Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Norwich City  (Read 43564 times)

Shaw Durman

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Norwich City
« on: December 23, 2011, 04:16:16 AM »

Is anything left of the ship wreck Norwich City?

I do wounder if the wreck was used as shelter by AE and FN for a time after the forced landing. Also reference what others have postulated on here about them writing a journal and putting it somewhere to protect it, would the ships upper decks/cabins have been a good place? is it possible to still search it?

Whilst I type this it has just sprung to mind has the ship wreck moved at all since it went ashore in such a way as to cover remains of the Electra?
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2011, 06:19:23 AM »

Shaw--Not a lot left----I would think that most of the superstructure is off the reef, on the bottom. I just hope it isnt on top of the Electra!
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2011, 06:46:40 AM »

Shaw and Tom et al.:

We have a pretty good resource available to help people answer their questions about TIGHAR and Niku.

It's called the Ameliapedia.

If you would be so kind as to look up to the top of the page where you are reading this sentence, you will find a link to the Ameliapedia in the top menu bar.  It's fourth from the left.  The sequence of links is TIGHAR home, Forum home, News, Ameliapedia, Facebook, Join the search, Contact us, and Help!  What I mean by a "link" is a part of the page that you can click on with your mouse so as to go to one of these other locations on the website.  As you learn more about how handy links are for other users, you can learn how to insert a link into your posts that others can follow.

The Ameliapedia is a wiki based on the same software that underlies Wikipedia.  It is one of several methods of searching the TIGHAR website that are available to the curious.

One of the most highly-developed articles on the Ameliapedia is devoted to the "SS Norwich City."  The blue text in the preceding sentence is a "link."  This means that if you click on  "SS Norwich City" with your mouse, your browser will be redirected to the article in the Ameliapedia.  In the article you will find other "links" that will provide more information and pictures about the SS Norwich City.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 06:51:54 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Shaw Durman

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2011, 02:00:55 PM »

erm, sorry Martin. i now know where to look for info related this subject  :) . many thanks and sorry for maybe being a doopy me  :-[
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2011, 02:20:37 PM »

erm, sorry Martin. i now know where to look for info related this subject  :) . many thanks and sorry for maybe being a doopy me  :-[

It's OK, Shaw.  Helping folks to learn to dig into the wealth of TIGHAR has accumulated over lo! these many years is a regular part of life on the Forum.   ;)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2011, 01:31:28 AM »

The Norwich City article indicates 14 crewmen died and 11 were never found (EDIT: sorry, I misread the Norwich City article about the number of victims. This should say 11 died. Now I am unclear on the number who were never found since the text is somewhat confusing: "Three crewmen whose bodies washed ashore on Gardner Island were buried; the steward first, the fireman who was trapped under the lifeboat was buried toward evening, and later, the carpenter. The remainder of the eleven men lost were never found." I missed the word "remainder" in my original comment and think this quote means 8 victims were lost without trace.)

Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them? Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.

I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
It's not too late to be great.
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 02:46:10 PM by Jeff Scott »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2011, 12:07:35 PM »

The Norwich City article indicates 14 crewmen died and 11 were never found. Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them?

Using my favorite tool to search the TIGHAR website to search for "sailors bones," I find that the answer to your question is "yes."
============================================================
Date:         
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:12:13 EST
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Dem Bones

Practically on the eve of our departure for Kanton Island, there is important
new information on a totally separate avenue of investigation.  After months
of beating the archival bushes, Earhart Project team member and researcher
Kenton Spading has come up with a much more detailed report on the bones
found on Nikumaroro in 1940. Yesterday Kenton received a response to
inquiries he had made at the library of the Western Pacific High Commission
in England.  As usual, they had nothing on most of the stuff he had asked
them to look for, but they did have a one page report, a diagram, and a page of
handwritten notes by Dr. D.W. Hoodless, Principal, Central Medical
School, Suva.  The report is dated April 4, 1941 and was contained
in a file labeled "Skeleton. Human: - Finding of, on Gardner Island"
(WPC 4 Vol 2 IV MP 4439/1940 G&E). You may recall that a colonial doctor
on Tarawa had examined the bones and dismissed them as those of an elderly
Polynesian male.

