMs (Landing Craft, Mechanized) that held tanks. Battleships, cruisers, and destroyers closed in on the invasion beach with aircraft screaming overhead toward the shore. With nearly 1,500 vessels in all, this great unpacking of men, weaponry and ammunition was surely an intimidating sight for the Japanese forces and the islanders. At exactly 0830 hours, the AMTRACS carrying hundreds of marines stormed for the beach as supporting ships and aircraft opened fire. The Japanese troops generally held their fire until the AMTRACS reached the lip of the coral reef when they poured artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire on the Marines. Due to the condition of the seas, the Marines had a great deal of difficulty reaching the beach. Numerous AMTRACS were rendered inoperable or destroyed as a result. Dozens of Marines lost their lives when AMTRACS were overturned in the rough surf, but by 0900 hours nearly 8,000 Marines were ashore (Crowl 1960; Rottman 2004a). The beaches, especially the northern Red and Green Beaches, were chaotic and crowded. Because of the heavy swell and long shore current, the US landing in this area was several hundred yards north of its intended location. In all areas Japanese fire was very heavy and came from the high ground beyond, as well as trenches and spiderholes along the immediate shoreline. The overland AMTRAC charge, a calculated risk, proved disastrous as the flimsy AMTRACS became stranded in marshy areas, craters, and other obstructions on the ground. As casualties for the Marines mounted, many chose to abandon their machines in favor of walking or crawling. Problems increased as the morning wore on. At the northern beaches, two 2nd Marine Division command posts were destroyed, killing battalion commanders and key staff and on the south, the 4th Division indecisively struggled with Japanese tanks for hours. The arrival of US tank battalions, howitzer batteries, and other support forces improved the overall situation by the end of the day, although the beachhead remained unconsolidated. On this day, the first of the battle for Saipan, some 2,000 Marines were killed. Mortar and artillery fire were the principal causes of death. Offshore hospital vessels were completely overwhelmed and wounded men were transferred to other, non-hospital ships for treatment (Crowl 1960; Rottman 2004a). Over the next two days, the Marines secured and expanded the beachhead. The morning of June 16 was spent closing the gap between the two divisions, which were separated by a strong 21 Japanese force on Afetna Point. By noon, this goal was accomplished. A huge Japanese counterattack was successfully repelled that afternoon and the Marines engaged in the largest tank battle of the Pacific War. Aslito Airfield was under pressure at the close of the day. In contrast, the 27th Infantry Division (Army) came ashore to support the Marines on the morning of June 17 and bore the brunt of a door-to-door fight through Garapan village, another innovation in the Pacific War. After the beaches were secured, support groups landed on the beachheads to facilitate the massive unloading of supplies. The post-invasion landscape they witnessed was grim. Disabled AMTRACS and boxes of c-rations were scattered across the beach. Bodies of dead Marines that were not yet recovered bobbed in the surf. “The leaves on battered trees and underbrush were covered with a fine, gray dust,” wrote former Naval Construction Battalion (Seabee) commander David Moore. “This whole scene gave an eerie feeling of war” (Moore 2002). On the evening of D-Day, Seabees were ordered to launch the floating causeways held in the LSTs (Landing Ship, Tanks). Throughout the night, the Seabees maneuvered the various pieces through the channel and assembled them at the Chalan Kanoa beachhead. By daybreak supplies were being unloaded from landing craft. Other craft towed pontoon sections that were made into floating piers to unload supplies. Pontoon barges were used to haul ammunition. While vital to the continued success of the American operation on Saipan, unloading supplies and ammunition from barges on the beachhead became monotonous as combat moved farther inland. This “grueling mission of moving ammunition and other supplies to the beach…became a routine of eating bland c-rations and sleeping on the barge for a boring 54 days of blazing sun or miserable rain,” remembered one Seabee who served at Saipan. “The Coxswain often grumbled: it is noble to suffer. We [the Seabees] were granted the undistinguished title, ‘Bastards of the Beaches’” (Moore 2002). There were nevertheless many soldiers on the mainland that would have traded places with the Seabees. Japanese attempts to call in reinforcements from neighboring islands were fruitless, but they continued to fight with resolve. On June 18, they attempted a daring counter-landing from their tattered Navy base at Tanapag Harbor. Japanese infantrymen were hastily loaded onto 35 barges and sent toward the US landing beaches. In route, US infantry gunboats and Marine artillery intercepted them, destroying many and deterring all. A larger-scale encounter played out in the Philippine Sea between June 19 and 20 when the US Navy defeated the Japanese Imperial Navy in what is known at the “Marianas Turkey Shoot.” In the meantime, the US secured Aslito Airfield and the southern reaches of the island and prepared the northward fight (Crowl 1960; Rottman 2004a). More gruesome scenes followed in this monstrous battle as June became July and US troops pushed deeper into the island of Saipan. Garapan was secured on July 3, the Tanapag seaplane base on July 4, and on July 6 the Japanese forces staged their last massive banzai charge. After Saipan, Japanese commanders deemed such suicidal charges as wasteful. Rarely effective, they were not used in later battles. Through mountainous terrain, tropical conditions, and intense resistance, US forces reached the northern end of Saipan at Marpi Point on July 9, 1944 (Crowl 1960; Rottman 2004a). 22 The aftermath of the Battle of Saipan The loss of life during the Battle of Saipan was tremendous. Approximately 3,426 of the 67,451 US troops who participated in the Battle were killed or reported missing in action. Four times this number were confirmed wounded. Japanese losses were far greater. Of the approximately 31,629 Japanese troops who participated in the Battle, 29,500 were killed or missing (Rottman 2004b). Japanese sources, however, estimated the total number killed on Saipan to be well over 40,000 (Bulgrin 2005). The long-fought and costly victory at Saipan, the fiercest of the three major battles in the Marianas, was politically and militarily decisive. US successes in the opening two weeks of the Battle induced Japanese Emperor Hirohito to attempt a diplomatic end to the war. When news of Saipan’s fall reached Japan, political pressure forced Prime Minister, War Minister, and Chief of Army General Staff Tojo Hideki and his cabinet, as well as Navy officials, to resign (Rottman 2004a). Equally as important to the decisiveness of the victory at Saipan was the island’s proximity to Japan. This was also true of Guam and Tinian. The Mariana Islands were ideal for the development of bases for long range, B-29 bombers that were capable of reaching the Japanese mainland. On Saipan, the US wasted no time in developing these bases. Aslito Airfield was renamed Conroy Field and then Isely Field. By December 1944, it was used as the main operating field on the island. Two new airfields, Kobler Field and another at Kagman Peninsula, were also built at this time. The seaplane base at Flores Point was rebuilt and improvements were made to the Marpi Point airfield. Saipan and the Mariana Islands paved the road for more decisive battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Together, the great sacrifices of these and other battles of the Pacific War gave US military planners an impression of what could be expected from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Plans for such an invasion were in the making when the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the surrender of the Japanese Empire and the conclusion of WWII. 23 Chapter 2: The Battlefield Today The Saipan battlefield retains considerable integrity in certain areas of the island and the viewshed from many points is excellent and a constant reminder of the activities that took place during 1944. Locals and visitors are reminded of the Battle daily by the remnants of the war, such as tanks and guns scattered inland and along the coastline, pre-war and WWII Japanese structures covering the island and large and small caves hidden in the bush. While the island is easily recognizable as a battlefield site, it has also been the location of years of development and commercial and private building which can obscure prominent features and sites. The battlefield Three battlefield boundaries were addressed as a result of the application of KOCOA analysis in a 2009-2010 project that assessed the significance of the central and northwestern portions of waters surrounding Saipan (McKinnon and Carrell 2011). These include: 1. Study Area, which encompasses the ground over which units maneuvered in preparation for combat; 2. Core Area, which defines the area of combat; and 3. Potential National Register Boundary (PotNR), which contains only those portions of the battlefield that have retained integrity. In most cases KOCOA has been applied to Revolutionary and Civil War battlefields which are clearly bounded and defined (Legg et al. 2005; Bedell 2006; GAI Consultants 2007; Fonzo 2008). These conflicts, lasting one to several hours, were brief encounters on a discrete portion of land. Combat consisted of hand-to-hand combat and close range artillery, such as guns and cannon. In the survey and analysis of this type of battlefield site archeologists are dealing with a short moment in time and an enclosed space. Conversely, the battle for Saipan was several months long if aircraft bombing missions are considered, or, if only the ground invasion is considered, a three week engagement that slowly spread across an island 115 km2 in size. Further, it was not only fought over land, but also in the surrounding lagoon and sea and in the airspace above. This type of combat was made possible through advances in combat vehicles and aircraft and increased artillery range. Study area The study area for the Battle of Saipan is much larger than the island of Saipan and its immediate surrounding waters. Broadly speaking, the approach to the island from Pearl Harbor where the expeditionary forces left on 5 June 1944 could be considered part of the study area; however this space will not be included for the purposes of this project. Rather the study area encompasses the waters and airspace above the adjacent Philippine Sea, approaches to the island, the island, and the immediate surrounding waters that both US and Japanese forces used to maneuver and prepare for battle (Figure 5). For example, the US and Japanese forces utilized the sea and airspace to conduct aerial and underwater reconnaissance and to position themselves strategically in the lead up to and during the Battle of Saipan. Historical records indicate that several reconnaissance missions both in the air and underwater were launched by the US in early 1944. Further, Japanese forces conducted their own reconnaissance flights to gain more knowledge about the invading US forces. There are also records of the US using diversionary tactics such as a mock attack prior to invasion and on the day of invasion. These demonstrations, maneuvers, staging, and reconnaissance activities all can be considered part of the study area of the Battle of Saipan. 24 Core area The core area for the Battle of Saipan is similar in scope to the study area of Saipan, particularly on the western side of the island. This research has defined the core area as the space in which either side engaged in combat in the form of hand-to-hand, close range, and long range weaponry. For example, the offshore position from which US shelling and bombardment occurred several days prior to the invasion of the island is considered part of the core area, as is the space just outside of and above the lagoon where aircraft strafed and bombed surface vessels and other aircraft. Thus the core area incorporates the whole island of Saipan as well as those spaces on the water and in the air where combat occurred (Figure 6). The study and core area for this project has not been altered and will remain the same as previous projects. Potential National Register boundary The WWII landing beaches on the west coast, Aslito/Isley Field in the south and Marpi Point in the north were listed on the NRHP and designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) on February 4, 1985. The NHL encompasses 1,366 acres of land and water (Thompson 1984). The NHL was designated based on the history and integrity of the areas; however, no archeological fieldwork was conducted. (See Thompson’s [1984] nomination for sites located within the Landmark). It was not within the scope of this project to delineate a second or expanded boundary for this area. Further, because this project did not cover the entire battlefield, but only specific cave properties on private lands, the integrity of the battlefield cannot be assessed for those areas not surveyed. Nevertheless, the individual sites that were surveyed can be assessed on a case-by-case basis for archeological integrity (see following chapters). 25 Figure 5. Study area as defined by KOCOA analysis (McKinnon 2014). 26 Figure 6. Core area as defined by KOCOA analysis (McKinnon 2014). 27 Previous cave research in the Mariana Islands While the existence of cultural remains in cave sites has been documented by numerous researchers over the past one hundred years, few projects have focused specifically on caves. To date there has been no systematic island-wide archeological survey of caves on Saipan and there are very few published works on archeology conducted in caves. Like most other Pacific islands where caves have been documented by archeologists, it has generally been undertaken only when they are encountered though cultural resource management projects or surveys of WWII battlefield sites. Although in many other parts of the world archeological research in cave environments has been considered highly important and excavations have provided new information about local cultural histories, until recently caves sites on Saipan have been given little attention. Following the end of WWII, the islands of Micronesia were established as a trusteeship of the United Nations and were known as the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, which were administered by the US. Apart from Guam, which became a Territory of the US in 1898, the Northern Marianas existed under Trust Territory status (18 July 1947) until they were declared a Commonwealth of the US in 1976. During the Trust Territory period little archeological research was conducted on the Northern Marianas aside from the 1949-1950 Chicago Natural History Museum investigations conducted by Alexander Spoehr. This project involved excavations on the archipelago’s three southern islands and the results of these formed the basis for Spoehr’s major work entitled Marianas Prehistory: Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian and Rota (1957). This seminal volume included not only descriptions of his excavations and discussions of the results, it provided brief discussions of previous research that had been carried out in the pre-war period. Of interest in this discussion is the reference to Laura Thompson’s investigations of cave sites on both Tinian and Saipan, though no further information about her research is given. Spoehr’s own surveys included the investigation of 25 limestone caves on Saipan and numerous others on Tinian (Spoehr 1957). However, all but one of these were found to have been disturbed “by Japanese defense forces and converted into machine gun positions and military strong points for the defense of the island during the American invasion” (Spoehr 1957:29). The only cave site to be excavated and documented by Spoehr was the Laulau Shelter site, which is located near the large bay of the same name on the island’s east side. Excavations at the site indicate that it was used primarily as a place for burial and cremation; just under the topsoil a thick stratum of densely packed ashes and fragments of charred human bones, some plain pottery and three shallow burial pits was found. Below this layer several other burial pits where found in a clay layer that was devoid of artifacts other than those associated with the burials. These contained the remains of several adults and children, as well as ceramics that predate those found in the upper level (Spoehr 1957:52-58). Spoehr (1957:52) also mentions that the surface in the northern part of this cave had been cleaned out by Japanese forces and that it was used as a military strong point. Dave Lotz (1998) documented over 400 WWII related resources in Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and Aguiguan in World War II Remnants – Guam, Northern Mariana Islands: A Guide and History. Lotz’ survey and publication contain a few of the cave and rock shelter sites, but little indepth research was conducted other than noting their locations. 28 The next research project that focused directly on the archeological investigation of Saipan’s caves was carried out by Genevieve Cabrera and Herman Tudela of the CNMI Historic Preservation Office. Cabrera and Tudela conducted a research project on Indigenous rock art located in various caves around the island, but primarily reported on Kalabera Cave. They outlined the historical, cultural and archeological significance of cave sites and rock art, and provided a useful interpretation of the imagery, which they supported with archeological evidence and Indigenous oral histories (Cabrera and Tudela 2006). The private consulting firm SHARC conducted both archeological and environmental assessments of the well-known Kalabera Cave site in 2009/2010 when government plans were considered for developing the cave into a tourist attraction (Swift et al. 2009). The government plans proposed several option for tourism development including a full-scale tourism operation with food venues, parking, etc. SHARC’s survey and excavation focused primarily on Indigenous use and occupation of the cave system; however they provided significant information regarding management options for cave sites. Their report should be consulted with regards to any future research on cave sites. Also, in conjunction with the work by SHARC, the LAMAR Institute conducted a GPR survey at Kalabera Cave as part of a larger GPR training project on the island (Elliot and Elliot 2008). This survey also focused on the Indigenous contexts. Caves and their associated artifacts have also been identified as part of cultural resource management archeological surveys in various areas of Saipan (Eakin et al. 2012; Mohlman 2011). For example, an archeological survey conducted by the consulting firm Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (SEARCH) was conducted of the Sabanettan i Toru area in the north of Saipan and several cave sites were recorded (Eakin et al. 2012). Another archeological survey of the Ginalangan Defensive Complex on Rota, conducted by Moore and HunterAnderson (1988) identified thirteen different property types on the island of Rota, including bulwarks, caves, concrete slabs, parapets, pillboxes, pits, revetments, rock-faced terraces, stone steps, stone wall enclosures, stove bases, vehicles, and water tanks. Another archeological survey conducted by SEARCH was of the Chudang Palii Defensive Complex in Rota. A portion of the complex had been documented in 1992 by Swift et al. (1992). Among the 133 features recorded, including those recorded previously, and of relevance to this research were 27 tunnels, nine overhangs and one rock shelter (Mohlman 2011:50). Environmental geologists Danko Taboroši of the Hokkaido University and John Jensen of the University of Guam published an article on the use of caves in WWII in the Mariana Islands, and more specifically on Guam in 2002; however, the article is historical in nature. Another article published by Boyd Dixon and Richard Schaefer (2014) focusses on the caves and rock shelters of Guam and Tinian and primarily is concerned with the pre-historic period use of cave. Wider cave research has focussed on the non-cultural aspects of caves. In 2006 and 2007, geologists conducted fieldwork on Saipan to update and reinterpret the geology of island, which was last documented in 1956. This included documenting the geological composition of caves found in Saipan’s karst topography (Weary and Burton 2011). In 2009, biologists attempted to establish a prehistoric fossil record for the vertebrate fauna of Guam. To achieve this, they excavated animal bones in Guam’s caves, particularly Ritidian Cave and Gotham Cave. Results expanded on the reptilian, rat, and bird fauna of Guam and indicate that human impact had led to declines or losses of vertebrate populations by late prehistoric times (Carson 2012:347; Pregill and Steadman 2009:984, 991–994). 29 Oral histories In 1980 a private research and writing firm, Ted Oxborrow and Associates, conducted an oral history project for the Micronesian Area Research Centre (MARC). They collected 20 interviews from residents, primarily Chamorro and Carolinian, in Saipan, Tinian, and Rota who lived on the islands from 1943–1945. The interviews are split into two volumes. The volumes are in the archival collections at MARC at the University of Guam. Out of the 20 interviewees, 14 mention Indigenous people digging caves, seeking caves as places of refuge and as places where family members and co-habitants died during the Battle (MARC 1981:16, 22, 24, 34, 39, 43, 64, 69, 76, 82–83; MARC 1981a:9, 11–12, 19, 57–58, 65–66, 77–79). In 2004, a book entitled We Drank Our Tears: Remembering the Battle of Saipan was published (Pacific STAR Center for Young Writers 2004). It is a collection of stories by mostly Chamorro and Carolinian elders of Saipan which were told to the younger generation (i.e. grandchildren and great grandchildren) about their experiences during the Battle. There are 79 short stories and the majority of the interviewees describe hiding in caves (see Appendix D for table of caves mentioned). Phelan and Denfeld’s cave research in the Pacific The most comprehensive publication on cave types dating to the war period was that produced by W.C. Phelan, USNR, entitled Japanese Military Caves on Peleliu, “Know Your Enemy!” (1945). The publication was prepared for those currently serving in the Pacific. Phelan (1945) indicates that in Peleliu, human-made caves were created in different shapes and for different naval and army purposes. He states that the majority of the human-made caves were for naval purposes and were more spacious, while the human-made Army caves were smaller and more crudely constructed (Phelan 1945:16). Phelan identifies different human-made cave types based on their shape (H, E, U, Y, I, L, and T) (Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). Most of these caves were used for shelter while the U and Y-shaped caves were used for combat, and the rectangular were used for storage. E and T caves were used as shelter and for combat. Those used for combat were modified with stacked rock, gasoline drums and tree logs for protection (Phelan 1945:4-16). Human-made Army caves came in seven types: I, L, T, U, W, J, and Y. Most were used for combat while W caves were used as shelter and as field hospitals. The Y caves were used for combat and shelter or storage (Phelan 1945:20-24). The Army appeared to be the ones who primarily used and modified natural caves which were used for storage, combat, and personnel purposes (Phelan 1945:3-4). Certain improvements occurred in every natural cave including levelling floors, removing hanging rocks, preparing the entrance, camouflage, providing against water seepage, and enlarging the interiors. Further modifications were completed based on their intended purpose (Phelan 1945:25-26). Three types of natural caves were modified: water cavity, balcony cavity, and vertical fault (Phelan 1945:26-34). Use of unmodified caves was rare although the Japanese appeared to pile gear and supplies in them out of desperation (Phelan 1945:25). 30 evolution of Japanese defensive fortifications and the role these facilities played in the Japanese defensive strategies for the Pacific War” (Denfeld 2002:1). The book’s text is divided into four parts pertaining to various themes, including historical background (Part I: Japanese Militarization and Defense of Micronesia); geographic locations (Part II: Island Defenses); fortifications and armaments (Part III: Emplacements and Weapons); and related structures (Part VI: Buildings). With regards to the current research, the most relevant component of this volume is Part III, in which special consideration is given to caves and tunnel positions (Section S) among the many different site types discussed. This section presents a discussion on the use of both natural and human-made caves on the island of Peleliu in Palau and provides a cave and tunnel typology which was developed as a result of his research. Located on the island’s interior, human-made caves or tunnels were used as secondary defensive positions for Japanese soldiers retreating after the collapse of beach defenses (Denfeld 2002:80). His research showed that the Japanese Navy and Army each used human-made caves built according to standardized designs, but that they followed different plans due to their intended use (Denfeld 2002:80). Denfeld identified eight main types of defensive human-made cave and tunnel positions in use by the Japanese Navy based on their general configuration; these include H, E, U, Y, I, L, and T shapes, as well as large rectangular caves. Navy caves were generally used as shelters, warehouses and as firing positions, with different types having specifically intended uses. Strategically positioned in the landscape, Navy shelter cave entrances were often reinforced with fuel drums or log barriers for protection, and were often modified to be used as fighting positions during battles. Entrances to Navy combat positions were commonly reinforced with rocks piles or rock-filled drums to protect their occupants from enemy fire. Certain types of combat caves, including I and T shapes, were used to hide field artillery pieces and were sometimes equipped with rails to facilitate movement of those guns when needed (Denfeld 2002:81). Used as underground warehouses, the large rectangular caves were heavily reinforced and were accessed via tunnels secured with heavy metal doors (Denfeld 2002:82). The Japanese Army constructed six different types of human-made caves and tunnels which were also based on their general configuration; these include the I, L, T, and U shapes, as well as J (modified from I designs) and W (modified versions of the Navy E cave) shapes. These were generally smaller and better camouflaged than the Navy caves and their locations were selected with tactical positioning in mind. Though the main purpose of Army caves was combat, some of them (such as the Y and W shapes) included sections for storage and/or living quarters. Entrances to Army combat caves incorporated large revetment and blast walls for protection, very small openings for firing, and small niches for shielding personnel from enemy fire. Some of the designs (such as the J and W shapes) also offered the advantage of protection from small arms fire and US flame thrower attacks via rooms placed far in the back (Denfeld 2002:82). Though most of the section is devoted to the description of human-made caves and tunnel positions, Denfeld concludes with some brief statements regarding the use of natural caves on the island of Peleliu. Though some natural caves were also used for gun positions, many others were used as shelters, hospitals and command posts. In order to improve them, they were reinforced and modified with human-made tunnels to provide living spaces and access (Denfeld 2002:82). Overall the discussion of Japanese caves and tunnel positions presented in the 33 publication provides a basic understanding of the various designs and types employed. Denfeld’s other significant publication pertaining to Japanese use of caves during WWII is Peleliu Revisited: An Historical and Archaeological Survey of World War II Sites on Peleliu Island (1988). Published in 1988, this report provides a synopsis of surveys undertaken by the author on the island of Peleliu in 1981 for the Trust Territory Office of Historic Preservation. These surveys were funded by a grant from the NPS and were intended to “locate and assess the sites, features and objects associated with the Pacific War” to allow for development on the island through a determination of “which sites are significant and worth preserving from those sites which can be destroyed” (Denfeld 1988:1). As a result of this study, the island was designated as a NHL by the NPS to honor the courageous efforts of both the Japanese and US forces in the Battle (Denfeld 1988:1). The text is divided into two sections: the first presents an historical overview of the Battle and the use of the island after the invasion, which was gleaned from primary source documents, and the second presents the results of field surveys. Accompanying the text are historic photographs and maps, as well as a map of the island showing the locations of sites identified during the surveys and photographs and illustrations of individual archeological sites. For the most part the discussions of the cave sites identified in the surveys are very basic and are much the same as those found in the 2002 publication. Included is information about the intended function of caves and their physical descriptions, including measurements and modifications. Of particular use to the present study is the inclusion of an appendix entitled “Examples of Japanese Tunnel Construction on Peleliu.” Here the author provides sketches of the nine different types of tunnels that were documented as part of the survey; these include I, J, L, T, W, Y, and U Types, as well as “Water Cavity Caves” and “Rectangular Caves” (Denfeld 1988:95-102). Together these drawings and descriptions formed the basis for the cave and tunnel typology described in the 2002 publication. Previously recorded cave sites on Saipan Unfortunately, attempts to procure a list of previously recorded cave sites in Saipan were unsuccessful. The HPO site files are not digitized and a list of recorded cave sites would require thumbing through each paper site file, as well as all of the reports that have been produced over the years. This type of background research was beyond the capability of this project; however having easy access to files is critical to understanding the resource. War documents can be useful in identifying the location of caves and may be used as a guide for future archeological survey. The Operation Forager journals recount numerous discussions about caves and their location with relation to quadrants, named features, and areas of the island. An attempt was made to place those locations on a map to look at the distribution of caves across the island. Figure 10 depicts the approximate locations of mentioned caves and Appendix A contains the information about those entries. 34 Figure 10. Map of approximate cave locations based on Operation Forager accounts (H. Burke 2013). 35 The cave sites survey The project was supported by the Division of Historic Resources HPO, the Governor’s Office and the NPS. It met and followed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register, September 29, 1983 [48FR44716]). In accordance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, all activities associated with this project were carried out in consultation with other Federal, State and local agencies, and Indian tribes as appropriate. The HPO was consulted prior to field work, and this project was determined to have no adverse effects on any cultural resources. The project team consisted of a number of specialists who contributed in their knowledge areas, including: Jennifer McKinnon and Toni Carrell; Heather Burke, an archeologist specializing in Indigenous archeology, rock shelter and rock art archeology, community archeology and WWII archeology; Genevieve Cabrera, a historian of Chamorro and Carolinian decent specializing in rock art and WWII research; Herman Tudela, an archeological technician, of Chamorro and Carolinian decent, previously with the HPO, specializing in human remains identification; Jason Raupp, an archeologist with rock shelter and WWII archeological experience; and Jun Kimura, a Japanese archeologist. In addition to the core team, several local volunteers assisted with site location and fieldwork including John John San Nicolas, Betty H. Johnson, Fred Camacho, and FU student Julie Mushynsky (Figure 11). Julie Mushynsky has since begun a PhD at FU to study the WWII-related caves. 36 Figure 11. Project team. Front Row: Genevieve Cabrera; Middle Row, Left to Right: Jun Kimura, Jason Raupp, Jennifer McKinnon, and Julie Mushynsky; Back Row, Left to Right: Heather Burke, Herman Tudela, and Betty H. Johnson (missing from photo Toni Carrell, Fred Camacho, and John San Nicolas). Previous ABPP projects have conducted the bulk of historical research necessary to provide a basic outline of the battlefield and activities related to the Battle (McKinnon and Carrell 2011). Thus, historical research specifically into the use of caves was conducted as a part of this survey. Historical research and synthesis focused on specific data related to the use of caves sites before, during, and after the Battle. Limited archeological fieldwork took place during the project. Visits to cave sites were undertaken under the direction of, and in conjunction with, local landowners. Notes and photographs were taken at each site. All notes, records, and photographs will be prepared according to guidelines set forth by the NPS and HPO. Copies of all records (paper and digital) will be provided to and stored at the HPO as well as Ships. These records include: field notes, daily logs, maps, and photographs. Limited human remains were encountered during the project. The human remains found were not disturbed and the local HPO was notified. Human remains and their associated artifacts were treated in a respectful and professional manner. No removal or analysis of human remains 37 was undertaken as a part of this project. Publicly accessible publications and displays will not include photographs of any human remains. The battlefield was not comprehensively surveyed due to its size and complexity and the need to focus specifically on cave sites, and more specifically, cave sites on private property. Instead, sites were identified and located based on local informants and stakeholder conversations. Thus the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Survey (CWSAC) methodology was not applied, nor were the Core and Study Areas redefined. This survey methodology targeted known cave sites on private lands that may be in danger of, or subject to, impacts, or that were examples of pristine preservation. It was found during the course of the survey that all of the sites retain a great deal of archeological integrity in relation to their original purpose and use during WWII. They are all equally recognizable as WWII cave sites and their locations relate specifically to the activities that took place before, during, and after the Battle in those areas. Some of the sites have been subject to post-war salvage and demolition, but to segregate this behavior from the actual battle would be difficult and uncharacteristic of the holistic approach this survey has taken. Other sites have been heavily affected by their natural and cultural environment; however this has not greatly affected their archeological integrity. Thus, for the sites surveyed during this project it was found that their archeological integrity is generally high (see following chapters for specific details on individual sites). 38 Chapter 3: Cave Geology and Historical Background Geology The Mariana Islands were formed during the Eocene epoch, 56 to 34 million years ago, by the convergence of the Pacific and Mariana Plates. The consequential subduction of the Pacific Plate formed the Mariana Trench and uplifted the Mariana Island chain to the west of the trench (Bowers 2001:8; Stafford et al. 2002:4). The five southern islands in the Mariana Island chain consist of raised platforms of limestone formed around volcanic cores. The northern islands are younger volcanic peaks (Butler and DeFant 1991:5). Saipan, the second largest island in the Mariana Island chain, is approximately 21 km long and 6.5 km wide with an overall area of approximately 115 km². Saipan consists of a consolidated volcanic core overlain by younger coral limestone (Bowers 2001:8; Cloud et al. 1956:1). The central core is comprised of Eocene-age volcanic Sankakuyama, Hagman, Densinyama and Miocene-age Fina-sisu formations. The island’s limestone formations comprise over 75 percent of the island’s surface and include Miocene-age Tagpochau and Pleistocene-age Mariana and Tanapag units. Pleistocene and Holocene-age terrace, marsh and beach deposits, sandstone and elevated limesands make up about 15 percent of the surface lithology (Carruth 2003; Cloud et al.1956:33–34; Stafford et al. 2002:3; Weary and Burton 2011) (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Uplift on Saipan has raised the coral limestone on Mount Tapochau to 474 m, the island’s highest point. The island’s step-like appearance is due to wave action cutting the slope into a succession of thirteen limestone terraces on five distinct levels. The landscape is modified by subsequent faulting, cutting, tilting and offsetting, and further complicated by the interfingering of different lithologies and the presence of both carbonate and non-carbonate rocks. Saipan’s principal fault lines are high-angle and primarily run in a north-northeast or northeast direction, parallel to the Mariana Ridge. Fault activity has extended from the middle Tertiary to the present (Bowers 2001:8, 13; Cloud et al. 1956:1, 21, 94–95; Stafford et al. 2002:3; Weary and Burton 2011). Types and locations of caves Saipan is a complex carbonate island (Figure 14). The island’s primarily limestone surface results in karst topography of natural solution caves, sinkholes and streams. Solution caves are formed by the dissolution of bedrock through circulating groundwater. As groundwater mixes with carbon dioxide from the soil it creates carbonic acid, which dissolves the limestone over thousands of years, creating solution caves. The Mariana Islands exhibit five distinct types of natural caves: banana holes, flank margin caves, fracture caves, pit caves and stream caves (Stafford et al. 2002:11; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:2). The location of each cave mentioned above is determined by the hydrology of the island. Table 1 describes cave types found in the Mariana Islands and their locations. On Saipan, natural caves can be found almost anywhere within the Mariana and Tagpochau Limestone (Stafford et al. 2002:11–13). 39 Figure 12. General geology of Saipan (Carruth 2003). 40 Figure 13. Cross-section of geological section on Saipan (Carruth 2003). 41 Figure 14. Locations of cave development on carbonate islands. Category D (complex island) represents Saipan's carbonate island karst model (Stafford et al. 2002:2). 42 Table 1. Mariana Island natural cave types, descriptions and locations (Mylroie and Mylroie 2007:61-62; Stafford et al. 2002:11-13). Cave Type Banana Holes Flank Margin Caves Fracture Caves Pit Caves Stream Caves Description isolated oval chambers 5m to 10m in diameter and 1m to 3m high isolated, spherical chambers that are the most common type in Rota and Tinian large tubular features that can extend from 10s of meters to 100s of meters vertical shafts typically 5m to 10m deep that are formed by the dissolution of descending meteoric waters long, narrow features formed by allogenic recharge. Allogenic recharge occurs where meteoric water cannot penetrate volcanic rocks and thus forms surface streams, which channel water into more penetrable carbonate rock Location top of the freshwater lens formed in the distal margin of the freshwater lens where thinning of the lens and mixing of fresh and saline waters creates dissolutionally aggressive phreatic waters developed along joints, fractures, or faults that have effectively enhanced dissolution rates form independently of sea level and freshwater lens position and can form in any exposed carbonate rock on an island along contacts between carbonate and noncarbonate rocks Prehistoric Indigenous use and adaptation of caves on Saipan Historic and Ethnographic Accounts The first historical mention of caves in the Marianas is a brief reference to rock art in the seventeenth century accounts of Spanish Jesuit, Father Diego Luis de San Vitores (Higgins et al. 2004). Much later, Georg Fritz, District Administrator of the Northern Mariana Islands during the German Period, noted Saipan’s rock shelters and caves in his 1904 ethnography. He suggested that almost all the caves were occupied as dwellings or meeting places. He specifically mentioned visiting Kalabera Cave and one other cave in the vicinity. He also noted a rock wall with darkened cavities at Unai Lagua and several previously inhabited caves at Naftan Point (Fritz 2001:18–19). Fritz described finding human remains, bamboo poles and signal horns in two of the caves he visited, and described Kalabera Cave as a mass grave prepared by the Spanish on account of the abundance of human bones and skulls found inside. During Fritz’ administration he noted that the ancient Chamorro people would extract the skulls of the dead, place them in specialized containers, and bring them into the home as part of ancestor worship (Cabrera 2005:35; Fritz 2001:18). Based on this, he believed the Spanish rather than the Chamorro people placed the skulls and bones in Kalabera Cave. A 1913 report by Czech scientist Stanislaus von Prowazek mentioned visiting a cave at As Teo. He described and illustrated pictographs that resembled the rock art motifs found in Kalabera Cave (Prowasek 1913:41, Spennemann 2004). In the 1920s, former US Marine and artifact collector Hans Hornbostel also visited Kalabera Cave while working for the Bernice P. Bishop 43 Museum in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He photographed a number of the pictographs found within the cave and the few skulls remaining in the cave’s entry (Cabrera and Tudela 2006:42–44) (Figure 15). Figure 15. Skulls in Kalabera ca. 1920s (Hans Hornbostel Collection; Cabrera 2009:18). Archeological Evidence The use of Saipan’s caves from the prehistoric period results in a range of material culture, including rock art, artifacts, and human remains. One of the most well-known and visited sites with rock art is Kalabera Cave, which contains over 50 rock art images (Cabrera 2009a:11), many of which are located in the first 9 m of the cave entrance. The images are located across a number of concave, recessed niches along the southern wall and on the flattened portions of the northern and eastern wall. All pictographs in these three locations are rendered in white pigment, which Cabrera and Tudela (2006:44) suspect is slaked lime. The majority of the images depict human figures, often headless, in standing and burial positions (Cabrera and Tudela 2006:50). Other images of human figures appear to be engaged in maritime activites. A few zoomorphic images are also present, including a gecko or lizard (Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18). Human skulls were also present in the cave from at least the Spanish Period through to the 1920s, indicating that Kalabera Cave has ancestral significance for the Chamorro people (Cabrera and Tudela 2006:44–45). 44 Figure 16. "Man in canoe" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (J. Mushynsky 2012). Figure 17. "Headless man" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (J. Mushynsky 2012). 45 Figure 18. "Gecko/lizard" pictograph in Kalabera Cave - 8cm scale (Julie Mushynsky 2012). Rock art exists in several more caves on Saipan, but it is not well-known or the details have not been recorded in the site files. Ancestor worship among the Chamorro people was not only about collecting ancestral skulls, but also included the use of the physical remains of ancestors in manufacturing tools. People who used ancestral bones invoked the spiritual strength and skill of the ancestor to increase success in battle, craftsmanship, farming, hunting, and fishing (Russell 1998:155–156). Clavicles and the long bones of arms and legs were removed for use in the manufacture of tools, weapons, fish hooks, spears and awls or needles for sewing fishing nets. Although a skilled fisher or brave warrior may have died, the use of his/her bones as fish hooks or spear points meant that he/she was still able to provide food and protection for his/her family. The utilization of human remains may also explain why only the skulls of the dead remained in the Kalabera Cave until the 1920s (Cabrera and Tudela 2006:48–50). A number of Indigenous artifacts related to occupation and ritual have been found and are still located in caves. These include bone tools, pottery sherds, shell adzes, slingstones and grinding stones. Often Japanese troops would clear out caves prior to utilization, and as a result these artifacts are often found along the perimeter or outside the caves. WWII use of caves: pre-, during and post-battle Modified caves and human-made caves exist in the Mariana Islands as a result of human activity. Prior to the outbreak and during WWII, the Japanese military fortified Saipan. These fortifications included modifying existing natural indentations and caves. Caves were excavated by hand in limestone cliff faces and facades were built up for camouflage and protection at the entrances. Modified and human-made caves were used by Japanese forces as gun emplacements, workshops, command posts, storage, shelter and hospitals (Eakin et al. 2012:11). Prior to the US invasion in 1944, many Indigenous residents also modified existing caves and excavated their own to use as places of refuge during the Battle of Saipan (MARC 1981:16; 1981a:9). 46 Indigenous and non-Japanese civilians The various stories told in the volume We Drank Our Tears (Pacific Star Center for Young Writers 2004) emphasize the critical role that caves played in the survival of multiple generations of civilian families during the Battle of Saipan. The majority of stories in this volume contain an account of hiding in caves, although the specific experiences of different people varied widely. A more detailed collection of oral histories made in 1980 by MARC contain many local accounts of the use of caves, as well as maps of their individual locations (MARC 1981; MARC 1981a). In 1943 prior to the Battle, the Japanese government had sent many people from Garapan back to their farms and requisitioned their town houses for use as barracks. This meant that many families were located physically close to caves, either on their property or nearby, when the Battle broke out. As a result they were able to pre-prepare these locations. For instance, Adela Rasiang recalled: I was so sad when we were sent off to our farms to live there. The Japanese Government made us do it. So everybody left their village. We know that the war was coming, so we built our cave and prepared for it. When war erupted we hid in our cave (MARC 1981: 24). A similar story was told by Amada Kaipat: We hid inside a cave before the invasion came because the Japanese (Government) warned all the people over the loud speakers that Americans were going to be attacking … we were well prepared for the (invasion) war if it were to come. We would simply run to our cave and hide because we had everything there, already in the cave. Just as the invasion came, we went to the cave and two families were already hiding in the cave. We couldn’t get inside because there was no room, so Uncle David told us to move out and find another place to hide (MARC 1981: 9). Pre-preparation of cave locations by local Indigenous families was not universal, however, and many other oral history accounts note that people were unaware of what was going on until the Battle actually began. The conditions within caves also varied. Lack of water was an almost universal experience, and for those who were not pre-warned, or living close to known caves, food was also scarce. This implies that at some locations there may be very little material signature of Indigenous occupation during the Battle, since material items were few, and even food and water was often lacking. Some cave sites were used more opportunistically, as people moved about looking for shelter and there was sometimes a high degree of movement between caves. Some people remembered moving every night to a new cave, others only once or twice, usually because a particular event, such as a bomb or the arrival of Japanese soldiers to requisition their cave, forced them to move them on. Others were lucky enough to be able to stay in the one location for the entire duration of the Battle— in some cases up to 21 days: 47 We were lucky because we had many caves on our farm. We hid in one that was very big, but the Japanese came and kicked us out. They wanted to use it as a hospital cave. We had to go to a smaller one. We couldn’t even stand up inside it. There were about forty-five of us there. It was very tight, but nobody complained. We stayed there for nineteen days. There was a spring near our cave so we had plenty to drink (Escolastica B. Tudela-Cabrera quoted in Petty 2002: 26). Similarly, the number of people taking shelter also varied widely. Some sites were occupied only by the one family, others by many people, and others from related families and/or strangers. According to some accounts up to 50 people were sometimes occupying the same space: There were about fifty of us, the Seman family, ourselves, the Cabrera family, and a couple of others. We all ended up in this cave for fear that if the Japanese came they would definitely kill my dad. … We were in that cave for three weeks. We did a lot of praying. In the cave there was a small hole that gave us a panoramic view of all of southwest Saipan and we could see ships as far as the horizon. We could see the landing craft coming toward the landing beaches (David Sablan quoted in Petty 2002: 42). In almost all cases, people remained in the caves during the day and only emerged at night to forage for food and water. This pattern was typical of the military as well, both US and Japanese. Japanese civilians Unlike the Indigenous civilians who were left to fend for themselves, Japanese civilians retreated with the troops as they moved first east and then north. In terms of supplies, the experiences of Japanese civilians were very different from those of Indigenous people (although Japanese oral histories have not been explored yet). Juan Blanco, for example, recalled: There is a large cave not far from Calabara cave. There were maybe 1,000 Japanese in the cave. I stayed there for about two weeks. There was a large boulder in front of the mouth to that cave, and one day while I was in there with my NKK co-workers a bomb landed between that boulder and the mouth of the cave, killing many people. … We had plenty to eat. The Japanese soldiers had lots of canned food: luxury food, corned beef, tuna, salmon and things like that. But water, that was the problem (Petty 2002: 30). Food caches, as well as ammunition dumps, were located by marines around the island in a variety of places, including caves (Figure 19). According to the G-2 Intelligence Report for Operation Forager (United States Army 1944a: 27-28): “Enough food alone was taken on Saipan to feed the interned civilian population for a period estimated as 7 months.” This food— approximately 1,930 tons of it—was subsequently used to feed all the Indigenous people in Camp Susupe, with the exception of those sick in the hospital and the workers whose noon meals were allowances from Army rations. Most of the supplies were recovered from cave storage used by the Japanese. (United States Army Forces, CPA 1944: 426). 