That was in February 1941.  Thanks to this newly discovered report,
we now know that when the bones arrived in Fiji they were sent to the
Medical School where Dr. Hoodless took a close look a them. He was
not entirely in agreement with Dr. Isaac's earlier evaluation. 
I'll summarize his report.

1.  The bones came to him in a closed wooden box.  This is almost
certainly the  box Gallagher (the magistrate who found the bones
on Nikumaroro) decribes having had built to contain the bones. 
(See The Tarawa File on our website at www.tighar.org)

2.  There were: - a skull with right zygoma and malar bones broken
off - mandible with only four teeth in position - part of the right
scapula - the first thoracic verteabra - portion of a rib (2nd
right?) - left humerus - right radius - right innominate
bone - right femur - left femur - right tibia - right fibula - right
scaphoid bone of the foot

3.  Hoodless notes that less than half of the total skeleton is present.

4.  All bones are "very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open
air for a considerable time.  Except in one or two small areas, all traces
of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been
obliterated."

5.  Length of femur, tibia and humerus cause him to estimate the individual's
height at 5 feet 5.5 inches.  His handwritten notes include the actual measurements
(bless him) and make it clear that he arrived at the height by averaging something
called "Karl Pearson's formula for stature."

6.  Like Isaacs, he feels that the individual was definitely male.  He based his
conclusion upon "the half sub-pubic angle of the right innomminate bone, the 'set'
of the femora, and the ratio of the circumference of the long bones to their
individual lengths."

7.  Due to the condition of the bones he says that he can not be "dogmatic" about
the individual's age, but his opinion is that the person was not less than 45 and
probably betwen 45 and 55 years of age.

8.  He says that he is not prepared to give an opinion about race or nationality
except to say that the person was probably not Micronesian or Polynesian.  He says
the skeleton "could be that of a short, stocky, muscular European, or even a
half-caste or person of mixed European descent."

9.  Hoodless says that he is prepared to go further and take exact measurements
and work out various indices, etc., but if such a detailed report is required
the obvious course is to submit the bones to Professor Elkin at the University
of Sydney's Antropological Dept.

WHEW!  So much for Isaac's elderly Polynesisan.  But what DO we have?   
A middle-aged, five foot five, stocky, muscular European guy?  Unless there was
a stow-away aboard the Electra, that doesn't help us much.  But if the height
and build estimates are off, we do know of a 46 year-old Irish-American male
who was aboard the airplane.  Conversely, if the gender identification is wrong,
Amelia's 5 foot 8 inch height is close to the estimate and her 39 year age is not
too far off.  Would the fact that she never had children make her innominate bone
and femoral set look male?  I'm outside my pay-grade on that one.

Even though this new information became known to us less than 24 hours ago,
there has already been some liveley debate about whether this could reasonably
be one of the eleven sailors lost in 1929 in the wreck of the S.S. Norwich City. 
After five days on the island, the 24 survivors were rescued by two ships from
Samoa.  If some poor devil was left behind nobody knew about it at the time. 

There is also the problem of the shoes.  Gallagher found parts of a woman's
"stoutish walking shoe."  So did we, and we know that the style and size appear
to match those worn by Earhart.  And it had an American Cat's Paw heel manufactured
in the mid-1930s.  It's pretty hard to put that shoe on a British sailor from a
1929 shipwreck.

One thing is for sure.  We need to contact the Anthro. Dept. at Sydney U. to see
if those bones may still be there.

Way to go Kent!


That, of course, was not the end of the discussion--just the beginning.

If you click on the link above (my favorite tool to search the TIGHAR website), you can find more pros and cons of the sailor hypothesis.