48 Figure 19. Supply and storage uses for caves: food and other stores inside a Saipan cave (www.ww2incolor.com). Guy Gabaldon, a private with the Second Marine Division who entered many caves as part of missions to encourage Japanese soldiers and civilians to surrender, when asked what ‘booty’ he normally found at these sites, replied: Rock candy, canned crab meat and lemon soda. Man, did the Japs ever like rock candy and lemon soda! It was in every cave and bunker. And many cases of Kirin beer. That was real Kirin Beer, bottled in Kirin, Manchuria, not like the Kirin Beer today, made in Tokyo. Those Manchurian troops brought the best with them (http://www.wtj.com/articles/gabaldon/). The death toll for Japanese civilians—men, women and children—was immense during the Battle. Many killed themselves inside caves rather than surrender to US troops, or were killed by Japanese soldiers when trying to surrender in the last tumultuous stages of the Battle. Some caves were used for many years following the war. Caves were used as hiding places for Japanese civilian holdouts following the war (Spoehr 2000:60). Japanese military The most intensive and physically visible use of caves was by the Japanese military on Saipan, including both the Imperial Japanese Navy with 6,200 men and the 32nd Army with various estimates ranging between 25,800 and 31,600 men (Caporale 1984: 19). The biggest material signature naturally arises from this occupation. Coastal caves intersecting with the freshwater lens were used as water sources (Mohlman 2011:127; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:2–3; War Department 1944:155). For the Japanese the high 49 ground and ridgelines were highly strategic positions, enhanced by heavily defensive and fortified ground works in and around cave locations: It was apparently the enemy's plan to occupy sides of the high ground and from positions in caves, take our troops under enfilade fire as opportunities arose. These cliff positions were practically invulnerable to our Artillery and mortar fire. Each position had to be definitely located and brought under direct fire of self-propelled mounts or tanks before neutralization could be effected. In addition, it was necessary to occupy these positions with Infantry (Forager Operations Report 1944: 6). The strategy focused on protecting the beaches and then moved on to organizing defences in the interior. Caves were used for both offensive and defensive actions and could also function as pre-prepared fallback positions to allow the Japanese to defend themselves against advancing US marines. Mohlman (2011:50) identifies 133 features such as walls, tunnels, enclosures, terraces, overhangs, stairs, ramps, trenches, depressions, berms, platforms, ammunition clusters, fences, bulwark, chamber, insulator, landscape, and rock shelter. Lieutenant W. C. Phelan, in a 1945 study of fortified caves on the island of Peleliu, distinguished between those constructed by the Navy and those by the Army: The … Army appears to have used natural caves wherever possible, whereas the Navy almost completely ignored these and prepared more comfortable and spacious shelters for itself. The Naval caves were primarily shelters – few of them were prepared for ground defense – whereas the Army concentrated on combat positions. The construction battalions of the Navy were not available to the Army, and Army personnel apparently were not permitted to use Navy shelters. … Caves in naval areas will usually be extensive air raid shelters or coast artillery emplacements. Army caves will be smaller, more numerous, will be interlocked with pillboxes and communication trenches, and will contain prepared defenses against ground attack (Phelan 1945: 5-6; 42). While comparisons between Peleliu and Saipan are instructive, Saipan may have been less well fortified than other islands in the Pacific: I know the Japanese had been charged with fortifying the islands before the war, but I think the only one they had fortified was Truk. Saipan they hadn’t. The biggest guns they had, the naval guns, weren’t even mounted yet when we landed. They were still at Tanapag Harbor. The only real fortifications they had were pillboxes and air raid shelters. …their defenses, even though they gave us a hell of a time, were not very good. And they didn’t really have first class troops there. …Saipan was not the fortress that Iwo Jima was, for example (Harris Martin quoted in Petty 2002: 157). On Saipan some Indigenous people had been made to help build and fortify cave sites, or stock them with ammunition prior to the Battle and were later used by the US Marines to relocate these sites. For example, Antonio Borja, a native Tinian in the merchant marine, was forced to dig tunnels for cannon placement. The work schedule was from seven in the morning until midnight, six days a week for 18 months (Petty 2002:62–63; Mohlman 2011:22). 50 The Japanese forces modified many natural caves (Figure 20). Natural caves and crevices were modified in different ways by levelling floors, removing overhanging rocks, preparing the entrances for combat, enlarging areas, preparing gun positions, camouflaging, connecting caves, adding walls, and reinforcing ceilings and entrances with concrete, steel and lumber. Due to the effectiveness of US submarine actions in the Pacific, the Japanese in the Marianas suffered from a shortage of armament and fortification construction materials and had to use natural materials like stone, earth and discarded fuel drums to reinforce and build walls and enclosures (Denfeld 1992; Eakin et. al. 2012:11, 47; Mohlman 2011:17; Phelan 1945:25–26, 28). Across the Pacific islands, local materials were often used in construction, particularly coconut logs and coral rock because both were strong materials that did not splinter (Military Intelligence Service 1944: 156). Additionally, Japanese forces booby-trapped the caves as part of island defence. In Guam, environmental scientists identified numerous strategically placed boreholes filled with picric acid: a highly sensitive bulk explosive detonated by heat, shock, or friction. When located, fortunately, the trigger mechanisms had deteriorated (Taboroši and Jenson 2002:6–7). Defensive positions were usually well positioned to provide fields of cross fire and all-round defense, sometimes connected by tunnels or trenches. A well-known tourist location in Saipan, known as the Last Command Post (although it was not the last command post), is a large Japanese fortification of natural stone and poured cement which is half cave, half bunker. The view from this position is such that the lower tiers of the island, the water and areas to the north and south can be seen easily. Today, the site also includes and a collection of military artifacts assembled for public display (Eakin et al. 2012:23, 160). Human-made caves range in size from fissures and pits a few meters deep to intricate tunnel systems, usually hand-dug by civilian forced labour into natural escarpments and limestone cliff faces (Eakin et al. 2012:11). Caves were sometimes constructed as a series of interconnected caves or built on top of each other (Eakin et al. 31; Phelan 1945:4–24; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:4). There were several key military uses for caves and their surroundings on Saipan: Bunkers (artificial constructions usually placed between rock outcrops, and often opportunistically using natural boulders and cliff faces to enhance their construction). Bunkers could be built above or below ground, with oil drums filled with earth or sand to provide additional reinforcement for walls and their entries angled or otherwise protected by fire walls to deflect grenades (Japanese Soldier 162). Typically bunkers were part of larger integrated defensive networks, consisting of rifle pits, machine gun emplacements, pillboxes, and other strong points where each position could provide covering fire (Military Intelligence Service 1944: 157). Tunnels were artificially constructed, although they may have begun as natural openings in the rock, and often in various configurations. Phelan (1945) notes the range of standard tunnel shapes and configurations used by both the Navy and the Army. Rockshelters or overhangs were an opportunistic use of natural overhangs to provide protection to people and weapons. Caves or natural sinkholes were used as offensive positions, storage, accommodation or protection). Notes in the Operation Forager reports attest to the variety of uses for these sites: 51 Noteworthy was an enemy field piece, located in TA 108G (NAFUTAN Point), which operated from a cave with an entrance covered by steel doors. The doors opened, the gun was run out, fired, and returned to the interior of the cave immediately, after which the doors were closed (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944 Enclosure D: 16). In area 212 L is cave evidently used as Jap CP (Command Post), 30-40 dead including 8 Os; many documents. 1 wounded POWs sent back direct. Med & Sig supplies around area (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 99). Rpt finding cave in TA165 D with 10 cases of Jap rations which were 40% down and required a rope ladder to descend to the food (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 150). Ren of CP area by G-2 personnel reveals cave which contained 100 60 lb sacks of rice and approx 100 cases of 47mm and 57mm ammo (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 154). 1st Bn found approx 50 cases 81mm mort ammo in TA 167 A; found stoves in cave at 180 W. 2d Bn located cave in 152 M in which were 60-70 sea mines; cave was approx 100 feet deep. Also found 30 60mm star clusters, 10 cases MG ammo, 10 cases carbine ammo, 10 cases 30 cal ball ammo in TA 175 V (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 178). A POW states there are 100-150 soldiers in caves in TA 286M, these caves have a water hole & are 30-40 feet deep (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 210). Numerous ammunition dumps in caves inside of cliffs from 117 Q to 109 D (27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944: 4). In some cases the areas in front of, above or around cave positions had additional structures or features to enhance their strategic or domestic use. Phelan’s study of caves on Peleliu noted that: Army caves were not as large, complete or ingenious in their construction [as Navy caves] but they were exceptionally well chosen for tactical purposes. Army supply caves had simple protected lines of communications to gun emplacements. Army personnel caves likewise were adjacent to or immediately behind mortar or MG positions. … In many places the gun installation was in the very mouth of the caves, ammunition and personnel both being located therein. Mortar and artillery emplacements had protective automatic weapon caves located above or beside them (Phelan 1945: 16-17). Living quarters were often erected immediately adjacent to defensive points, along with facilities for storing food and ammunition (Military Intelligence Service 1944: 157). Modifications related to living include features such as walls, enclosures, overhangs, cupboards, walkways, and stairs made of rock (Mohlman 2011:25). According to Phelan (1945: 26) personnel or ‘living’ 52 caves were usually equipped with a wooden floor, tin roof and lights, with cooking areas, and equipment also available: Living areas were the most protected locations, providing safety from counterbattery fire. Where personnel were required to live in the cave they fought from, protected niches were always constructed. Where they used adjacent caves, the living cave was always larger, more comfortable and just as well camouflaged (Phelan 1945: 26). Although its use is unknown, a 1944 photograph of a Paradise Valley cave in Saipan clearly shows a large two-story timber structure built on a concrete foundation outside the mouth of the cave – possibly for domestic use prior to the Battle (Figure 21). Some caves were also used as field hospitals, including Kalabera cave. According to Private Robert Graf from the 23rd Marines, a fellow rifleman told him this story: You should go up and see the huge cave that I was just in. It was large and contained a completely equipped operating room, all the medical equipment, surgical tools, etc. The tools were made from German surgical steel. When the battalion and regimental doctors were told about it, they almost went crazy over finding such excellent equipment. Each doctor wanted some tools for his use (Chapin 1994: 18-19). Figure 20. Natural cave enhanced by Japanese (Department of Defense USMC 83566). 53 Figure 21. Marines using flamethrower in the approach to Paradise Valley, the Marianas (www.ww2incolor.com). Immediately following the Battle and for some time afterward, some Japanese soldiers did not surrender in the Marianas and elsewhere in the Pacific (Dixon et al. 2012: 113). According to Dixon (2012:113), “They continued to honor the Bushido code, believing that ‘to rush into the thick of battle and to be slain in it, is easy enough…but, it is true courage to live when it is right to live, and to die only when it is right to die’ (Nitobe 2006:33). Indeed, ‘for a true samurai to hasten death or to court it, was like cowardice’ (Nitobe 2006:88). Some Japanese soldiers considered surrender a way of courting death, therefore contrary to the Bushido code. They chose to continue hiding in the jungles instead.” One such holdout on Saipan was Sakae Oba who was an officer of the Imperial Japanese Army. Oba led a group of soldiers and civilians evading capture by US forces until he surrendered in December 1945 over a year after the Battle, three months after the war (Jones 1986). The last person found utilizing caves for shelter on Guam was Japanese Sergeant Shoichi Yokoi. He was hiding out in caves until he was located on January 24, 1972 (Taboroši and Jenson 2002:4). US military As opposed to the Japanese occupation and use of caves, the US military was largely responsible for the destruction of caves during the Battle. The standard practice was first to fire on caves and other defensive installations using ships’ artillery and then to destroy each one individually on the ground with tanks, grenades and flame throwers: Company C requested two tanks to assist in eliminating enemy machine gun and mortar positions, and due to the densely wooded terrain, changed its method of 54 attack from an effort to maintain a line into a series of combat patrols. Visibility was from ten to twenty feet. Fighting all the way, Companies A and B reached the top of the ridge after knocking out many enemy positions. One strong point was encountered housing about twenty of the enemy, which contained three American BARs and two enemy machine guns. Engineer flamethrower and demolition teams were employed to augment Companies A and B. By 1500, the enemy in cave positions holding up these two units had been wiped out. At 1600, Companies A and B were halted to establish a night perimeter (106th Infantry 1944: 11). In the process caves were often sealed with people still inside them, particularly as many Japanese—both military and civilian—refused to surrender and viewed death as the preferable option. The Operation Forager reports record many such events, for example: The 3rd Battalion, 105th Infantry, on the left had orders to remain in its present location. Our troops, flame throwers and demolitions moved down the draw, encountering numerous enemy-infested caves. These caves were sealed or rendered ineffective by the assault teams. In all cases, the enemy refused to surrender and an unknown number were killed or buried alive in the caves (106th Infantry 1944: 24). Archeological Evidence The majority of Saipan’s caves contain artifacts directly related to battle. Artifacts found and reported throughout the caves in the Mariana Islands include helmets, radios, batteries, canteens, gas masks, gas mask components, shoe parts, personal effects, metal and porcelain bowls, tin cans, scrap metal, wrapped chalk blocks, glass shards, lumber, eating utensils, tea pots, beer, wine, sake, medicine and soy bottles, aircraft parts, and toothbrushes. There is also an abundance of ordnance and personal armament, including Japanese and US grenades, canons, anti-aircraft guns, rifle shell casings, bullets, bullet clips, projectiles, and weapon and artillery parts (Eakin et al. 2012:42, 44, 47; Mohlman 2011:22, 35, 165; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:5–6). Evidence of the Battle still lies adjacent to the caves in the form of UXO, which are of high concern for locals. Many cave sites also contain indications of civilian utilization. Domestic cooking items found include glassware, decorated ceramic cups and bowls, and civilian shoes of varied types and sizes, as well as other personal effects (Eakin et al. 2012:31; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:4). In addition to manufactured materials, there are many human remains still in caves from civilians and soldiers. The battle had devastating consequences and it is estimated that close to 3,400 Americans, 29,000 Japanese, more than 900 Chamorro and Carolinian people, and an unknown number of Korean and Okinawan people were killed (OHP 2011:9; Spoehr 2000:59). The death toll in and around caves was incalculable. Apart from those who were deliberately sealed in caves as a result of military action, many civilians died in their refuges from thirst, malnutrition, disease, and injuries. As US troops advanced many Indigenous and Japanese civilians were also killed in caves as a result of mistaken identity or crossfire. The issue was compounded by the deliberate misinformation spread by the Japanese military. During the war, Japanese civilians were told that they would be tortured and killed if taken prisoner by the marines (Spoehr 2000:60). The consequence was that many Japanese military and civilians 55 chose to commit suicide in caves or threw themselves off Suicide or Banzai Cliff rather than surrender (Eakin et al. 2012:12; Taboroši and Jenson 2002:3–4). As a result Saipan’s caves hold human remains from men, women, and children of Indigenous and non-Indigenous descent (Eakin et al. 2012:132, 251). From a research standpoint, this ethnic mixing presents particular challenges for the accurate identification of human remains. Post-war cave use Local community Today local landowners use caves in a variety of ways. Some allow livestock to shelter in the caves, while others store equipment or tools inside. Anecdotal stories have been told about landowners filling in their caves for various reasons. Additionally, caves have and continue to be used as dumping grounds for garbage. Japanese bereavement bone collection missions In 1952 the Japanese government initiated teams to visit major battlefields to collect the human remains of deceased Japanese; these are known as “bone missions” in the Pacific. Saipan’s caves were and still are visited as part of these bone collection missions and many of the bones are repatriated to Japan, often without knowing the ethnicity of the person to whom they belong. Jun Kimura relates that there is an awareness of the management and protection of WWII cultural heritage within Japan, but that recognition does not extend to heritage located outside of Japan. There are several WWII heritage sites in Japan that are registered or protected under the current heritage registration system. Of the registered sites, caves located in Haebaru, Okinawa Province are significant because the site was designated as a War Heritage site in 1990 by a local Japanese municipality. Okinawa was the fiercest battlefield in Japan during WWII and the Haebaru Caves (called Gama or Gou) were used as field hospitals. Haebaru town has custody of the designated heritage within the legislative framework controlled by the Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). The MEXT, however, has yet to provide support for the active management and protection of heritage places overseas. The aftermath of WWII is complex within Japanese culture and this underlies the relative lack of recognition of battlefields and battle sites as cultural heritage outside Japan. Even though over 65 years have passed since the end of the war, a number of Japanese still feel the war is not really over, particularly due to the fact that the remains of many soldiers have not been recovered from battlefields scattered across the Asian-Pacific region and Russia. The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) is the organization responsible for various matters related to post-war processes, including the human remains recovery effort. The Planning Division of the Social Welfare and War Victims’ Relief Bureau is the primary contact and the agency that collects information about Japanese remains. MHLW carries out the Memorial Projects for War Dead which consists of five major components (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wphw4/08.html). These components are: DNA analysis project on the remains of war dead abroad Since 2003, MHLW has organized DNA analysis on some of the recovered remains upon requests by the bereaved relatives. 56 Pilgrimages for memorial services and visits to burial sites The Japanese government has delegated pilgrimages to and conducted memorial services at WWII battlefields with the involvement of the war-bereaved relatives and survivors since 1976. Friendship and goodwill memorial project Since 1991, the Japanese government has supported war-bereaved relatives to visit WWII battlefields outside of Japan where their family members died. This project includes memorial ceremonies in the countries and encourages the war-bereaved relatives to make a commitment to permanent peace. Erection of monuments to the war dead Since 1970, the Japanese government has been involved in the establishment of cultural monuments at the site of former major battlefields for those who died in the war. As part of the Erection of Monuments to the War Dead mission, a war memorial monument was erected in Marpi on 25 March 1974 (Figure 22). The MHLW committed maintenance work to the MVA. In the Asia-Pacific region, a total of 15 monuments have been built under this program. Figure 22. War memorial by the MHLW on Saipan (http://www.mhlw.gov.jp). Recovery of the Remains of War Dead MHLW provides assistance to groups and individuals who are engaged in the collection of Japanese human remains. The formal missions started in 1952 after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. As of the year 2013, approximately 1,260,000 bodies out of 2,400,000 reported dead abroad, along with those who died in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, have been collected (Figure 23). 57 Figure 23. Current state of recovered human remains in the Asia-Pacific region (http://www.mhlw.go.jp, accessed 20 Jan 2012). The MHLW’s “Recovery of the Remains of War Dead” program is a cooperative project with nonprofits organizations, such as the Japan War-Bereaved Families Association (Nippon Izokukai: http://www.nippon-izokukai.jp/). There is little information available regarding the exact number of groups and individuals who have engaged in the recovery missions. The MHLW’s missions also include the recovery of civilian remains, but the proportion of recovered civilian remains to soldier remains is unclear from available information. Table 2 shows the number of individuals that have been recovered since 2007 according to the MHLW website. In some years there are particularly large numbers of remains recovered, for example, in the Philippines between 2009 and 2010. These numbers have led to the suspicion by MHLW that the Japanese non-profit organization who conducted these missions may have collected human remains from modern graveyards. Table 2. Number of individuals recovered since 2007 (http://www.mhlw.go.jp). Area/Year Russia Mongolia (Nomonhan) Sakhalin Philippines Eastern New Guinea Bismarck Archipelago Solomon Islands 2007 95 26 0 161 94 1 118 2008 307 24 3 1,230 114 2 144 2009 95 30 0 7,740 415 8 94 2010 219 14 4 6,289 214 2 163 2011 296 129 0 0 0 0 38 58 Western New Guniea Indonesia Saipan and Tinian Guam Palau The Marshall Islands Kiribati Wake Island Okinawa Iwo Jima Total 115 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 96 43 760 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 26 2,038 291 10 49 3 2 4 0 0 173 51 8,965 216 0 1 8 11 0 5 1 128 822 8,097 0 0 575 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1,052 Based on the statistics, there has been a decrease in unidentified remains recovered in some regions in recent years. In contrast, some regions, including Russia, areas of New Guinea, and Iwo Jima, show larger numbers of recoveries. This is likely due to the fact that body recovery missions were very active in these regions in recent years. The large number for Saipan and Tinian in 2011 is the result of the recovery of 575 human remains from a mass burial near Tanapag Beach. Whereas the identification of the mass burial place led to the recovery of the substantial number of the body remains, the recovered number is relatively low for the last four years prior. This can be compared to the data of recovery missions that were carried out from 1951 to 1993 in Table 3. Table 3. Recovery missions by date (http://www.mhlw.go.jp). # 1-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Year/Month) 1953–70 71/3 71/10–12 72 /10–11 73 /7–8 74/10–11 75/7–8 75/11–12 76/7–8 77/2–3 77/7–8 77/12 78/4 79/2–3 79/6–7 80/2–3 81/2–3 81/3 82/2–3 83/3 84/2–3 85/2 –3 86/2–3 87/2–3 Saipan 5,848 1,100 2,097 1,737 1,636 1,688 1,561 1,287 1,094 1,563 314 30 1,063 1,372 788 478 845 1 307 530 278 181 121 349 Tinian 2,446 870 1,483 1,354 1,308 868 821 257 116 27 5 10 50 68 17 11 48 N/A 74 74 22 30 N/A 15 Notes Groups of missions start to cooperate by war-bereaved families by delegation of gov remains sent to Japan 59 # 25 26 27 28 29 Total (Year/Month) 88/2–3 89/2–3 90/1 90/3 92/1–2 1993/11 27,336 Saipan 115 183 2 130 490 148 10,179 Tinian 90 29 93 N/A 15 33 10,234 Notes remains sent to Japan mass burial located mass burial located mass burial located When remains are recovered they are cremated on the island from which they are recovered. The ceremony takes place outside and the mass cremation is conducted using firewood. The ashes are brought back to Japan, and most of the ashes are placed into the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery, which was the national Japanese cemetery for unidentified remains of WWII. The body recovery missions have presented unresolved problems for the Japanese government because most of the remains are not identified. DNA analysis on recovered human remains only began very recently in Japan. The first government meeting on this issue was announced by MHLW on 11 June 2001 in a press release (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2003/06/h06231a.html . The conclusive results of the DNA analysis carried out since 2003 is summarized in Table 4. Of the 839 identified individuals, 833 were of remains recovered from Russia. Because all of the remains recovered from Saipan are cremated during the MHLW missions, no individuals have ever been identified by the DNA analysis. Table 4. Identification results for DNA analysis (http://mhlw.go.jp). Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Positive 8 47 157 168 149 145 86 46 30 3 839 Negative 0 24 36 245 187 71 76 60 15 19 733 Total 8 71 193 413 336 216 162 106 45 22 1,572 Two memorial missions, the “Pilgrimages for Memorial Services and Visits to Burial Sites” and “Friendship and Goodwill Memorial Project,” have been conducted for many years in Saipan. The latest mission of the “Pilgrimages for Memorial Services and Visits to Burial Sites” consisted of a group of the 12 war-bereaved family members and two government officials. They visited Saipan from 19-26 January in 2013 (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000002sz37.html). The “Friendship and Goodwill Memorial Project” is organized annually, and it appears that a larger number of war-bereaved families have been participating in this mission. Apart from people who participated in these government missions, a number of Japanese soldiers and civilians who survived the Battle individually visit the monuments, Battle sites, and caves that are accessible by the public. 60 Chapter 4: Cave, Rockshelter and Tunnel Sites As part of the planning project, the team completed basic archeological survey at each site visited. Archeological survey was not of primary importance, because this project was a planning and consensus-building endeavor. Nevertheless, details about the sites were recorded (e.g. size, location, features, artifact presence) and photographs were taken. Also cultural and natural impacts were assessed and noted for future planning purposes. The locations of cave sites were not recorded, other than very generally, at the request of local landowners. A full-scale CWSAC survey and KOCOA analysis was not developed because it was beyond the scope of the project. General cave site locations were put into a geographic information system (GIS) using ArcMap software. The survey data will be provided to HPO and ABPP at the conclusion of the project for incorporation into their database. This information will prove useful when development, road or other improvements involving Federal funding are proposed within the areas. Twenty-one cave, rockshelter and tunnel sites were identified and recorded as a result of this project. For the purposes of description and identification, the following definitions were used: caves are recessed areas set within rock walls or rock formations and not created by human design; Rockshelters are shallower than caves and may have been created naturally by rock fall or fissures, or culturally through digging beneath rocks in the soil; and tunnels are sites which have been purposefully dug out of rock and run parallel to the land surface. Sites Uncle John’s Cave This cave was suggested by G. Cabrera whose uncle is John Camacho. J. Camacho lives in the Navy Hill area. The cave is not associated with his family but was a hideout in a sniper area where the Japanese had range to shoot down upon advancing US troops (Pers. comm. with John Camacho, 16 January 2013). According to John, the cave was cleared after the Battle by four trucks that carried loads of 105 explosives, which are 5” or 10” explosive projectiles. He reports that a lot of UXO recovery missions were conducted in the area as well. The cave is a natural cave reinforced with poured cement at the entrance. It is approximately 2 m x 3.5 m wide at the west facing entrance (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The cave also has a small entrance facing north. The total size of the cave is approximately 5 m x 5 m with a height of 2.5 m. In the rear there is a dog leg which creates a smaller pocket that is approximately 2.5 m wide and 5 m deep. It is not known if this section was human-made or if it is natural. The pocket is big enough for one or two people to occupy or to store ammunition or equipment. The cave itself is set against a rock wall that is approximately 8-10 m tall and, according to J. Camacho, there are small caves along the entire length of the wall; however the team did not visit these caves. Outside the cave the ground slopes downward to the west and shells litter the slope. There are also large pieces of prehistoric ceramic sherds outside the cave entrance on the slope. 61 Figure 24. Uncle John's Cave entrance, note reinforced cement on entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). Figure 25. Shell on downward slope outside Uncle John's Cave (J. McKinnon 2013). Uncle Frank Diaz’s Cave This cave was suggested by volunteer John John San Nicolas and is on the property of his uncle Frank Diaz, who is 72 years of age. Frank Diaz was on Guam during the Battle so neither he nor 62 his family used the cave that is on his property. The cave is set within a large sinkhole and has two entrances separated by large boulders between the openings (Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28 and Figure 29). The openings are each approximately 2-3 m wide by 2 m high. Inside the cave there is a constructed rock wall at the entrance that is partially intact. The wall is less than a meter high but may have been constructed as a blind. The cave measures approximately 15 m in width and 10 m in depth. There is a multitude of artifacts, including a prehistoric shell midden and pottery and WWII era remains. Glass, wooden objects, a tea kettle and iron objects of WWII era were identified within the cave. According to F. Diaz there is History Channel footage of that very sinkhole which shows the US throwing hand grenades in upon the Japanese; he said that today they still find hand grenades all around the cave (Pers. comm. with Frank Diaz, 19 January 2013). Japanese “bone collectors” have visited this cave (Pers. comm. with Frank Diaz, 19 January 2013), and shallow pits excavated into the floor of the cave may be the results of their efforts. Figure 26. Sinkhole containing Uncle Frank Diaz's Cave (J. Mushysnky 2013). 63 Figure 27. Opening of cave (J. Raupp 2013). Figure 28. Inside cave looking out at entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). 64 Figure 29. Tea kettle (J. McKinnon 2013). Papagu Cave Nobert Diaz responded to the advertisement in the newspaper calling for landowners to participate in the cave survey. His farm is located in the Papagu area and contains two caves. The first cave is a shallow shelter that was very likely larger and may have been affected by bombing due to the large boulders that appear to have collapsed around the entrance. It is narrow and approximately 10 m deep by 2-3 m wide (Figure 30, Figure 31 and Figure 32). Artifacts found within the cave include tin cans, shoe or boot remains, Japanese ceramics and glass bottles. There are pockets of artifacts in the floor that are now covered with rock debris, suggesting that the cave was impacted by explosives during the Battle. Norbert recollects that in the 1990s, Japanese “bone collectors” came to his caves and collected but he could not recall any details. The second cave was inaccessible because of its depth. It is a small hole in the ground that drops to 8.5 m deep and opens significantly at the bottom (Figure 33). According to N. Diaz there are WWII-era artifacts in the base of the cave. Years ago, when he had to retrieve a goat that fell in the cave, he saw the WWII material. Today he covers it with sheets of metal roofing material to prevent livestock from falling inside. 65 Figure 30. Japanese ceramics (H. Burke 2013). Figure 31. Norbert Diaz standing in the cave (G. Cabrera 2013). 66 Figure 32. WWII era metal artifacts including a fuel container, bucket and cooking pot (G. Cabrera 2013). 67 Figure 33. Norbert Diaz rappelling into his cave (H. Burke 2013). Japanese Field Hospital Cave and Swiftlet Cave Both caves are located on the Flores property in the I Denni area (Denni means pepper in Chamorro) and were shown to us by Tony Flores, a friend of N. Diaz. T. Flores does not live on the property but his brother does. Both caves are open to public visitors, particularly the Japanese field hospital cave which Japanese tourists visit, some guided and others not, and is located down a well-trodden path. A sign was erected by Fish and Wildlife just outside of the entrance which outlines the cultural and natural importance of the site (Figure 34). Swiftlets, a protected bird species, live in the cave. As part of protecting the birds, Fish and Wildlife have set roach traps to kill roaches who feed on their nests. Roaches are attracted to the candy and food offerings left by the tourists, so people are no longer allowed to leave food products as offerings. The cave entrance is rather large, approximately 10-12 m wide and the cave is approximately 14-15 m deep. The entrance has a constructed rock and cement wall, which likely was built to protect the entrance, and just in front of it is a rock and concrete step or platform (Figure 35 and Figure 36). A large boulder sits in the middle of the cave, and in front of the boulder there is a cement altar with fresh offerings of flowers and paper cranes (Figure 37). Behind the boulder light is restricted, and against the back wall there are dozens of wooden stupas, flowers and paper crane offerings (Figure 38). The cave is absolutely void of all cultural material. This is likely due to the open access to the site. According to a Japanese website, survivors of the Battle said the hospital was located there because of the fresh water that was available during the rainy season (Pers. comm. Jun Kimura, February 2013). Another survivor story by Torazo Kariyama (born in 1919), who was 25 years old 68 at the time, notes that on 26 June the hospital was closed (Pers. comm. Jun Kimura, February 2013). On 26 June he left the hospital and went to Bonsai Cliff with those that could walk. He surrendered to the US and was sent to Hawai’i, San Francisco and Chicago before being returned on 15 August to Japan. Those who could not walk when the hospital was closed were given grenades with which to commit suicide, which occurred on 6 July. According to Kariyama, 3000 people died there during the mass suicide. The second cave is smaller in size and less visited by tourists. A knotted rope is used to access the cave, which is approximately 2 m below the ground surface (Figure 39, Figure 40 and Figure 41). The cave opens into a larger room which then tapers towards the rear and ends in a large open shaft, the depth of which is unknown. There are two concentrations of artifacts: one in the large room itself and another on a small platform just behind a restricted area before it opens into the large deep shaft (Figure 42). Figure 34. Fish and Wildlife sign outside hospital cave entrance (J. Musynsky 2013). 69 Figure 35. Inside the hospital cave looking out with team member standing on rock wall (J. McKinnon 2013). Figure 36. Outside the hospital cave looking in with concrete platform in foreground (J. McKinnon 2013). 70 Figure 37. Hospital cave entrance, note cement platform in background (G. Cabrera 2013). Figure 38. Memorial offering in back of hospital cave (J. McKinnon 2013). 71 Figure 39. Walking into the second cave entrance (H. Burke 2013). Figure 40. Looking out from the second cave (J. Mushynsky 2013). 72 Figure 41. Wooden stupa in the second cave (H. Burke 2013). 73 Figure 42. Concentration of artifacts in second cave (likely collected and placed in location) (J. Mushynsky 2013). Ayuyu Family Caves Felix and Linda Ayuyu lease property in the Marpi Point area known as “Tent City” on which several caves are located. The Ayuyu family (Ayuyu means “coconut crab” in Chamorro) uses the property for cattle farming and growing food. The first cave visited in 2013 has a small entrance open to the northeast which is set into the cliff wall approximately 5 m (Figure 43). A small amount of prehistoric ceramic is located in the first shallow pocket of the cave. Beyond a large rock and higher on an elevated area there are WWII artifacts, including a green bento box lid (Figure 44) and glass alcohol bottles (Figure 45). The elevated area has a commanding view over the slopes and across to the coastline. Outside the cave there are over 50 scattered intact beer and sake bottles, as well as a large consolidated pile of bottles. A small jade or green milk glass button was found, as well as the canister for a gas mask. Just nearby the cave is another small shelter with an elevated area which could have been used as a blind or hideout. In another area of the property there is a rockshelter which has been created by large boulders stacked against each other and a large very old banyan-like tree (Figure 46). There are scattered bottles and Japanese ceramics within the small shelter, which is not very deep (approximately 4 m) and is open at the rear. This shelter is on the path to a larger set of tunnels and may have been in conjunction with the tunnels. Upslope and south-southwest from the rockshelter are two tunnels in the cliff wall. Built by or under the direction of Japanese forces, both tunnels are U-shaped and extend for approximately 74 10-11 m into the cliff before forming a rectangular room, which opens up to about 4 m by 8 m and then forms into a tunnel again for another 10-11 m (Figure 47). The cliff face is approximately 35 m high and both tunnel entrances face due east. Within the northern tunnel there are quite a few artifacts including bottles, Japanese ceramics, and large battery cells. The southern tunnel has been cleaned out nearly completely, but all of the artifacts, including bottles, gas mask parts, ceramics, battery cells, etc., are located near the entrance (Figure 48 and Figure 49). A cow was found inside one tunnel when the team visited. The floors are heavily enriched with cow dung, particularly the southernmost tunnel in which the cow was located. It is likely that there are more artifacts buried in the sediments and dung. Depending on how long the cows have had access to the cave, artifacts may be broken or crushed from trampling Figure 43. View looking out of cave (H. Burke 2013). 75 Figure 44. Green bento box lid (J. Kimura 2013). Figure 45. Alcohol bottles (J. Kimura 2013). 76 Figure 46. Rockshelter (J. McKinnon 2013). Figure 47. Tunnel with Ayuyu family members (J. Mushynsky 2013). 77 Figure 48. Gas mask and components (H. Burke 2013). 78 Figure 49. WWII era artifacts outside of tunnel (H. Burke 2013). Gen’s Research Cave A cave that is located on public lands in the region of Kalabera Cave was visited. The site abuts a wildlife sanctuary/mitigation bank to the immediate north and northwest perimeters. The site was identified much earlier by team member G. Cabrera during some of her research field work. The cave is very large and has three openings: two at ground level (which are restricted) and open to the east and one through the ceiling. The top of the cave is partially open and allows water and light to penetrate. There are large boulders in the center of the cave which may have collapsed from the ceiling. The cave is approximately 20 m wide and 15-20 m deep (Figure 50). The cave includes Indigenous rock art, as well as a considerable amount of WWII and Japanese artifacts (Figure 51, Figure 52, Figure 53, and Figure 54). Such artifacts include: leather shoes, wooden barrel remains, tin wares, ceramics, bottles, a hair comb, and other unidentifiable objects. The site appears to be relatively unknown due to its condition and the number of artifacts remaining. The rock art is painted in yellow and black (G. Cabrera believes the yellow to be slaked lime and the black charcoal). The yellow figures include dynamic images of people that look like they are moving. One, possibly two, yellow figures are turned sideways and depict an object (possibly a stick or adze) being held in their hand. The black charcoal images are in another section of the cave on the opposite wall and are very high up in a small cavity approximately 6-8 m high. These are more difficult to discern in terms of motif. 79 Figure 50. Cave entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). Figure 51. Rock art (J. Kimura 2013). 80 Figure 52. Wooden barrel parts (J. Kimura 2013). Figure 53. Hair comb (J. Kimura 2013). 81 Figure 54. Bottle and shoe parts (J. Kimura 2013). Camacho Family Cave Fred Camacho volunteered on this project and is an avid explorer and preservation activist on the island. Fred has previously taken team members to other cave sites on the island. He has also worked with Japanese bereavement collection missions, including the mass grave at Tanapag Beach near Aqua Resort for which SHARC was the archeological firm overseeing the work. The team visited his family cave, which is a large cave approximately 16m wide by 18m deep, situated within a larger sinkhole (Figure 55 and Figure 56). The entrance opening faces northeast. The cave contains both prehistoric and WWII artifacts. Prehistoric artifacts include mortars, ceramics and a shell midden (Figure 57). Ceramics are scattered throughout the cave, particularly near the entrance and in the far back corner. The cave was likely used in WWII as a storage or supply cave due to its size and the artifacts remaining (Figure 58 and Figure 59). In a large area at the rear is a very large pile of full food tins which have been burnt by an extremely hot fire to the point where the contents have been transformed into a solid charred state. There are hundreds of cans in this area. Additionally there are pockets of cans in other areas around the edges of the cave. Toward the opening there is a large area where several metal drums have been deliberately buried and covered over by sediment. All around the drums is gray ashy sediment which may be related to fire or heat. The entire roof of the cave is charred and it appears that fire or heat has made the ceiling friable in some areas and has collapsed some sections of it. Other WWII-era artifacts include bottles, ceramics, and wooden crate or barrel fragments. The cave has been impacted by farm animals but it is still in relatively good condition with activity areas clear and visible. The site is largely protected because of the family restricting access to it. F. Camacho relates that some in his family were hesitant to access the cave over the years for cultural and religious reasons. 82 Figure 55. Entrance to cave (G. Cabrera 2013). Figure 56. Looking out from the inside of cave (J. McKinnon 2013). 83 Figure 57. Indigenous mortar fragment (J. Mushynsky 2013). Figure 58. Haphazard tin can pile (J. Mushynsky 2013). 84 Figure 59. Japanese ceramics (H. Burke 2013). Figure 60. Metal drum and gray ash (H. Burke 2013). 85 “Naftan” Cave at Lao Lao Bay Golf Resort In Chamorro “Naftan” means “grave” or “grave site”; the term does not denote a “type” of grave/grave site. Moreover, for a site to qualify as a “naftan” it must contain human remains. This site is adjacent to the Lao Lao Bay Golf Resort property. The site was visited with with Herman Tudela and Jesse Tenorio (Herman’s fishing partner/apprentice and assistant greens keeper at Lao Lao Bay Golf Resort for the past 15 years). The golf course staff required an escort in order to access the cave. It is uncertain whether this site is located on public land that is leased to the resort or if it is private. The cave is approximately 2 m high at its highest point, 3.5 m wide and 4-5 m long. The entrance to the cave is a small wedge-shaped hole approximately 1-1.5 m in size. The cave ceiling dips near its center, essentially creating two niches. Approximately 1 m into the cave is several Japanese offerings and flowers, including a small grave stone with the inscription of a Japanese family name (Suzuki). The memorials and flowers are said to be placed by a member of a Japanese family who survived the war. As a young boy he and his family took refuge in this cave (Pers. comm. with H. Tudela, 21 January 2013). His father killed his wife, older son, and attempted to kill him, and then committed suicide. US troops recovered the boy. The man is in his 80s and has been returning to the cave around May each year since 2005. He has health problems and is escorted by local people to the cave, and J. Tenorio has escorted him to the site a few times. The cave contains several bone fragments, likely human, Japanese glass bottle shards, a few Latte Period ceramic sherds along the perimeter and Indigenous rock art. The rock art is located in the niche on the right when looking into the cave from the outside. The pictographs depict human figures, curved objects possibly representing canoes and other motifs that are difficult to identify. Figure 61. Naftan cave entrance and memorial offerings (J. Mushynsky 2013). 86 Ben Sablan Family Caves Ben Sablan replied to a newspaper article that described the project. He takes care of an area of land which was once his grandfather’s homestead in the As Teo area. He remembers the caves on his property from the age of about eight. He used to go in them when he was little and says they are the same today as he remembers them (Pers. comm. with B. Sablan, 23 January 2013). The first cave is a very small opening approximately 50 cm square (Figure 62). It drops down into a slightly larger area approx. 5 m x 4 m x 1.5 m. No artifacts were found in the cave. The cave itself is situated just below an area where there is a blind or hideout, which includes stacked rocks against a small shelter. Ben recalls there being more blinds on the property. Nearby there are two circular rock structures. Rocks are piled approximately 25-50 cm high in circles approximately 2-3 m in diameter (Figure 63). The origin or use of these is unknown but Denfeld recorded similar “rock rings” (Denfeld 1981). Further down the slope there is an area where eight rock circles are located of varying sizes. If reconstructed the circles would be approximately 50 cm high. The maximum circle is 3 m in diameter and the minimum is approximately 2 x 1.5 m and oblong. A second small, shallow cave was also shown to the team (Figure 64). The cave was only a couple meters deep and wide and contained a small amount of WWII-related artifacts including a few pieces of iron and couple broken bottles. Other caves/shelters exist on the property in a creek bed area but active wasp nests prevented access to the sites. Figure 62. Small, restricted cave entrance (J. McKinnon 2013). 87 Figure 63. Team member standing inside rock ring (H. Burke 2013). Figure 64. Second small cave (H. Burke 2013). 88 1000 Men Cave or Liyang I Falingun Hanum The 1000 Men Cave, as known by the Japanese, or Liyang I Falingun Hanum, (in Chamorro this means cave of disappearing water) is located in the Marpi Point area and is cared for by Juan Reyes. Reyes leases the property from the government to use as a farm. Reyes has been trying to find a way to develop his cave into a tourist attraction for years and made one attempt in 1999 before giving up in 2000 when he moved to Hawai’i for a short period. When he developed the cave into a tourist attraction he built a large platform/walkway into his cave, put up a concrete mermaid statue at the entrance and “salted” the site with artefacts he found elsewhere on his property (Figure 65, Figure 66, Figure 67 and Figure 68). Juan also created a legend for the site about a mermaid. Reyes is always considering ways in which he can utilize the cave and his latest idea was to grow mushrooms within the cave that are said to have cancer curing properties. He has provided a few groups with access to explore the cave to determine its depth. The cave is as large, if not larger, than Kalabera Cave, which is popularly known to be the largest cave on the island. The main cave is approximately 50 m wide inside. Near the bottom it drops approximately 10 m into another large chamber of unknown depth and width. There are large amounts of WWII-era glass and ceramics inside the cave, as well as prehistoric ceramics. It is unclear how much of the WWII material is original to the cave and what has been collected and placed in the cave. Figure 65. Entrance to cave, note the mermaid statue immediately outside the entrance (H. Burke 2013). 89 Figure 66. Inside cave looking out (H. Burke 2013). Figure 67. Scaffolding bridge erected inside cave (H. Burke 2013). 90 Figure 68. Hair comb (H. Burke 2013). Achugao Caves F. Camacho escorted the team to two caves in the Achugao area just northeast of Tanapag and down slope from the Mobil Gas Station. He is uncertain whether the area is public or private but said a Chamorro family with the last name Songao owned land nearby. The first cave is a series of five pockets in a rock wall. Each pocket has several artefacts, including glass bottle shards, unidentified metal, ceramic cup and bowl fragments, human bones including a tooth, two bed pans and mess trays (Figure 69, Figure 70 and Figure 71). At least one cave contains rock art. Most of the artefacts have been collected and placed together in each pocket. Camacho knows that the area was metal detected by a person who believed the site was related to where General Saito was said to have hidden gold. In the second pocket there are a number of paper crane wreaths as memorials. According to Camacho, tourists frequent this location because it is easy to access. 91 Figure 69. Wall of pocket caves (J. Mushynsky 2013). Figure 70. Gathered artifacts and memorials (J. Mushynsky 2013). 92 Figure 71. Gathered human remains (J. Mushynsky 2013). The second cave is just south of the first one and near a military dumping ground. The cave is approximately 8 m deep and 5 m tall and 3 m wide at its entrance. A few metal pieces and glass shards were located in the cave. The military dumping ground nearby contains quite a bit of metal, pipes, and glass. Camacho’s grandfather built three houses of scrap metal and material reclaimed from this dumping ground. Cabrera Family Cave Team member G. Cabrera took the team to the cave where her father and his family hid during the Battle. The site entrance is located on her Aunt Alejandra Cabrera Snodgrass Cruz’ (her father’s sister) property. See Appendix B for transcript of interview with A. Cruz. The cave is well-preserved because it is protected on private property. It is located in a shallow sinkhole and has two entrance/exits. The opening is narrow at approximately 2-3 m wide and it drops down several meters into a larger cave where there are various WWII-related artefacts including tin cans, shoes (adults and children), glass, and ceramics. Crawling through a narrow tunnel the cave then drops and opens up further into a much larger chamber which is damp and has a mud floor. Within the chamber there is rock art and possibly the remains of human skeletal material. At the end of the chamber is the other exit/entrance where large amounts of modern trash have been dumped. The large chamber lies beneath a roadway (Figure 72, Figure 73 and Figure 74). 93 Figure 72. Genevieve Cabrera at the entrance of her family's cave (J. McKinnon 2013). 94 Figure 73. Inside the large open space beneath the road bed (H. Burke 2013). Figure 74. Adult and child shoe soles (J. Mushynsky 2013). 95 Chalan Galaidi Cave There are several rockshelters located in the area which is higher up on Navy Hill on the northwest face of Mt. Tapotchau in an area known as Chalan Galaidi (Galaidi means canoe in Chamorro). These shelters are where Frank Camacho and his brother John Camacho (of Uncle John’s Cave) hid, as well as volunteer team member Betty H. Johnson’s mother. The shelters are small holes dug from under several large boulders. The shelters are quite small but likely were larger before being backfilled. Scattered around the site are bottles, broken glass, and ceramics. Just downslope from the caves are a Japanese well and pump, which were guarded during the Battle, according to Frank Camacho. Frank Camacho was four years old at the time of the Battle. His father dug out the shelter for them to hide in, but since that time it has been backfilled and goats have used it as shelter. There were eight in his family at the time: two girls and four boys, plus his mother and father who stayed in the cave. John, Frank’s brother, was 3 months old on 21 June 1944 when he was left in a cave by accident. His sister came back to get him, which is how he survived. John recalled that one of his brothers was killed on the 3 July 1944 when the US was sweeping an area and shot rounds to clear the area before they entered. According to John, the Camacho family property is huge because they are one of the biggest families on island. It stretches from the east side to the west side of the island over Navy Hill. Betty’s mother, Carmen Camacho Wesley, had eight in her family, including three girls, two boys, her mother and father and an aunt. Carmen was 19 years old at the time. All of the families from nearby knew there were caves on the Camacho property so they came to hide there. According to Frank and Betty, it was all of the Camacho extended family and some Sablan family members as well who used the shelters. Figure 75. Chalan Galadi cave (J. McKinnon 2013). 