According to the excellent article about the Norwich City, three bodies were buried and eight sailors were unaccounted for.

Quote
Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.

Maybe.

Quote
I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?

Another search, this time using "bones shore" leads to the Floyd Kilts story and "Evaluating Emily." It's hard to tell whether your unnamed critic on an unlinked website got the idea from these sources.  That's the great problem with authors who do not understand that the life of the internet consists in fashioning links from one page to another.

Given the vagueness of what you mean by "this" in your question ("Is this true?"), it is hard to say whether the links I've found will provide an answer.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 12:11:25 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2011, 12:59:05 PM »


Marty
I think that the "this" thst Jeff is referring to is the story that visitors visiting the Island after the ship wreck found thr beach littered with bones.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2011, 01:47:06 PM »

I think that the "this" thst Jeff is referring to is the story that visitors visiting the Island after the ship wreck found thr beach littered with bones.

As remembered by what TIGHAR critic?

Quoting what source?

It doesn't make sense to me to say whether "the story" is true when "the story" is so ill-defined.

YMMV.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2011, 02:03:35 PM »


Marty
As I interpret it Jeff is asking whether TIGHAR has any information about the beach being "littered with Bones" presumably those of the missing crewmen.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2011, 02:19:06 PM »


I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.

If that is so, then in the intervening years (from late 1929/early 1930) to the late 30's the tides, surf, storms would certainly have unearthed and spread about the remains.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2011, 02:35:07 PM »

Harry is correct that the "Is this true?" I was referring to was whether there is any reference to the beaches being littered with bones. I haven't mentioned the critic's name on purpose because he's been an active member of the TIGHAR forums in the past and I don't want to open up old wounds. My curiosity stems from whether his point about plentiful bones along the shore is a valid one confirmed by contemporary reports or a product of his imagination.

He says that a New Zealand survey party reported bones all over the beach when they landed. The only New Zealand survey party I know of is the one that visited in 1938. I took a quick look through the Pacific Islands Survey Expedition: Gardner Island original reports and can find no reference to bones of any kind.

Edit: More reports from the 1938 NZ survey party, none of which contain references to bones:

New Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey Expedition: General Report

M. H. Hay’s Journal
It's not too late to be great.
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 02:48:20 PM by Jeff Scott »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2011, 02:47:01 PM »

I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.

I wonder whether a quick search of the TIGHAR website might turn up "The Report of the Board of Trade’s Inquiry
 into the Wreck of the Norwich City"
?

I wonder whether one might read those reports in a few minutes and find the relevant portions for others to consider on the Forum?

"We then gathered what stores we could from the life boat. Both boats were washed ashore. We then went into the bush and made a camp. The steward's body was washed up about half an hour after we landed. We tried artificial respiration for about an hour but without result. The next body was an Arab who was under the upturned boat and we got him out in the evening. Later on during our stay on the Island the Carpenter's body was found, by the Capt. and 3rd Mate. These bodies were buried on the island. No further bodies were washed up till the time of our leaving."

Quote
If that is so, then in the intervening years (from late 1929/early 1930) to the late 30's the tides, surf, storms would certainly have unearthed and spread about the remains.

I don't know how we know that as a certainty.
 
Now that you know how to look for things like this, and now that you've had a chance to read the documents to which you refer, what part of the testimony have you found that talks about a beach burial?

As I interpret it Jeff is asking whether TIGHAR has any information about the beach being "littered with Bones" presumably those of the missing crewmen.

Let's see.

You made a remark to that effect at 02:59:05 PM.

I answered it at 03:47:06 PM.

Now you're asking it again at 04:03:35 PM.

Let me try again.  Jeff's question comes from an unnamed critic referring to an undefined legend.

I don't find it worth while to answer his question as stated.