96 Esco’s Caves The late Escolastica (Esco) B. Tudela-Cabrera (see Appendix C for transcript of interview) escorted the team to her family caves. Due to her age and health issues she sat on the lawn of the family’s property that now uses the land while the team accessed the caves. There are several small caves and one larger cave which are dotted along a small cliff front that ranges in height from approximately 2 m to 5 m. The cave suspected to be the one Esco hid in has two entrances that connect. One entrance is a small crack approximately 50 cm by 1 m, which can only be accessed by crawling on one’s stomach. The second entrance can be accessed standing upright and is approximately 3 m by 2 m. Between the two entrances there is a larger cavity which is hidden from sight. Within the cave there is modern debris, as well as WWII-era material, including tins of food, bottles, and ceramics (Figure 76). Outside the entrance there was a Japanese grenade and several unspent 50 caliber bullets scattered around the slope. Esco recalls the cave being small and that they could not stand up or lie down, but had to kneel or squat inside. Figure 76. Inside the cave suspected to be used by Esco (J. Mushynsky 2013). Kalabera Cave Kalabera Cave is a tourist destination located on the north end of the island. It is accessed via an unpaved dirt road which at times (during the rainy season) can be traversed only via 4WD. Cabrera described the cave as (Cabrera 2009a:5): … [lying] on a raised coral limestone terrace approximately 9I.44 meters above sea level and at the same distance, due west of the coral fill dirt road that serves as its main access. The entrance is fairly large and measures approximately 9.14 to 13.72 meters long, I6.46 meters wide, and 13.72 meters high. The floor of this open, well ventilated first chamber gives way to a receding slope of silicarich, dry packed earth and worn rock formations, some of which may have 97 fragmented and fallen from the cave walls in centuries/ millennia past (Fig. I). Beyond these features the cave opens up in every direction including the 24.3 8 meter vertical drop to the interior's lower chamber (Fig. 2). This lower or second chamber measures approximately 23 meters long and I 0 meters wide at its widest point and maintains a NW -SE orientation. At the northern end of the chamber is a large tubular opening to a sheer drop stretching 29.57 meters (Fig. 3). According to APEC's (Allied Pacific Environmental Consulting, Inc.) findings, a 182.88 meter lateral chamber lies at the bottom of this vent (Cabrera 2009a). There are over 50 pictographs and petroglyphs within Kalabera depicting what has been interpreted as both human and animal forms (Cabrera 2009a:5). Prehistoric artifacts, including ceramics and tools, as well as a hearth, have been identified archeologically. Human skulls were also present in the cave which was noted in the Spanish period through the 1920s. A prehistoric latte house and artifact scatter are located outside of the cave opening, as well as grinding surfaces on bedrock mortars. Kalabera Cave is currently being listed as a NRHP as a result of recent government plans which were aimed at making it a more accessible tourist site. Kalabera is the most heavily visited cave on the island and is displayed on all tourist maps. Tourists can visit the site individually or in tour groups, although the road currently precludes buses from traveling to the site. Unfortunately, this visitation combined with its remote location have caused quite a bit of degradation at the site. Foot traffic, rubbish, looting and vandalism (i.e. graffiti) are concerns at the site. Impacts on sites Impacts that have affected or are affecting cave sites on the island are listed below. Some are more serious and detrimental to the sites than others, and as such they are listed below in order from most serious and detrimental to least. Looting, “salting,” or moving artifacts One of the most destructive impacts to a cave site is looting regardless of whether the artifacts are on the surface or are being “dug”. According to a report on Kalabrera Cave (Swift et al. 2009:111), an alleged tour operator dug a looter’s pit and recovered medicinal objects from the interior of the cave. Additionally, the team noted potential looter holes in caves visited during the project. Removing artifacts from a site is incredibly destructive for both the artifacts (change in environment can cause artifacts to deteriorate without proper conservation) and the context of the cave site. Related to looting is intentional “salting” or moving artifacts which involves collecting artifacts from outside of and within the caves and piling them in specific areas. This is often done with the best of intentions; however, salting or moving artifacts can alter the true context of past activity, which significantly impacts our understanding of the history that occurred in those caves. Spelunking This project was developed as a result of individuals on the island who have been spelunking on both private and public property and altering the context of artifacts. YouTube videos are abundant online of particular individuals exploring caves, picking up artifacts, moving artifacts, etc. People visiting cave sites can damage sites in numerous ways, including displacing or 98 altering the context of artifacts or damaging/destroying them through touching or stepping on treading. Vandalism Several forms of vandalism have affected, and continue to affect, the caves sites. Graffiti is one of the most blatant and destructive forms of vandalism when considering the overall feeling of a historic environment and ancient rock art. At Kalabera, “Although vandalism has occurred at the cave since the 1970s, major graffiti incidences were noted in the late 1980s to early 1990s (Genevieve Cabrera, Joseph DL Guerrero, Scott Russell 2009: pers. comm). Recently, however, there has been a rash of paintings and drawings across the same rock face above another petroglyph panel which lies to the east” (Swift et al. 2009:69) (Figure 77 and Figure 78). Geological souvenir collecting of stalagmites and stalactites also detracts from the general feeling of the cave, as well as destroying natural heritage for generations to come. Figure 77. Graffiti panel 1 with canoe pictograph (Swift et al. 2009:71). 99 Figure 78. Graffiti panel 2 with canoe pictography (Swift et al. 2009:72). Japanese bereavement bone collecting missions For many years the Japanese bereavement bone collection missions were not managed properly through the HPO and did not require permits or the oversight or involvement of archeologists or forensic scientists. This undoubtedly resulted in the collection of non-Japanese human remains, including prehistoric remains from many caves as well as the disturbance of archeological context. Only recently have these missions been made to comply with historic preservation laws and permits, such as the more recent discovery of the mass grave near Tanapag Beach, which included a private consulting company to manage the archeological aspects (Pers. comm. with Marilyn Swift, 22 January 2013). This concerns the local population, particularly people of Chamorro and Carolinian decent who have ancestors that may have been buried in caves or even died during the Battle within caves. Refuse dumping Sites have been used in the past as refuse pits with both good and bad intentions. Some landowners have filled caves in to prevent access and thereby protect them, while others have simply thrown refuse into them as an “out of sight, out of mind” strategy for disposing of garbage. Disposing of garbage can attract rodents and pests which may further harm organic cultural material, such as exposed human remains or leather artifacts. Memorialization Memorialization can cause impacts to sites through visitation (trampling, destroying, moving, etc. artifacts) as well as introducing material, which may attract pests, such as candies or food offerings that attract rats and/or paper that attract roaches. Storm activity and erosion Natural processes are always a concern at heritage sites and caves are susceptible to these processes as well. Heavy rains or storms can cause water erosion which not only impacts soils 100 but also rock art. Water drip lines can erode rock surfaces and the rock art on those surfaces. In many areas farmland is cleared for grazing and agriculture which can inadvertently affect cave sites through erosion and additional water activity. UXO detonation Unexploded ordinance detonation is a regular activity that occurs on island and is required for public safety. However, detonation occurs in an area in the northern part of the island where a significant number of unrecorded caves exist. Each time UXO is detonated, there is potential for significant impacts to caves through collapse. Local informants during this project reported having seen caves collapse as a result of UXO (Pers. comm. with Fred Camacho, 22 January 2013). Fire Wildfire occurs seasonally and with regularity in certain areas of the island. There are also prescribed fires set on private properties and public lands. Building fires as a result of camping in caves can also destroy archeological context and material culture. Fire can impact cave sites because it compromises the physical structure of the rock, which may become friable in very hot conditions. Further, fire can burn artifacts and disturb or destroy rock art. Unfortunately flamethrowers were a common method used by the US troops to clear enemy caves and much impact already occurred through this process during the Battle. Wildlife Wildlife including wild pigs can create impacts in caves due to their natural rooting behaviour. Rooting can disturb archeological contexts and destroy artifacts. Other pests and rodents such as rats and cockroaches can feed on organic artifacts. Livestock grazing Grazing livestock in areas where caves are located can impact the sites through the trampling of artifacts and impacting context (Figure 79). It also introduces animal feces, which may attract rodents or pests. 101 Figure 79. Cow inside the Ayuyu family tunnel (H. Burke 2013). Hunting Hunting wildlife and setting traps for coconut crabs can impact cave sites. Using caves to set traps increases the degradation of artifacts and their context. Furthermore it introduces foreign materials that can attract pests and rodents. 102 Chapter 5: Planning: Community Engagement and Public Service Announcements Community engagement and planning meeting In January 2013 team members met with several stakeholders, including the HPO, NMICH, and AMP, to evaluate cave resources from the point of view of locals, visitors and management agencies. The meetings were to determine how cave sites associated with the Battle could best be preserved in a way that respects the local community, who are the stewards for, and the owners of, the properties on which the sites exist. The objective of the project was to produce a plan that helps those trying to preserve such sites make informed decisions. In addition to agencies and stakeholders, the project team met with local landowners in person and via email and phone. The first priority was to assess how local landowners felt about caves and if there existed local interest in protecting them. If the local landowner wished to share stories about the caves and their experiences with them, these were collected as well. On Tuesday 22 January 2013 a community meeting was held at AMP to gather input from the public (Figure 80). The meeting was advertised in the two newspapers and on a local radio station, flyers were posted around the island, and email lists were targeted. The meeting was attended by 18 people. It included a PowerPoint about the project and a question and answer session, which was followed by a break-out session in which small groups of attendees had the chance to talk about the project and caves. The attendees shared their thoughts and feelings concerning the protection of caves and their stories about what caves meant to their families. These insights were helpful in preparing the plan and also provided the team with more contacts and sites to visit. In some cases the break-out groups were recorded as voice files and in others written transcripts of discussion were taken. Below are some of the comments recorded: Attendee 1 (JR): That place [Kalabera Cave] is completely open to the public, there is no security and some things are very valuable in there, not just the pictograph, they should look at not just from the tourist you have to protect we have to protect things in there, once that thing disappeared that thing would be useless. So imagine if we destroyed in five seconds. That pictograph that was there maybe 3000 years ago, that’s a waste. So there’s another suggestion that maybe we should educate the people, but see even if you educate the people, some are just plain stupid you know? There are a lot of ways that maybe we can come up, but see my suggestion that never materialized, you can write the Secretary of the Lands and Natural Resources, I requested for that to be the caretaker for that but have never been granted. But my caves actually when I first obtained that property I don’t know any history about that cave there is no that I know, during the war or what because that place was just completely covered with vegetation so when I obtained that property I tried to gather some historical the history behind that and I never come up with it. Attendee 2 (EW): I think we should try to protect them. I’ve been in caves all my life and seen them trashed pretty badly. Attendee 3 (FC): (in response to 2) In two or three caves there’s graffiti—graffiti and trash. 103 Attendee 4 (EC): We need to keep history going. People complain a lot but not a lot of people are doing anything about it. I’d like to see things visible. I want people to see the uniqueness of Saipan and its heritage… Anything that identifies us, the uniqueness of Saipan and its heritage, is important. Attendee 3 (FC): There’s a problem with detonating ordinance—the effect of this on the grotto, one day there will be no grotto. It’s a big issue. Attendee 6 (LB): We should be opening up new caves for tourism. Need to raise awareness. Local history isn’t taught at schools anymore—it used to be, but isn’t anymore—it went out the window. Attendee 7 (TF): (Responding to a question about tourists) We just let them in. It’s a dead end and there’s usually someone there. It’s only once in a while. They don’t come in without our consent and we always go with them. The problem is that they come in every time. ‘It’s best if we just protect the cave’. Japanese tourists often have incense that they want to burn inside the cave, but that affects the Swiftlets. The smoke stays at the top of the cave and affects the small chicks in nests – they fall out. Department of Fish and Wildlife come in and put cockroach baits in the caves. The Swiftlets are also contributing to the deterioration of the cave. In the second there used to be a downslope, but now there’s an upslope because of the amount of guano inside the cave (from Swiftlets). The response to the meeting and discussion was positive and all attendees indicated that they favoured preserving the sites. They also felt that the sites had personal and familial meaning for them as both their home and part of their history. The caves are both a source of sadness and pride, and are what make their island unique. They are reverent and recognize that humans lost their lives in the caves. Several suggested that they wished there was more known about the history of the caves and maybe more interpretation and regulation for tourists. Several issues were raised during the meeting that the local landowners wished could be addressed or considered in the planning process including: • • • • • • • With regard to caves on private property, it ultimately depends on the property owner’s decision whether a cave should be opened or not. An increase in access to caves is preferable, but the matter of UXO and systematic survey must be considered before opening to the public. Insurance issues in cave tours must be considered. There is a lack of understanding of history in each cave, and stories should be shared more. Material for education and books are not readily available because a limited number of books were published in the past. The HPO is understaffed/underfunded and cannot, or do not, assist with requests. Detonation of UXO is collapsing caves and destroying sites. Sites are being harmed by tourists. 104 • • • • • • • Local and federal government agencies do not respond to local requests. Tour guides are not properly educated and tell incorrect stories about the caves. Concerned that the Japanese bone collecting missions were collecting their ancestors’ bones. Wanted to know more about the process and how it is being regulated. Concerned about the willingness or interest of future generations to care for the sites. Avoid restrictions being placed on landowners for developing or using their property. More promotion of cave sites as tourism resources. Finding funding for landowners to protect or promote caves on their property. Figure 80. Newspaper advertisement announcing public meetings (J. McKinnon 2012). Public service announcements One of the aims of this project was to utilize information produced during the public consultation process to raise awareness about the protection of archeological cave sites. Education has proven to be one of the most effective ways in which managers and archeologists can communicate messages about protection of cultural heritage. If a community understands the importance of the heritage and why it needs to be protected, there is a better chance that they will assist in that process. PSAs have proven effective in the past in raising awareness about biological concerns (See Hawley 2007 for a discussion on PSAs and eradicating brown snakes in the “Don’t give snakes a break” campaign). So it was determined that PSAs would be a useful outreach and education tool for this project. The title chosen for the PSA campaign was This is our history – These are our Stories. While the project is highlighting the caves and WWII heritage specifically, the 105 benefit of this title is that it can also apply to a much broader range of cultural heritage sites and time periods and be built upon in the future. The PSAs are limited to 60 seconds, which is typical of media standards for both TV and radio. This length also allows for more airtime as well. The TV station on which the PSAs will be played is KSPN2 News, which is the #1 watched program in the CNMI. Live at 6:00p.m.; KSPN2 News spots air five times per day on Channel 2 News, one time per day on Magic 100.3 radio station and is streamed over the internet at www.kspn2.com. The PSAs will also be uploaded to the Ships YouTube site where they can be viewed by the public at any time. Six versions of a TV PSA were produced which allowed for featuring as many community members as possible. Efforts were made to interview both men and women and younger and older community members from several families. The PSAs incorporated various stories so that each one is slightly different in order to keep them new and fresh. The opening and closing was kept the same with the same narrator and script. All are produced in English and subtitled in Japanese. The radio PSAs are audio soundtracks of the TV versions. By doing this it retained the local voices and local stories, making it more meaningful to the listeners, as opposed to having a nonislander narrate the script. The transcripts and a few talking points were given to the radio station to encourage announcers to introduce the PSAs in their own words. The radio station that will play the PSA is KKMP (1440 AM and 92.1 FM) licensed to Garapan-Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, simulcasting from the CNMI and owned by Blue Continent Communications, Inc. http://cnmiradio.com/contact.php. Programming combines an island music format with a mixed-language (Chamorro, Carolinian, Palauan, and English) talk-radio format. KKMP is the only local-language radio station in the CNMI. Because the radio station selected is multi-lingual, the introduction and discussion afterwards can be in Carolinian, Chamorro and English, so the PSAs will not be translated from English. TV and radio stations in the US typically offer some limited free airtime for PSAs. Because of the economic downturn that is particularly acute in the CNMI, free PSA airtime on the TV station is not an option. Because of the importance of this public outreach effort, money was found within the budget to air the PSAs for as long as possible. The PSAs will play as a targeted campaign for a period of time restricted to available funding. 106 Chapter 6: Preserving WWII Cave Sites from the Battle of Saipan The preservation of any historic battlefield or site is a long-term endeavor that transcends generations. Besides cave spelunkers and looters, the most pressing issues or threats to the preservation of cave sites related to the Battle of Saipan are tourism and development. As the island of Saipan attracts more tourists and the population grows there will be more development pressures and increased visitation that will adversely affect the battlefield and cave sites. The CNMI Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan (2009-2014) dated 2009 states, “In the case of the CNMI, tourism has served as the primary industry followed by the garment industry. However, with the complete closure of the garment industry by 2009, tourism remains the only major industry to support the islands” (Commonwealth Economic Development Strategic Planning Commission 2009) Further, it identifies two growth areas: agriculture for local consumption and benefits such as increased tourism from recent military build-up in the region. Tourism, co-existing with development, and agriculture present challenges and concerns for those interested in preserving historic resources. While development in this small island chain may seem small in comparison to the broader US, when it does happen, there are often fewer checks and balances in place for protecting historic resources. Land that seems safe because it is in the jungle away from the center of Garapan may only be one generation away from being sold or used for development. Any development that occurs in areas that have not been developed previously may not destroy the battlefield, but would certainly have an adverse effect upon its integrity and viewshed. CNMI’s system of land ownership outlined in Article XII of its constitution prevents foreign investors from owning land, which has been a huge benefit for protecting natural and cultural resources because it deters landowners from selling their land to investors. Private lands can be negotiated for long-term lease from landowners for a term of 55 years. Public lands are available for lease for a term of 25 years, with an extension of no more than 15 years, upon approval by three-fourth of the members of the Legislature. Lease of public lands over 5 hectares must be approved by the Commonwealth legislature and any size less than 5 hectares is at the Department's discretion. Many would-be investors are discouraged by the fact that they cannot own property they wish to develop because at the end of a lease, all improvements belong to the local landowners. This is applicable to both public and private lands. These factors control the market for land acquisition and subsequent development (Commonwealth Economic Development Strategic Planning Commission 2009:11). Saipan only needs to be compared to Guam, which does not have the same constitutional restrictions, to see how an island can be affected by foreign acquisition and development. Areas currently protected The National Historic Landmark comprises 1,366 acres of land and water which is protected through the NRHP. Kalabera Cave is currently being listed on the NRHP and one other cave site, the Unai Laggua Japanese Defense Pillbox is listed. Several areas have been set aside for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife and marine species in the CNMI. These conservation areas were established through various legal means, including 107 the CNMI Constitution, CNMI public laws and local laws, by agreement between government agencies and by regulation. Table 5 provides the details of each of the conservation areas in Saipan. The total amount of conservation lands is 4.3255 mi2 which is almost 10 percent of the total lands. Of those six conservation properties only one mention historic properties within the management plan. Table 5. Conservation areas of Saipan. Conservation Area Area Protected Manager Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank Bird Island Wildlife Preserve 1.6178 mi2 Bird Island Marine Sanctuary* Kagman Wildlife Conservation Area Forbidden Island Sanctuary 0.5681 mi2 Susupe Wetland 0.7799 mi2 Division of Fish and Wildlife Division of Fish and Wildlife Division of Fish and Wildlife Division of Fish and Wildlife Division of Fish and Wildlife Division of Fish and Wildlife 0.3427 mi2 0.039 mi2 0.978 mi2 Heritage mentioned in management plan No No No No No Yes *includes submerged lands within area protected calculation Land protection options The battlefield is currently situated within a variety of environments, from urban to agricultural to rural. In order to maintain the battlefield and preserve its integrity, action will have to be taken by the local community and government. Protecting the land in perpetuity is the only way to insure the survival of the battlefield. There are four principal protection options but not all may be within the ability of Commonwealth law. They are: public and private property easements, leasing, land purchase, and zoning and local ordinances. Public and private property easements Generally easements provide an option to preserve land without owning it. This option keeps the land on the tax rolls and keeps it in the hands of the owner for use such as agriculture, which generally is how the land was used during WWII. Easements can be purchased from the landowner or the landowner can donate the easement. There are a few types of easements that could be pursued – “Historic Preservation” or “Conservation Easements” and “Agricultural Easements.” Both require landowner consent. An agricultural easement is a good option if landowners wish to continue farming. There are currently 46 programs in 15 US states that provide funding and support to governments and landowners who wish to set up agricultural easement programs. The “Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program” provides federal funds for such programs. Easements can be purchased outright for fair market value or a farmer can donate an easement and receive a tax deduction. Benefits include: lowered taxes due to lowered property value, proceeds from the sale of an easement can be used for any purpose, it enables landowners to realize a portion of the equity in their land without having to sell it, it can make land and farming more affordable to children 108 and younger generations of farmers by effectively reducing the value of the land, and it can aid in the transition from one generation of farmers to another. A historic preservation or conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its historic or conservation values. Landowners can continue to own and use their land and sell it or pass it on to their heirs. When the landowner donates or sells a conservation easement to a land trust certain development rights are sacrificed (i.e. a landowner might give up the right to build buildings or other structures on that easement). If the land is currently used as a farm, it can be maintained as a farm. The terms of the agreement bind future owners to those restrictions as well. The “Land Trust Alliance” is good source of information for conservation easements but there are several organizations that support developing conservation easement programs. The NPS provides information about historic preservation easements and what organizations are qualified to hold easements. The benefits of historic and conservation easements are similar to those of agriculture easements. As mentioned previously, Article XII of the CNMI Constitution prohibits individuals with less than 25 percent NMD blood from owning land. Thus, the option of easements, which is a useful strategy in the mainland US for protecting historic resources, is more complicated in the CNMI and deserves more consideration. Leasing Leasing is another option that is familiar to CNMI residents who own property. This option allows property owners to lease all or a portion of their property for a term of 55 years. Leasing is generally conducted through a real estate office and is arranged between the property owner and the lessee. Public lands are also available for lease and this process is regulated by the DPL through an application process. However, the first ever “Request for Proposals” was issued by the DPL in early 2013 in which DPL asked for development proposals and bids for three public land tracts totaling 139,832 square meters. This development in requesting proposals may be an indication that the government is trying to increase development on public lands. This could be cause for concern for historic properties. A special program to lease lands for historic protection could be developed in conjunction with the CNMI government to protect some of the more vulnerable or significant sites. Land purchase The best way to protect a battlefield is to buy the land on which it is situated. Purchasing property and placing an easement on it ensures that it will be protected into the future. A community battlefield watch group could be developed to brainstorm opportunities for purchase and protection of battlefield properties; however they will need to be creative and develop partnerships to be successful. One of the crucial elements of protecting a battlefield is to ensure that the opportunity exists to purchase property when it comes up for sale and a Right of First Refusal agreement can assist in this process. One of the tasks a community battlefield watch group could do is begin conversations with battlefield landowners who are not currently interested in selling their land, to obtain a “Right of First Refusal” should an option exist in the future. A “Right of First Refusal” 109 is a legally binding agreement that specifies a time span during which the holder of the agreement has the opportunity to purchase the land. These agreements allow more time for finding the necessary funding for purchase and can be a very effective, proactive tool. Another tool in purchasing is the “Option,” which can be used when a significant property and a willing landowner have been identified. An “Option” can be purchased which provides a group or individual time to raise money to purchase the land. The “Option” prevents the landowner from selling the land for the length of the “Option” while funds are being secured. If funds cannot be secured within the time, the cost of the “Option” is lost. In most cases the cost of the “Option” is applied to the cost of the land. A “Bargain Sale” is yet another option and it occurs when a property is sold for an amount less than the fair market value. This type of sale allows the seller to access State and Federal deductions for charitable contributions. This type of sale depends upon the seller’s willingness to take a loss in order to receive a tax benefit. Zoning and local ordinances There are no zoning and local ordinance options for historic preservation in CNMI, however, a community group and HPO could seek government assistance and support for developing a historic preservation zoning or ordinance law. Further, a community group or HPO could seek a designation as a rural historic district which would require approval of the landowners and create a district in a significant area. This would provide the property owners with a voice in how the land within the district is used. Community battlefield group Battlefield protection in the CNMI will be less successful if there is not a grassroots effort to protect the resources. Community battlefield protection or watch groups have been very effective in other parts of the world, and one that has members who are also battlefield landowners has the greatest advantage for protection. A 501(c) 3 made up of landowners and other interested persons would provide a watch group that could lead the process of protecting important sites in the battlefield. The group could work with the HPO to get sites listed on the NRHP or extend the boundaries of the existing Landmark. They could raise money for purchasing properties where significant sites are located. Important to raising awareness and increasing sustainable tourism to sites would be the development of interpretive literature and signs. This could be a project of the group. A group could conduct activities that raise awareness of preservation issues and draw attention to preservation strategies through community meetings, information tables at festivals and markets, and school talks. A group could also conduct reconnaissance and site mapping to locate and record more sites. The group could develop an easement program. There are many effective community groups which provide good examples of what a group of concerned individuals can achieve and it would be beneficial to examine the possibilities. Preservation partners The largest source of funding for preserving battlefields is the ABPP. Thus far approximately $19800.00 in grant funding has been awarded by the ABPP for projects related to the Battle of Saipan. Unfortunately because the battlefield consists of the entire island and surrounding waters, more funds are needed to understand the Battle and provide further protection. 110 The conservation areas already protected for natural or environmental significance could be amended to consider or include historical significance. These conservation areas are managed by the DFW. This would be an excellent opportunity for environmentalists, historic preservationists and landowners to work together to find creative ways of preserving the battlefield and land. Additionally, there are sites already managed because of their wildlife significance (i.e. Swiftlets in caves), suggesting that a two-pronged approach that includes historic conservation would be easy to implement. The NMICH functions as a non-profit, governmental organization that supports humanities efforts and funds grants to support humanities research. Any effort to develop a community group or develop preservation efforts should include input or partnership with the NMICH. Another partner is the AMP. The park has supported many grassroots and community efforts over the years and may be a funding opportunity or partner for projects. Sustainable tourism Any sustainable tourism related program or grant would be a great initiative to pursue. There are local tour companies on the island who offer tours of cave sites, although not all are reputable or considered sustainable. Pacific Development Inc. (PDI) represents one of the tourist agencies with the most infrastructure and strongest ethics in terms of historic place tours. Under the direction of Gordon Marciano, they have been trying to work with the government and MVA to create tourism certifications or training for tour guides. They have produced their own history tour booklet which they provide to the tour guides in an effort to train them in the correct historical knowledge. Efforts to apply for funding to develop sustainable tours to cave sites could potentially be useful in raising awareness, but also in curtailing unsustainable behavior within the tourism industry. An accreditation program for tour operators and guides is key to developing any sustainable tourism effort. Tour guides must understand the need and benefits of protecting heritage sites in order for their business to thrive. Additionally, providing the correct historical information is crucial to earning the trust of tourists and locals and building a strong successful business. An accreditation program could be developed and operated by the MVA, Chamber of Commerce, NMC or any other tourism board or organization. Certificates or logos could be provided to tour operators who have completed the accreditation to use as advertisement in attracting business. Restricting access In some areas of the world access is restricted to caves that contain significant cultural material, particularly rock art. Access can be restricted through a variety of methods, including the very minimal option of posting “no access” signs, to creating a physical barrier such as fencing or cages with key access. A significant cave on the island of Rota, Liyang Chugai, is restricted through the use of a locked gate, thus it is not out of the question for caves on Saipan or other islands within the northern Marianas to be restricted. This is a useful option for sites that may be relatively easy to access or for those containing significant cultural material deposits or rock art. This option should be considered for caves that will not be utilized for tourism purposes, as restrictive methods can detract from the overall aesthetics of a cave environment. 111 Education Education is one of the most powerful methods for conveying the importance of heritage. A community will understand and appreciate heritage and its preservation if they are stewards of that heritage, and being a steward involves understanding why that heritage is important and how it is significant to individuals, groups and a community. Fortunately, the island of Saipan has many community members who already value and understand the importance of their heritage. However, there are smaller sectors such as younger generations, tourists or newly migrated peoples who may not yet understand the value of this heritage. For these people a program in education is likely the best and most effective way to communicate that caves are significant and should be protected. This project begins the process of education through the public outreach components it has already undertaken but also through the development of PSAs. Other steps could be taken to strengthen the education focus, such as the production of a small brochure. The brochure could include information about the history of the sites, what they can tell us about the past, that they are non-renewable resources protected by Commonwealth and Federal law, and how local landowners and visitors to the sites can limit their degradation of the sites. The brochure could be freely available at the airport, MVA, AMP, the NMI Museum and other places on island. Another option includes interpretive literature on site in the form of signs. Again, the content could be similar to that found on a brochure. Little work is needed to design content for these signs as this was completed in an earlier project (see Cabrera 2009b). Signs do, however, need maintenance and care as they are often the target of vandalism in areas where no monitoring occurs. There are several granting agencies that assist with funding for interpretive literature at historic sites, including the ABPP. Finally, education of the next generation is crucial to passing on the preservation message. School programs could be developed in conjunction with community groups, the HPO and other interested agencies. A lesson plan and field trip to sites that are both pristine and heavily visited would demonstrate to the next generation the importance of caring for their heritage. Much could be learned in a cave lesson plan from the sciences (i.e. geology, biology) to the social sciences (i.e. anthropology, archeology, history). Enforcement One of the major issues in the CNMI with regard to protecting heritage sites is the lack of enforcement of heritage legislation. The HPO lacks the legislative ability to enforce heritage laws and investigate infractions; therefore it relies upon police to conduct investigations and make arrests for infractions. Depending on the work load and priorities of the police, heritage infractions may rank lower than other infractions. In the past there has been a lack of support generally to the HPO for investigating and follow-up with actual charges and arrests on heritagerelated infractions (Pers. comm. with Ronnie Rogers 2009). It is uncertain what if anything can be done about the lack of enforcement of laws. Perhaps training local law enforcement officers in heritage legislation and infractions may create a positive move in the direction for action. 112 Chapter 7: Recommended Actions Portions of the battlefield have already been listed as a National Landmark in the NRHP. An interpretive display is located at AMP. Sites are listed in a number of tourism maps and publications and promoted by tourism companies and the MVA, and it is a large draw for tourists visiting Saipan. The most important task remains – to preserve the battlefield. The following is divided into two parts: the first part includes a list of recommended actions that any community group could follow to assist with the preservation of the battlefield and the second part includes a list of recommended actions that the HPO could follow to assist with the preservation of the battlefield. Part 1: Community actions Form a community organization Preserving the battlefield will only succeed if a grassroots effort develops. A community action group for preserving the battlefield would provide the impetus to undertake the recommended actions listed below. Developing into a 501(c) 3 or partnering with a 501(c) 3 would allow the group to have an organizational structure as well as apply for funding to undertake actions. Alternatively a community group could partner with an existing 501(c) 3 to undertake preservation action. Apply for funding The ABPP is one source of funding that has been successfully utilized in Saipan. With a planning document now completed, the ABPP may be more likely to fund future requests outlined in the document. The ABPP can fund archeological investigations, interpretive planning, research, and mapping. Other funding options for protecting heritage include: Getty Foundation www.getty.edu/grants/; National Center for Preservation Technology and Training www.ncptt.nps.gov; NPS’s programs The Challenge Cost-Share Program and Historic Preservation Fund www.nps.gov; National Science Foundation www.nsf.gov; National Trust for Historic Preservation www.nthp.org; and National Historical Publications and Records Commission www.archives.gov/grants/. Form partnerships There are a number of organizations and agencies that can form partnerships to apply for funding or develop projects related to battlefield protection. The following organizations do, or should, have a stake in the preservation of the historic battlefield: HPO, AMP, NMICH, CRM, MVA, NMC, CZMP, DEQ, DFW, DLNR, and DPL. Inviting representatives from these organizations to public or community meetings to speak would be a useful way to investigate their interest for partnering and what they can do for battlefield preservation. Working with tourism organizations to develop protocols for sustainability is critical. Work with landowners Landowners of cave properties love their land and their historic sites, as demonstrated by the outpouring of interest associated with this project. They also want to preserve it for the purposes of farming, ranching, recreation, and for the future generations of children and grandchildren. Taking active steps to help landowners preserve sites related to the battlefield, their land, and their way of life is of utmost importance. 113 Maintain momentum With the development of a community group to protect battlefield cave sites, a good degree of forward momentum is needed. Hosting events, organizing tours, annual clean-ups, collecting oral histories, holding fund-raising events, etc. will provide the momentum for preservation. Part 1: community action plan The action plan below outlines specific steps that a community group could take over the next ten years to achieve greater preservation of battlefield cave sites. 2014-2015  Get started Hold a community meeting to invite interested individuals to discuss the formation of a community group for protecting cave sites. Invite all of the participants/ landowners of this project. Choose a name. Pick a regular date to meet, preferably monthly to start. Develop a contact list and mode of contact (i.e. email). Consider the 501(c) 3 status.  Develop partnerships The community group has the opportunity to partner with several organizations to move its agenda of preserving the battlefield forward. Invite representatives of organizations and agencies to speak at each meeting about their role in heritage protection. Consider all those listed above as well as national and international organization such as The Nature Conservancy, Marianas Archaeological Research Center, etc.  Advertise and outreach Create a Facebook page, website, and/or a blog. Let the community and world know what you are doing. Develop a PowerPoint or slideshow that you can show to potential partners what your organization does. Do a radio program. Go on the news. 2015-2016  Raise funds Hold fundraising events (i.e. bake sales, cave tours, barbeques, etc.) to earn start-up funds.  Record and save oral histories Develop a program to start recording and saving oral histories from elders in the community about cave stories. NMICH would be a good partner from which to seek funding and support.  Archaeological research A joint archeological project between the community group and a university archeology department could be developed. This project could provide community members with training in archeological techniques and preservation. It would also be a good opportunity to learn more about the archeological context of caves. 2016-2017  Target landowners Develop and continue dialog with battlefield landowners regarding their long-term plans for their land. Make it known that your group would like first option to buy the land if it goes on the market. Encourage landowners to place easements on their property. 114  Apply for ABPP funding The locations of many significant cave sites are not known. Seek ABPP funding for a cultural resource inventory/survey. Consider partnering with an existing 501(c) 3 if the group does not have this status. The inventory/survey could be conducted as a partnership with a university archeology department and could involve volunteers from the group. In this way sites could be recorded in detail and volunteers could be trained in archeological methods in order to continue the recording whenever new sites are identified.  Create an annual battlefield event The group could host an annual event (i.e. barbeque, dinner, garage sale/flea market, tour, etc.) to raise awareness and draw in funds. 2017-2018  Continue land preservation activities Continue working with landowners to purchase land and/or obtain easements. Work with partners to locate and secure funding.  Lobby the government for more protection Write letters and visit lawmakers to educate them on the importance of protecting your heritage. Invite lawmakers to your meetings. A special program to lease lands for historic protection could be developed in conjunction with the CNMI government to protect some of the more vulnerable or significant sites. Also, request the government to set up a historic preservation ordinance or zoning law that protects properties with heritage sites.  List sites on the National Register Research as a group the process of National Register listing. Enlist HPO to assist with listing significant sites on the National Register. The sites can be on public and private land. If on private land, liaise with the landowner. Further assistance can be sought with a university archeology department. 2019-2020  Continue land preservation activities Continue working with landowners to purchase land and/or obtain easements. Work with partners to locate and secure funding.  Seek rural historic district designation Work with the HPO to seek a rural historic district designation for several significant cave sites. Get permission and support from landowners to begin designation procedures. Further assistance can be sought with a university archeology department.  Reach out to the next generation Partner with a school or teacher to develop a lesson plan that incorporates cave sites and protecting the battlefield. Work with schools to deliver this lesson plan. Develop school tours to sites or make clean-up days for specific sites or properties. 2021-2022 more  Continue land preservation activities Continue working with landowners to purchase land and/or obtain easements. Work with partners to locate and secure funding.  Seek funding for an interpretive plan 115 Evaluate all existing interpretive signage and materials related to caves and the battlefield. Apply for ABPP funding for a comprehensive interpretive plan. The interpretive plan could be conducted as a partnership with a university archeology department. 2022-2023 more  Continue land preservation activities Continue working with landowners to purchase land and/or obtain easements. Work with partners to locate and secure funding.  Open on-site interpretive trails If land has been purchased or public lands are available, use the new interpretive plan to design an interpretive site or trail for the public. This would be the first-ever battlefield trail or tour developed by the group. The occasion should be celebrated and used as a fundraising event as well. 2023-2024  Continue land preservation activities Continue working with landowners to purchase land and/or obtain easements. Work with partners to locate and secure funding.  Apply for ABPP funding for a new preservation plan Regardless of how much the group has accomplished, after ten years much has changed. A new plan will give the group fresh ideas, new perspective and more focus. Apply for funding for a new preservation plan. Part 2: HPO actions Conduct a grey literature survey and develop a database of known sites The HPO site files are not currently digitized or in a digital database, therefore it is difficult to know how many and what types of cave sites have already been recorded. The first step in managing sites is to know what has to be managed. Thus a thorough data research project that reviews all site file forms and survey reports and creates a digital database of known and recorded cave sites should be conducted. This could be a project funded by the annual funds received from the NPS. Alternatively, the HPO could work with a university which can assist with providing a student intern capable of this task. The HPO does not have to utilize their staff time or money in this instance, which is a benefit for an underfunded, understaffed organization. Develop a management plan Different from a preservation plan such as this plan, management plans are crucial for preserving cave sites that can be easily accessed and impacted. They provide concrete guidance for the steps needed to manage sites. Plans can be drawn up for significant or well-known or visited sites, such as Kalabera Cave, and can include strategies for counteracting impacts, such as graffiti and tourism-related issues. Recommendations for restoring the caves to their natural beauty by removing graffiti and garbage could be addressed. A management plan could be funded through the annual funds received from the NPS. Alternatively, the HPO could work with a university who can assist by writing a grant to find funding. The ABPP is a source of funding for developing management plans. The HPO does not have to utilize its own staff time or money in this instance which is a benefit for an underfunded, understaffed organization. 116 Form partnerships Cave sites have both historical and natural significance for the community in Saipan. The following organizations do, or should, have a stake in the preservation of the historic battlefield: AMP, NMICH, CRM, MVA, NMC, CZMP, DEQ, DFW, DLNR, and DPL. HPO should consult with these agencies on ways that sites can be protected and managed. HPO should also take steps to have language added that protects cultural heritage within existing conservation areas. HPO should work with tourism organizations to develop protocols for accessing sites and minimizing impacts. Requirements for having a tour guide when visiting a site should be considered in conjunction with tourism operations. HPO should work with the CNMI government to develop historic preservation ordinances or zoning laws. Develop interpretation One of the most effective ways of counteracting vandalism is to create a managed presence on site (Swadley ND; Swift et al. 2009). Developing and installing interpretive panels on site as well as maintaining the parking area, footpath, and site would demonstrate a management presence. Signs that warn of penalties for damaging historic sites and encourage visitors to report vandalism could be installed and may deter future vandalism. Additionally, interpretive signs are useful in educating the general public about the natural and cultural importance of a site. This educative process can often discourage vandals from defacing sites. Content for an interpretive panel was developed for Kalabera Cave and could be used by HPO to erect panels at the site (see Cabrera 2009b). Interpretation projects could be funded through the annual funds received from the NPS. Alternatively, the HPO could work with a university who can assist by writing a grant to find funding. The ABPP is a source of funding for developing interpretive plans. The HPO does not have to utilize its own staff time or money in this instance, which is a benefit for an underfunded, understaffed organization. Work with landowners Landowners of cave properties love their land and their historic sites, as demonstrated by the outpouring of interest associated with this project. They also want to preserve it for the purposes of farming, ranching, recreation, and for future generations of children and grandchildren. Taking active steps to help landowners preserve sites related to the battlefield, their land, and their way of life is of utmost importance. HPO should work with landowners to record their sites. They should also assist with NHR listings of properties. HPO should develop and provide a brochure or a simple one-page document that provides guidance to landowners about how to protect sites on their property and what laws apply to the sites. Develop a monitoring program With the completion of a management plan and interpretation installation, HPO could begin a monitoring program that would involve visiting sites on a regular basis (twice a year for significant or highly visited sites, once a year for others) to monitor cultural and natural impacts. Rapid responses to vandalism should be an important part of that monitoring program, with plans to record and report vandalism to authorities, assisting with evidence collection and prosecution. Regular clean-up, as well as general maintenance, to properties and interpretive signs could be part of the plan. Identifying issues related to the exposure of human remains is also important. Funding for such a program may be difficult to find, however annual NPS funding could be used to support this or grants could be obtained by working with a university, community group or other agency related to natural resources. 117 Develop a tour guide certification program More and more tourists are becoming aware of the impacts they cause to places they visit. Ecotourism, sustainable tourism, and green products are key developments within the tourism market and tourists seek out those companies which advertise such practices. Further, tourists want authenticity and seek accurate, correct historical information from tour guides and companies. HPO could develop a curriculum for a training that certifies tour operators and guides operating historic tours. The program could be developed in conjunction with MVA, the Chamber of Commerce, NMC or larger tourism companies. It could be an online module or a training that is held bi-annually or on a need basis. The training could include a fee which would assist in developing and maintaining the curriculum or holding future trainings. It could be held for free the first couple times which may generate interest and a desire for inclusion, thus ensuring that future operators will seek the training. A certification, sticker or symbol could be developed for tourism companies to market their certification to tourists. Develop a restricted access, user fee system at Kalabera Cave* Kalabera Cave is a unique, culturally significant and well-known site. It is the most heavily visited tourist cave and therefore is the most impacted cave on the island. It is unlikely tourist traffic will decrease and more likely that, with the development of Route 36, there will be more impacts. According to Saipan biologist John Starmer, “The tourism model we seem to continue to follow in CNMI is a numbers game: many tourists providing small bits of revenue and much wear and tear on sites, rather than a few tourist that spend big money with less "use". While high volume tourism works for beaches and scenic overlooks where wear and tear is repaired with each tide or kept at bay by distance, it is not the best way to maintain a cave site.” The HPO has the opportunity now to work with the government to develop a restricted access, user fee system such as what has been done with the very popular Managaha Island. The site could be restricted to small guided groups led by licensed or approved guides. Tourists could pay a small fee to visit the site with a guide and those funds could be put into an interest bearing account where the monies or interest could be spent on the upkeep of the cave or on future research and protection of other caves. The guides could feed back information about the condition of the site and flag any issues. Tourists could also add a visit to the NMI Museum as part of their cultural tour. Making the site exclusive will increase the value and significance of the tour and the willingness of the tourists to pay, as is evidenced already by the success of Managaha Island. *This idea was suggested by John Starmer during the review process of Kalabera Cave development plans (Swift et al. 2009). Develop an archeological project Much is yet to be learned about the use of caves during WWII. While this project attempted to document basic archeological information found within a limited amount of caves, a large-scale survey for identifying sites, as well as, in-depth archeological survey of specific sites is warranted. A cross-section of sites exist that could be recorded and/or excavated and compared including Japanese Navy, Army and civilian caves. Some of the caves visited during this project have intact activity areas that need to be recorded before they are disturbed. The Operation Forager journals provide a useful source of information for locating new sites and identifying activities that occurred within specific sites. Many questions exist about cave use prior to, during and after the Battle. 118 Maintain momentum With the development of a preservation plan to protect battlefield cave sites, a good degree of forward momentum is needed. The preservation plan has to have long-term goals for protecting sites. Preservation needs will never stop and have to be considered for future generations. Developing agency partnerships and working with the community will provide the needed momentum for preservation. Part 1: HPO action plan The action plan below outlines specific steps that HPO could take over the next ten years to achieve greater preservation of cave battlefield sites. 2014-2015  Get started Begin with meetings within HPO with all staff to review this planning document and consider the options presented herein. This document was developed to empower the community and HPO in their interest and efforts to protect battlefield caves. Brainstorm with staff to consider the most effective action plan for preservation.  Start gray literature review and database Begin reviewing all gray literature to compile known cave sites into a database which can be used to manage and monitor sites.  Develop partnerships HPO has the opportunity to partner with several organizations and agencies to move its agenda of preserving the battlefield forward. Invite representatives of organizations and agencies to HPO for discussions about how sites can be protected within existing and future conservation areas. Discuss options for developing joint monitoring programs with other agencies. Discuss options for grant applications or joint funding proposals with other agencies, community groups, or universities. Discuss plans with the Governor to develop a special program to lease lands for historic protection to protect some of the more vulnerable or significant sites. 2015-2016  Engage the community Hold a community meeting to invite interested individuals to discuss protecting cave sites. Get input from landowners about how HPO can assist with protecting sites on their property. Invite input from all of the participants/landowners of this project as well as any that may be interested in forming a community group. Develop a contact list and mode of contact (i.e. email).  Develop a management plan Develop a management plan for a significant or well-known or visited site, such as Kalabera Cave, or for cave sites in general. Include strategies for reducing cultural impacts to sites. Explore options for restoring the caves and removing graffiti.  Develop a regular monitoring program for Kalabera Cave Kalabera cave is a significant historical property. A regular monitoring program would assist in demonstrating a presence for HPO. It would also cut down on regular acts of vandalism. Cutting the grass, maintaining signs and removing garbage should be part of the monitoring activities. 2016-2017  Continue management plan and monitoring activities 119 Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Target landowners Develop and continue dialog with battlefield landowners regarding their long-term plans for their land. Make it known that HPO has a vested interest in their protection of sites on their property. Encourage landowners to consider listing their caves on the NR.  List sites on the National Register Consider properties for the National Register listing. List significant sites. One to two sites per year would be effective. 2017-2018  Continue management plan and monitoring activities Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Develop a heritage law enforcement training Develop a law enforcement training program which can be presented during a one or two-day excursion. The training could be given to each unit of law enforcement. The training should include the laws that protect historic resources and the penalties that follow, proper reporting of infringements, what to look for in terms of collecting evidence, etc. It could include site visits to caves that have been impacted and mock exercises of infractions.  Reach out to the next generation Give presentations to schools that incorporate the history of caves sites and messages about protecting the battlefield. 2019-2020  Continue management plan and monitoring activities Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Seek rural historic district designation Develop and continue dialog with battlefield landowners regarding their long-term plans for their land. Make it known that HPO would support a historic district nomination that includes cave sites. Seek support and permission from landowners for this process. Develop a plan to list sites as a district to the NR.  Develop an interpretive plan Evaluate all existing interpretive signage and materials related to caves and the battlefield. Consider funding or apply for outside funding for a comprehensive interpretive plan. The interpretive plan could be conducted as a partnership with a community group or university archeology department. 2021-2022  Continue management plan and monitoring activities Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Open on-site interpretive trails Use the new interpretive plan to design an interpretive site or trail for the public on public lands, or private lands with permission. This would be the first-ever battlefield trail or tour developed. 120  Develop a tour guide certification program Develop a curriculum for a training that certifies tour operators and guides for operating historic tours. Partner with MVA, the Chamber of Commerce, NMC, or large tourism companies to develop the program. 2022-2023  Continue management plan and monitoring activities Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Develop a restricted access, user fee system at Kalabera Cave Work with the government and other agencies to develop a user fee-based, restricted access system for Kalabera Cave. Develop plans for restricting access and collecting fees.  Develop and archeological research project Partner with a university archeology department to conduct much needed archeological research. Either large-scale survey using historical documents for locating caves, or archeological recording and excavation at specific sites would reveal useful information about cave use during the war. 2023-2024  Continue management plan and monitoring activities Continue with implementation of the management plan and continue with the monitoring program. Consider adding new sites to the monitoring program.  Apply for funding for a new preservation plan Regardless of how much HPO has accomplished, after ten years much has changed. A new plan will give HPO fresh ideas, new perspective and more focus. 121 Chapter 8: Conclusion Saipan’s caves have high historical, archeological, cultural, and spiritual significance to both local and international communities. For the Indigenous Chamorro peoples caves have strong cultural and ancestral significance. Kalabera Cave, for example, provides evidence that caves have been used since prehistoric times through the rock art on the walls and artifacts and archeological features in the soil. The Kalabera Cave rock art has been carefully studied (Cabrera and Tudela 2009) and has been shown to communicate ancestral activities and cultural practices, as well the importance of particular animals to the ancient Chamorro culture. It is a permanent written record of cultural activities, such as the practice of ancestral worship through the fashioning of tools out of ancestral bones and burial practices. As Cabrera and Tudela (2006:51) state, “the rock art of the Mariana Islands slowly begins to reclaim the Chamorro people’s rightful ancestral voice and by doing so, hopes to rejuvenate the inherent cultural wisdom lodged in the hearts of its modern-day descendants.” Caves are also significant to Chamorro and Carolinian peoples during times of trouble such as the Battle of Saipan. In the interviews compiled by MARC, many of the interviewees describe the caves they sought shelter in as “our caves” and even today, people often refer to caves in this way. The caves were and are still are linked to specific families whose property they are/were located on, and individual and groups of families used them for shelter and protection during the Battle. These caves are a reminder of the strength and resilience of their people during times of devastation, but also act as reminders and memorials for those who have passed. Japanese, Korean and Filipino individuals and families also have a deep connection to these caves for many of the same reasons as Chamorro and Carolinian people. Civilians caught in the middle during the Battle of Saipan suffered, survived, and died in these caves. Each year hundreds of Japanese tourists visit Saipan to pay homage and memorialize those lost in the war. One particular cave has been visited by a Japanese man in his late 80s every year since 2005. As a young boy he and his family took refuge in this cave and only he survived. Memorialization by tourists is apparent in many of Saipan’s caves. Several caves have ceremonial objects, shrines and offerings. These offerings consist of food, wooden stupas and origami paper cranes held together by string and presented to wish good luck and happiness. The use of caves during WWII and the artifacts found within them have high historical significance and exemplify Japanese defensive ingenuity. They are a reflection of the circumstances surrounding WWII and the Battle in the Marianas, and record the technological and strategic achievements of the Japanese and US forces. The Unai Laggua Japanese Defense Pillbox is already part of the NRHP. It is a pillbox between two natural coral limestone outcrops that act as walls for the structure. The roof and walls were expanded upon with concrete and steel from the Japanese railway system. The pillbox is linked to a limestone crevice used for ammunition storage and a second unfinished pillbox. This singular example of the complex nature in which these natural spaces were considered and modified demonstrate the importance of their study and preservation. These fortified caves, defensive positions, hideouts, tunnels and final resting places individually and collectively contribute to the broad patterns of a history related to warfare and technological advances. Caves also have high research potential for geologists, historians, biologists and archeologists. In Saipan several endangered species rely on the habitat provided by caves, such as the protected Swiftlet. Significant geological features have been identified, but many more are yet to be 122 located due to the lack of any comprehensive survey. From a historical perspective little is known about prehistoric use of caves, as well as the rock art, which is a permanent written record of the Chamorro culture. Significant research into the use of caves in WWII has yet to be conducted. The artifacts of WWII, the use of caves as fortifications and caves as places of refuge are areas where much more research is needed. Further, comparison with other Pacific Island caves used during WWII would provide a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding caves’ importance in the context of war. The significance of caves in WWII across the cultures that used them is difficult to capture; the Battle simply cannot be understood without considering the role caves played in both strategy and as shelter for troops and civilians. Lastly, caves have significance for tourists who visit the island. As natural wonders and places of heritage, caves hold many secrets yet to be revealed and discovered, and tourists are attracted to them for that very reason. Caves as locations for heritage tourism and as a source of income for locals is an option in which many local people have expressed an interest in. However, any venture undertaken to promote caves to tourists must be conducted with an eye towards sustainability. Caves are fragile ecosystems and are filled with fragile artifacts from the past. They are non-renewable resources that, if not protected, will not be around for future generations to appreciate. Conclusion It is pertinent to acknowledge that the CNMI and the Pacific region in general have their own unique sets of challenges and issues that are quite different from other parts of the world. Therefore, it is important when developing planning documents that other “models” are not applied wholesale to this region. An approach that considers the challenges and difficulties that the CNMI is facing, and a plan that is suited to deal with these challenges and resolve them into the future is the most likely long-term planning approach to be successful. This planning document was written with the intention of assisting the community and HPO in researching, protecting, and managing their WWII-related caves. The information in this document empowers the local community with knowledge about their sites and how they might initiate further investigation and research into such sites and protect them from further degradation through cultural and natural factors. The preservation plan includes a range of recommendations and actions that could be carried out in tandem, or they might be implemented one at a time as resources allow. All of the plans and actions are dependent on a number of issues local to the island, including: interest, training, equipment, funding, and priorities. However, care and attention has been paid to find alternatives to funding requirements, such as partnerships with agencies or universities. When staff and funding are restricted, creative partnerships will provide the most support and often a more holistic approach. While this planning document focuses more on the WWII context, it is important to remember that there are many more contexts from previous and later time periods that are significant to the history of the island and the story of caves. It is hoped that this planning document will assist the community and HPO in understanding those contexts as well. Inclusive and collaborative efforts should be made with all regulatory agencies that deal with the environment in relation to caves, as well as other stakeholders, such as tourism companies and the community. Further, it is important to understand that not only the interests of the US and Japanese government are at the core of this heritage, but a local perspective that incorporates 123 Chamorro, Carolinian, Filipino and Korean values with regards to these sites should be considered. This is our history – These are our Stories. 124 References 106th Infantry 1944 Forager Narrative Report 15 April-5 August 1944. ‘Forager’ Operations Report. United States Army. 27th Infantry Division G-2 Section 1944 Journal Forager Operation, United States Army. Bedell, J. 2006 Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the Buckland Mills Battlefield, Buckland Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Bowers, N. M. 2001 Problems of Resettlement on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota Mariana Islands. Occasional Historical Papers Series, No. 7, CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Bulgrin, L. E. 2005 The Tudela Site: Fire and Steel Over Saipan, 15 June 1944. The Journal of Conflict Archaeology 1:1-17. Butler, B. M. and D. G. DeFant 1991 Archaeological Survey on the Leeward Coast of Saipan: Garapan to Oleai. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report Number 27, Saipan. Cabrera, G. S. 2005 Historic and Cultural Sites of the CNMI: The National Register Sites. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Cabrera, G. S. 2009a A Cultural Resource Survey of Liyang Kalabera, Marpi, Saipan. Prepared for Herman B. Cabrera & Associates. Cabrera, G. S. 2009b A Cultural Resource Survey of Liyang Kalabera, Marpi, Saipan; Development of Interpretive Panels and Signage to Mitigate Visitor Impact to the Site’s Cultural Resources. Prepared for Herman B. Cabrera & Associates. Cabrera, G. S. and H. Tudela 2006 Conversations with I Man-Aniti: Interpretation of Discoveries of the Rock Art in the Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 5(1-2):4252 Caporale, L. G. 1984 The Marianas. Marine Corps Gazette (pre-1994) June 1984 68(6): 18-27. Carruth, R. L. 125 2003 Ground-Water Resources of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. US Geological Survey Water–Resources Investigations Report 03–4178. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034178/htdocs/wrir03-4178.html, accessed February 2013. Carson, M. T. 2012 History of Archaeological Study in the Mariana Islands. Micronesica 42(1/2):312–371. Chapin, J. 1994 Breaching the Marianas: The Battle for Saipan. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Cloud, P. E., Jr., R. G. Schmidt, and H. W. Burke 1956 Geology of Saipan, Mariana Islands, Part I. General Geology. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 280-A. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Commonwealth Economic Development Strategic Planning Commission 2009 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan 2009-2014. Report prepared for the US CNMI. Crowl, P. A. 1960 US Army in World War II: The War in the Pacific: Campaign in the Marianas. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Denfeld, D. C. 1981 Field Survey of Truk: World War II Features. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report Number 6. Historic Preservation Office Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Saipan. Denfeld, D. C. 1988. Peleliu Revisited: An Historical and Archaeological Survey of World War II Sites on Peleliu Island. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report Series Number 24. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Denfeld, D. C. 1992 Japanese World War II Fortifications and Other Military Structures in the Central Pacific. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Denfeld, D. C. 2002. Japanese World War II Fortifications and Other Military Structures in the Central Pacific, 3rd Edition. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Dixon, B. and R. Schaefer 2014 Archaeological Investigation of Caves and Rock Shelters on Guam and Tinian: a synthesis of their use through time. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 5(1):52-74. Dixon, B., L. Gilda and L. Bulgrin 2012 The Archaeology of World War II Japanese Stragglers on the Island of Guam and the Bushido Code. Asian Perspectives 51(1): 110-127. 126 Eakin, J., K. Higelmire, E. Salo and D. DeFant 2012 Final Report Intensive Archaeological Survey of Sabanettan I Toru, Saipan, CNMI. Prepared for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Community and Cultural Affairs Division of Historic Preservation by Search Archaeological Research Inc. Elliot, D. T. and R. F. Elliot 2008 GPR and Archaeology on Saipan. Lamar Institute Publication Series Report Number 134, Savannah, GA. Fonzo, S. 2008 A Documentary Landscape Analysis of the Buckland Mills Battlefield (Va042). Buckland Preservation Society, Gainsville, VA. Fritz, G. 2001 The Chamorro: A History and Ethnography of the Mariana Islands. Occasional Historical Paper Series, No. 1. Third English Edition, edited by Scott Russell. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. GAI Consultants, Inc. 2007 Fort Ethan Allen Cultural Landscape Documentation Report, Arlington, Virginia. GAI Consultants, Inc. and Hardlines Design Company, Homestead, PA. Graham, M. B. 1994 Operation Forager: Moving through the Marianas. VFW, Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine May 1994 81(9):18-20. Hawley, N. B. 2007. Custom Trucks, Radio Snake Jingles, and Temporary Tattoos: An overview of a successful public awareness campaign related to brown treesnakes in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species. Paper 15. Higgins, M. et al. (Translators). 2004. The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis de San Vitores, S.J. Micronesian Area Research Center, Guam. Jones, D. 1986 Oba, The Last Samurai: Saipan 1944-1945. Presidio Press, New York. Legg, J. B., S. D. Smith, and T. S. Wilson 2005 Understanding Camden: The Revolutionary War Battle of Camden as revealed through historical, archaeological, and private collections analysis. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, SC. Lodge, O.R. 1954 The Recapture of Guam. Reprinted 1998. Awani Press, Fredericksburg, Texas. Lotz, D. 127 1998 World War II Remnants – Guam, Northern Mariana Islands: A Guide and History. 2nd ed. Arizona Memorial Museum Association, Honolulu. McKinnon, J. F. and T. L. Carrell 2011 Saipan WWII Invasion Beaches Underwater Heritage Trail. Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research, Corpus Christi, Texas. Micronesian Area Research Center 1981 The War Years on Saipan Transcripts of Interviews with Resident, Volume One. US Park Service/MARC oral history project. Miscellaneous Publications No. 6 University of Guam. Micronesian Area Research Center 1981a The War Years on Saipan Transcripts of Interviews with Resident, Volume Two. US Park Service/MARC oral history project. Miscellaneous Publications No. 6 University of Guam. Military Intelligence Service 1944 Soldier’s Guide to the Japanese Army. Military Intelligence Service Special Series No, 27. War Department, Washington, D. C. Mohlman, G. 2011 Final Report Archaeological Survey and National Register Nomination for Japanese Defensive Complex Rota Island, CNMI. Prepared for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Community and Cultural Affairs Division of Historic Preservation by Search Archaeological Research Inc. Moore, D. 2002 The Battle of Saipan—The Final Curtain. Electronic document, http://www.battle ofsaipan.com/seabee.htm, accessed October 29, 2008. Moore, D. R. and R. L. Hunter-Anderson 1988 Report on a Survey of the Ginalangan Defensive Complex, Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands. Mylroie, J. R. and J. E. Mylroie 2007 Development of the Carbonate Karst Model. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 69(1):59– 75. Office of Historic Preservation 2011 Preservation CNMI Caring for the Past in an Uncertain Future: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Historic Preservation Plan 2011-2015. CNMI Office of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Pacific STAR Center for Young Writers 2004 We Drank Our Tears: Memories of the Battles for Saipan and Tinian as Told by Our Elders. Pacific STAR Center for Young Writers, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Saipan. Petty, B. 2002 Saipan: Oral Histories of the Pacific War. McFarland and Company, Jefferson, N.C. 128 Phelan, W.C. USNR 1945. Japanese Military Caves on Peleliu. “Know Your Enemy!”. CinCPac-CinCPOA Bulletin 17345. United States, Navy, Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas. Pregill, G.K. and D.W. Steadman 2009 The prehistory and biogeography of terrestrial vertebrates on Guam, Mariana Islands. Diversity and Distributions 15(6):983–996. Prowazek, Stanislaus von 1913 Die Deutschen Marianen. Ihre Natur und Geschichte. (The German Marianas. Their Natural Environment and History). Johann Ambrosius Barth. Iv, 126, Leipzig. Rogers, R. F. 1995 Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Rottman, G. L. 2004a Saipan and Tinian 1944: Piercing the Japanese Empire. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom. Rottman, G. L. 2004b US World War II Amphibious Tactics; Army and Marine Core, Pacific Theater. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, UK. Russell, S. 1984 From Arabwal to Ashes: A Brief History of Garapan Village; 1818 to 1945. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report Number 19, Department of Education, CNMI. Russell, S. 1998 Tiempon I Manmofo ‘na: Ancient Chamorro Culture and History of the Northern Mairana Islands. Micronesian Archaeological Survey No. 32. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Spennemann, D. 2004 An Annotated Bibliography of German Language Sources on the Mariana Islands. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan. Spoehr, A. 1957 Marianas Prehistory: Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. Fieldiana: Anthropology 48. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Spoehr, A. 2000 Saipan: The Ethnology of a War-Devastated Island. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, CNMI. Stafford, K. W., J. E. Mylroie and J.W. Jenson 129 2002 Karst Geology and Hydrology of Tinian and Rota (Luta), CNMI: A Preliminary Report. Technical Report No. 96. Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam. Swadley, B. ND Actively Managing rock Art Sites. Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism. http://arkarcheology.uark.edu/rockart/printerfriendly.html?pageName=Actively%20Managing% 20Rock%20Art%20Sites, accessed 12 February 2014. Swift, M. K., R. S. Brown and A. E. Haun 1992 Phased Archaeological Inventory Survey, Rota Southern Cross Resort Development Parcel, Paul H. Rosendahl, PhD, Inc., Hawai’i. Swift, M. K., R. A. Harper and M. A. Fleming 2009 Archaeological Assessment Kalabera Cave Development Project Marpi, Saipan. Report prepared for Herman B. Cabrera & Associates by Swift and Harper Archaeological Resource Consulting, Saipan, MP. Thomspon, E. N. 1984 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Landing Beaches, Aslito/Isley Field and Marpi Point, Saipan Island. United States Department of the Interior. Taboroši, D. and J. W. Jenson 2002 World War II Artefacts and Wartime Use of Caves in Guam, Mariana Islands. Capra: 4. Available at: http://capra.group.shef.ac.uk/4/danko.html, accessed February 2013. United States Army Forces, Central Pacific Area 1944 Participation in the Marianas Operation Volume II. Headquarters, United States Army Forces, Pacific Ocean Areas. United States Army Forces, Central Pacific Area 1944a G-2 Intelligence Report for Operation Forager. Headquarters, United States Army Forces, Pacific Ocean Areas. War Department 1944 Handbook on Japanese Military Forces. Technical Manual TM-E 30-480. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/index.html. Weary, D.J., and W.C. Burton 2011 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Island of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1234, a http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1234 accessed on February 2013. 130 Appendix A Map Reference 104 B-105 D Type Military 107 CG Civilian 108 G (Nafutan Point) Military Military contents Stocks of ammunition Civilian contents Action Comments Caves (plural) ‘Civilians in caves’ Artillery gun in a cave fitted with steel doors ‘The field piece located at TA108G operated from a cave with entrance overed by steel doors. Doors opened, gun was run out and fired, returned to cave, and doors closed.’ ‘100 POWs in cave in TA 111? W’ (typescript difficult to read” Caves (plural) 111 W? 117 ST Military Dumps of gas, 8” shells and grenades 117 Q – 109 D Military ‘Numerous ammunition dumps’ SE coast: 117 Q109 D Military Stocks of ammunition 123 O Military? 100 prisoners and documents 137 Q Military Machine gun ‘Am dumps in caves of cliffs’ (Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A) Encountered resistance Cleaned out 131 Source Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation Div/Arty Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Map Reference 140 W-124 E Type Military Military contents 145 F Military 146 QRMID Military Booby-trapped (‘… both were bomb fuses’) MG post 152 M Military 165 FD Military 167 A Military 168 A, 152 M?H?, 175 S? Military 50 cases 81mm mortar ammunition 3 ammunition dumps 175 Q Military ‘documents etc’ 175 V Military 30 60mm star clusters, 10 cases MG ammunition, 10 cases carbine ammunition, 10 cases 30 calibre ball ammunition 176 B ? Sea mines 9’… 2d Bn located cave … in which were 60-70 sea mines; cave was approx. 100 feet deep’ 10 cases rations Civilian contents Action Comments ‘… the enemy has been isolated in groups of mangrove and coral caves at intervals along the coast’ ’24 RCT cleaning up MG nest in caves … & other caves on right flank’ (Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Source Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-3 Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B ‘Rpt finding cave in TA 165 D with 10 cases of Jap rations which were 40ft down and required a rope ladder to descend to the food’ Typescript unclear ‘Rcn rpts cave with documents etc, in 175Q in side of hill’ ‘8 bodies at cave entrance … uniformed with blankets covering them’ 132 Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-4 G-4 journal, Section V Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Map Reference 180 W Type Military Military contents Stoves 186(?) M21 Military Field piece approx. 75mm in cave 186 - 187 KG ? 186 N Civilian (indigeno us) 186 X – 195 U Military 187 Q Military 187 K ? 189 Y Military Two people 195 Y Military Cliff ‘honeycombed with caves and small pockets from which the enemy maintained machine Civilian contents Action Comments Removed to outside Numbering for location unclear on typescript ‘Caves on ridge line’ One man and three children: ‘Have discovered some natives in cave at 186N and request interpreter to aid in getting them out … Pfc Burgess and interpreter returned to CP after getting one man and 3 children out of cave in 186N’ ‘Evidence of concrete reinforcements of caves along cliff’ Machine gun ‘5 Japs located at base of hill in cave’ 133 Source Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation Div/Arty Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Headquarters Expeditionary Troops Task Force 56 Report Map Reference Type Military contents gun and small arms fire’ 195 K Military Booby-trapped 195 SY Civilian? Civilian contents Action Comments Source by G-2 on Forager Enclosure D Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Fr Ln I 249 FA_‘Many caves full of Japs wounded. Some are civilians refusing to surrender. Proceeding to mop-up.’ Journal Forager Operation Div/Arty ‘Killed 1 woman in cave at 195 SY and found 1 child’ 205 (on top of ridge?) 206 S Military Tank 212 L Military Command Post, incl. documents 212 T Military 5 people 212 RW near Brown beach 2 Military? ‘More were believe d to be in cave so used flame throwers but could not get into cave; believe they killed all En in cave’ 213 N ? 215 O Military? ‘In area 212L is cave evidently used as Jap CP, 30-40 dead including 8 Os; many documents’ ‘The 106 Inf sent a plat to clean [cave] out … at 0700 this AM flame throwers Fr 102d Engrs were used. 5 dead Japs found in cave.’ Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B ‘Large fire rptd in cave’ 1 soldier and 2 wounded POWs captured ‘... believed more were killed when cave was destroyed.’ 134 Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Map Reference 221 U Type Military contents 224 K Military Machine gun 233 V Military 3-4 soldiers trapped in cave 237 B Military Command Post – two entrances 247 L ? 249 FA Military 249 WX Military 1 soldier killed in cave 266 S-279 M Military ‘hideouts’ – by individuals 276 T ? 276 RSY ? 276 ? Civilian contents Action ‘Request for Inf to clean out caves in TA 221 U’ Sealed (both entrances) Attempt made to get enemy out of caves via PA system Comments ‘…. A cave believed to have been a CP was closed by blowing both entrances; Japs entombed. Possible there might be some documents in the cave’ ‘Unknown number of Japs sealed in caves.’ ‘If unsuccessful, will be closed’ ‘3 persons seen in cave at TA 276 T’ ‘LCI rpts they killed 7 Japs & destroyed all caves.’ ‘In area 276 is a large cave at edge of shore. 2 people, 1 a child and a woman can be seen there’ 135 Source Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation Div/Arty Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Headquarters Expeditionary Troops Task Force 56 Report by G-2 on Forager Enclosure D Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Map Reference Type Military contents 279 X Military? 23 bodies 286 PQ ? 286 M Military 100-150 soldiers? Military Artillery Nafutan Point Military Civilian 50 soldiers Marpi Point Civilian Brown Beach Military? South shore Civilians Civilian contents Comments Probably same as 276T? Priest, nuns and staff Os. ‘… heard 5 grenades explode inside a cave, believe En in cave were committing suicide.’ ‘These caves have a water hole & are 30-40 feet deep.’ ‘There are caves all along shore. Saw about two dozen dead enemy; signs they crawled back in caves and died. No rifles or pistols there but plenty of naval shells, grenades, mines etc. ‘ ‘During afternoon of the 20th, artillery in caves in Purple Beach area opened fire from the rear on our forces.’ ‘Many individuals refused to come out of caves. Caves were blown in making it impossible to even estimate number of dead sealed therein.’ ‘Rpt of POW who states that there are 200 civilians and 50 En soldiers in caves in Nafutan Point’ ‘Chamorros rpt priest, nuns and staff Os in cave at Marpi Pt’ ‘Large number of civilians are being taken in caves in ‘En in caves along S shore; 1 cave containing soldiers sealed up when they refused to come out’ White beach Purple Beach Action General 200 civilians ‘Found 7 rifles in cave near Brown beach 2.’ 136 Source Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-3 Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Report of Intelligence Activities 27th Infantry Division Saipan Operation Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Map Reference Type Military contents Unknown: SW of CP area?? Military 13 cases of ammunition Civilian contents the cliffs along the South shore’ Action Comments (Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part A) ‘Ren Tr men rpt am in caves (13 cases) among hills SW of CP area’ 137 Source Journal Forager Operation G-2 Part B Appendix B Alejandra Cabrera Snodgrass Cruz, interviewed on 24 January 2013, Saipan Interviewers: Jennifer McKinnon and Heather Burke Alejandra was 5 years old when war broke out on Saipan. There was Alejandra (5), her three brothers: Juan (10), Maximo (8), and Lorenzo (2). Alejandra’s mother, Maria, was five months pregnant with her second daughter, Ana, to whom she gave birth in Camp Susupe October 1944. Natividad, the youngest child was born in 1947. Maria’s husband was Prudencio. Before the Battle started the family had to go around the neighbourhood looking for any bottles or water containers. Her father made corks from coconut husks to seal the bottles without lids. When she asked ‘Why are we doing this?’ her father told her ‘We have to go somewhere because it’s going to get very scary’. Her mum packed up a lot of household things – cups, plates, pillowcases, clothes. The family lived near where the school (San Vicente School) is now and walked down to the cave. Her father knew about the caves because he hunted for coconut crabs and knew where the caves were. When they got there Alejandra could see the ocean sparkling and at first thought it was starts but saw that it was from the many ships that were offshore. She could also hear sounds like a firecracker – ‘a big sound, not a loud sound’. They went to the cliff and into a cave that faced the ocean – from the cave they could see all kinds of boats. Some of them were firing cannons. The family stayed in that cave for a while (Alejandra is unsure how long), but had to leave when one shell hit the cave very close to the opening. ‘We cannot go outside the cave during the day. Dad didn’t know who was fighting who.’ They moved to a second cave to be safer. There were 6 or 7 families in the cave with them. They were all relations – her dad went out one night and came back with a family. They only had the cave to themselves for a couple of nights. It was very crowded and smelly in the cave. Every night Alejandra’s dad would walk back to where they lived and cook food for them and bring it back to the cave. He carried this in a big pot with a big handle, it would be something like rice and chicken and if it wasn’t cooked properly nobody complained. They had no problem with water because they had loaded up the cave before they went there. In the cave there was a table to one side. Alejandra doesn’t know how long they stayed there. They weren’t allowed to go out during daylight. One night her oldest brother decided to go out. He stepped out and she waited for him at the cave entrance. She heard a dog barking and thought that was strange. She wondered if her brother had thought it was their dog that was missing them and gone off to find it. Her brother came back and the next morning the US soldiers came. 138 The older people were scared when the soldiers came, but Alejandra wasn’t. The soldiers were very dirty and also very tall. They had white skin. She thought ‘They’re so tall. Who are they?’. One soldier gave her chewing gum – because she didn’t know what to do with it, she swallowed it because she was hungry. The soldiers gave everyone a capful of water from their canteens. They also checked them over [patted them down?]. No one spoke any English, but everyone spoke Japanese. One person came out holding a crucifix and people said (in Chamorro) ‘We’re Chamorro! We’re Catholic!’. ‘When we came out there were trees and no leaves. So empty. Some were burned.’ The first thing she said was “We’re in America” because she thought it looked like America with all the empty trees. Before the war neighbours would often come and visit – people were friendlier before the war. The house where Alejandra lives now was once the site of the 369 Army Hospital. The concrete slabs are still there and they have some of the glass stoppered medicine bottles in their house. 139 Appendix C Escolastica Tudela Cabrera, interviewed on 24 January 2013, Saipan Interviews: Jennifer McKinnon, Heather Burke and Genevieve Cabrera Esco was 14 years old when the Battle of Saipan occurred. The Japanese told her family to hide in the cave when they knew the Americans were coming. That day was June 11 1944 at 1pm in the afternoon. Esco remembers the day and time because she was getting ready to go into town with her cousin but she couldn’t because they had to move to the cave. Luckily they lived on property that had caves on it. Her family farm was in the As Teo area. They had a very large cave on their property which could have fit about 200 people but the Japanese would not let them use it. So they found a much smaller one, so small you couldn’t stand up in it. But they didn’t complain. They had to sit on rocks but nobody complained. In her family she had two sisters (10y.o. and 12y.o.) and three brothers (one was 22y.o.), as well as her mother and father, all of whom lived in the cave. Her mother was about 60 years old and her father 70. Her father had been a German soldier during the German time. He had a German flag tattoo on his arm. One of Esco’s brothers worked for the Japanese. He was sent to Guam on secret business for about 3 months, possibly to build something. When they left for the cave they took a box of good clothes (for church) and a crucifix, but they put the clothes in the other cave. She remembers saying the rosary so much that her mouth got tired and she couldn’t say it anymore. There was another lady who was about 90 who was with them in the cave; she and Esco’s mother always stayed together. Her family stayed a total of 19 days in the cave. At one point they had five families in the cave with them, probably about 40 people (one of them was the Arriola[?] family). The families joined them after her family settled in the cave—no one brought anything with them. They came from all over the island and knew her family had caves on their property so they came to their property. There was another cave in which 3 or 4 other families stayed—approximately 50 people could fit into this cave. Within one week of moving into the cave the American planes arrived and started bombing the island. They were flying so high that they looked like “dulalas” which is dragonflies in Chamorro. There were so many of them that they couldn’t count them. And then a few days later out on the water the ships started shelling too. The cave was small and they had a cow skin that was covering the entrance along with some banana leaves in layers that provided good cover. There was a spring nearby for water. The men and boys were the only ones allowed to go out and get water and food (but Esco says she and her cousins went out too). Her older brother boiled taro on the farm and take it to the family to eat and they drank coconuts (coconut juice) for water. She doesn’t remember how or where people went to the bathroom but maybe because they weren’t eating or drinking much they didn’t have to go as much. Before they covered the entrance to the cave (with the cow skin), she remembered one day that there were three high-ranking Japanese officials walking past their cave with those nice long swords. Her mom called out but she put her hand over her mom’s mouth to be quiet because she understood what they said in Japanese but her mom couldn’t. She said that they were 140 saying that they were allowed to cut anyone they found: ‘Anybody we see, we can cut.’ They hid their own ammunition in one of the big caves. [At the end] Some soldiers were walking around with no more guns because they couldn’t beat the Americans. Approximately one week before they were extracted by the US, the US troops came in and shot at the area when the men were out gathering water because they couldn’t tell if they were Japanese soldiers or not. The men were scared and ran back to the cave, leaving their containers behind—they could see the soldiers walking around outside. The children (2 of Esco’s sisters) were so thirsty that they began to cry and the men told them to be quiet so they wouldn’t be caught and to catch their own tears and drink them. That is the story that sparked the title of the book “They Drank Their Own Tears” which her younger sister related in her story. Esco never cried. When the US came to get them the adults were scared and her mother was saying “Chamorro men! Christian men! Paz Chamorro!” and her brother said “Hello friend, never mind, I don’t know”, which was the only English he knew. And the soldiers asked “Anyone speak Chamorro or Spanish?” They were told to walk down to the spring, but because they hadn’t had any water for a week one man was so thirsty he ran down to the spring and started to drink the water. The soldier shouted at him not to drink it because there were two dead Japanese soldiers in the water. But it was too late and he drank it anyway. The US gave them a box of rations to each and a tank of water and told them to wait. They waited 2-3 hours for the truck to come back and get them. They were taken to Camp Susupe and it was only a tent city with no buildings. Her family lived in tents for 2-3 weeks on the white sand. Day and night they just stayed in the tent. When they put up huts they had no walls, just floor and a roof. They ate all together and sometimes the rice was “brown” and ashy from being burnt in the large pots. They also ate #10 size (large tin) corned beef but had no plates or napkins – they used breadfruit leaves for plates. They had no cutlery. The public bathroom they built was only of palm leaves and you could hear each other going to the bathroom and it was funny when they had a bad stomach. They took baths in the ocean; there were no public showers. In October they moved to Camp Chalan Kanoa where there were houses built for them. Several families—at least two, but Esco’s house had four—lived in each house. They built public bathrooms out of concrete, which gave more privacy. 141 Appendix D Name (pg#) Sister Antonieta Cepeda Ada (9) Activities Material Culture Duration of Stay Location Joseph Borja Ada (12) cooking rice, preparing food (cooking implements) 30 days Farm at As Teo Rosa Reyes Agulto (15, 19, 22) bomb fragments? Another cave 1 day Mariana Sablan Aldan (24) Maximo Tudela Arriola (26) Carmen Cabrera Austin (28) Francisco (Frank) Igwer Babauta (30) Alejandro Blanco Barcinas (34) Faustina Sablan Benavente (35) Engracia Aguon Borja (37) Escolastica Tudela Cabrera (40) < 1 day cooking, drinking burning mosquito coils or incense eating, bathing nearby sleeping eating Notes 2 deaths in cave (youngest brother - sick, and father - machine gun wounds to leg) Kanat I'Amot cave at As Mahetok Near Tun Pedro's farm at Lower Base grenade fragments towels (cooking, drinking implements) cans, aluminium pot, food packaging, incense, matches? "special holy" belt left in cave bomb fragments? clothes, pots, cart, tin cans 15-20 days Juan Taisague Cabrera's Copra farm; in Chalan Piao Coconut hulls and hearts of banana trees cut open for water "She was hiding in a dugout 'cave' behind a large tree" above Matansa Village (San Roque village) Coconuts for water, he is discussing Japanese soldiers living in a cave next to them Near Wing Beach Near San Roque ~ 14 days "All the caves were filled up already so Jose dug a tunnel underground to hide his family in." Bomb went off very close to cave, family moved; Stream of water filled with blood Grenade thrown into cave by American soldier kills Japanese man "underground ditch-like hideout" Farm at I Denni (Capitol Hill) Her family's farm (large cave) 142 Japanese kicked them out of this cave Name (pg#) Another cave Activities Rosa Blanco Camacho (43) sleeping Visitacion Mendiola Camacho (46) Dolores Babauta Castro (48) Benita Borja Cepeda (51) Cristino Sablan Dela Cruz (54) Remedio Santos Dela Cruz (57) Juan Atalig DeLeon Guerrero (62) Another shelter Material Culture Duration of Stay 19 days (cooking implements) talking praying, eating, drinking, breast feeding clothes, cloth diapers, blankets building the shelter (shovels) "bunker…digging a seven-foot hole walled with plywood and a little window" Papago I'Denni (Capital Hill) Mr. Francisco Borja's (Tun Kiku Kachasa's) land Dandan near airport site eating Juan Camacho Diaz (81) observing American ships tin roof on shelter, (all supplies left) 21 days Another cave Carmen Tudela Flores (89) eating, drinking bomb fragments 7 days 21 days eating, cooking Farm at Fanaganom (Chalan Galaide) Near Bird Island On their land (cooking implements), canned food; tin roof on shelter (knife to harvest sugar cane) Maria Mangloña Concepcion DeLeon Guerrero (66, 69) Maria Hocog Santos Deleon Guerrero (72) Trinidad Agulto Deleon Guerrero (74) Notes Her family stayed in caves and foxholes, not her 3 days, came back later cooking, praying Location Her family's farm (small cave) Moving caves, Sadog Tasi > I Denni, another near Esco's Market "underground shelter" Work force dug large underground shelter, covered in gravel, then again with dirt to camoflage "underground shelter or bunker that was an "L" shape Talofofo 2 days Family's land in upper San Roque Calabera Cave on family's property (can see Bird Island) "8' x 15' foxhole that was about 5' deep" Coconuts for water 143 Name (pg#) Maxima Reyes and Edward Briggiman Flores (92) Fermina Pangelinan Garcia (97) Another cave Carmen Wesley Hamilton (99) Pedro Juarez Lian Igitol (103) Activities Rosa Taman Maliti (122) Steve Sablan Mendiola (125) Location Notes "underground shelter" shrapnel, (all supplies left) 60 days 60 days Talofofo Talofofo 7 days Chalan Galaide Lower side of family lot where house stood (destroyed) As Mahetok (across from PSS, lower base) Tuturam Hills (San Vicente area) American trenches burlap bag Another cave Rita (Ilo) Titibau Lieb (114) Mariano Cisostomo Lizama (116) Primitiva Reyes Lizama (118) Duration of Stay eating Another cave Henry Taimanao Indalecio (108) Lucy Seman Iriarte (110) Victoria Itibus Kapielo (112) Material Culture eating shrapnel harmonicas, guitars canned food, clothes, bullet/grenade fragments several days 44 days several days praying, eating, drinking Mt. Tapochao (lower side of mountain) Farm in Kannat Tabla Body of mother buried, covered over by rocks Told by Japanese to be in caves while airraid sirens were going off crying eating, drinking Sister died from bomb, took back to cave Hidden in mountains praying praying, donating money to church "dug out shelter" rope, shirt water tanks nearby 5 days Dandan Mother died in cave Kannat Tabla Under the mango tree on their land "man-made cave" 144 Name (pg#) Nieves Cruz Ngeskebei (128) Anunciacion Sablan Palacios (132) Estella Magofna Pangelinan(133) Adela Ilisari Quitugua (135) Gregorio Muña Quitugua (138) Luisa (Iching) Borja Quitugua (147) David Mangarero Sablan (152) Maria Masga Sablan (157) Pedro Camacho Sablan (160) Joaquin Taitano Salas (162) Engracia Blas Santos (163) Mercedes Roligat Selepeo (164) Guadelupe Lisua Somorang (167) Activities Material Culture Duration of Stay eating, praying American tanks crushed the shelter and a different family in it drinking, eating cooking, eating eating, praying praying, eating Location Next to the breadfruit tree across from Pacific Islands Club Notes "underground shelter" "underground shelter" white cloth, (eating/cooking implements) food packaging, (cooking implements), white cloth tin cans, clay pots (cooking implements) 3 days As Matuis, then different one at San Roque Mt. Tapochao, under an old farmhouse > 10 days Near Chalan Galaide farm Variety of caves On ridge mile south of Mt. Tapochau Farm-like place called Manglo in mountains breast feeding waiting for American supplies bomb fragments, Am. supply food/water containers praying, eating "all of their supplies," Am. Area near Capitol Hill Moving caves every night, then cave in Papago Pagan months Chalan Kanoa Pagan 145 "deep hole beneath the farmhouse" Name (pg#) Activities Pedro Arriola Tenorio (175) Mariana Cepeda Tomokane (180) Asuncion Ada Torres (182) Roman Muña Tudela (185) Manuel Seman Villagomez (187) Mariana Satur Taisakan Wabol (190) eating Material Culture leaflets Duration of Stay Location Notes Saipan "underground shelter" green clothing canned food, water container, jewelry, paper As Teo near stream food packaging Tuturam (San Vicente) Kingfisher Golf Course on Capitol Hill Kannat Tabla, below Benigno Fitial's house now Kannat Tabla 25 days bag of clothes 146 "bokkongo - Japanese for underground shelter" Previously at a wedding - specific clothing?