YMMV = "Your mileage may vary."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2011, 04:00:22 PM »

The reason I'm asking these questions is to see if this critic's arguments are valid. Both the ideas that the skeleton is of a Norwich City sailor and the bones of other ship victims were found all over the beaches are points he uses to discount a key element of TIGHAR's hypothesis. So let's look at each claim in greater detail...

1) The skeleton (presumably found at the 7 Site) was a Norwich City sailor: In searching the site, I'm not seeing anything to refute the idea of the bones being a sailor.  The most compelling argument seems to be the rumor about women's shoes being found on or near the skeleton, but this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story which contains a number of inaccurate or at least dubious details.

A fellow named Herman De Wulf had an interesting idea to search the English registry on sailors to see if data existed on the Norwich City victims that could eliminate them as sources for the skeletal remains. Alas, not much luck...

Quote
Date:         Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:13:32 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      THE MISSING ARABS

I tried to make myself useful and did some research for TIGHAR in the Public
Records Office in London and help Kenton Spading identifying the bones
on Gardner Island and to establish whether any of the missing Arab sailors
on the S.S. Norwich City had the size to fit them
. I sent the result of my
search to Kenton but I think the forum might also be interested in my findings.

All sailors on ships leaving England had to be registered as seamen and are well
documented. The P.R.O. has their files on film. The files contain their names,
date and place of birth, their nationality and the nationality of their father,
a description and a picture of the man and information that can be of help to
identify him on complexion, the color of their hair, the eyes and, which is important
to TIGHAR, of height. We know the names of the Arab sailors missing in S.S. Norwich
City. But the records at the P.R.O. in London  show no trace of Redman Yousef, Saleb
Ragee, Said Metana, Ayed Naif and Ahmad Hassan. There are plenty of Redman but none
called Yousef, plenty of Saleb but none called Ragee, plenty of Said but none called
Metanna, plenty of Ayed but no Naif and heaps of Ahmads but none called Hassan. I
took a whole day to check them one by one to see whether there was any mention of S.S.
Norwich City on their file. None had anything to do with the vessel. I was surprised
to see how many Salebs, Saids and Ahmads there were. One had his name changed and I
found he couldn't read nor write. This as written on his file. He signed it with x,
and apparently learned to write his first name on the left and his last name on the
right of it and had this signature recorded by the British consul. I studied their
heights and it seems all these Arabs from Aden were between 5 ft. 2 and 5 ft. 7,
with most  around 5 ft. 3 or 5 ft. 5. One Ahmad Hassan was 5 ft. 6 but there was
no mention of him being in S.S. Norwich City and the dates were wrong. He is definitely
a namesake. I think the heights I found must have been typical for Arabs from Aden.
But as I said, none were on the S.S. Norwich City. I also checked the heights of the
some English sailors. T.E. Scott and and F. Summer were 5 ft. 9 1/4 and 5 ft. 3

espectively, according to the Central Register. I went to see the historians of the
P.R.O. about the missing Arabs. They had no idea why they would not be recorded.
The only explanation they could think of was that they were not registered seamen.
Normally seamen sailing from England were registered. However, it could be that
the five we are looking for were not registered as they did not sail from England
and hence there is no information on them. If any records were ever kept on them
they may have been on board the S.S. Norwich City, in which case I strongly believe
they were lost with the vessel
. The historian I talked to asked the P.R.O. computer
if he could find any files on S.S. Norwich City but the machine only produced a file
number, MT9/1967, which he thinks refers to an inquiry.  I gathered that the Central
Register (C.R.) cards only contain information on seamen. Mention was made on some
of them of a G.R. This, the historian thought, may refer to the General Registry
when British subjects are concerned. Since the missing Arab seamen were not British
nationals it is my guess that they would not be recorded in the General Registry
records since they were not registered seamen either.

LTM
Herman #2406

2) Shoreline covered with bones from Norwich City victims: Above, I linked the reports of the New Zealand survey party which do not support the claim of bones being found all over the beach. However, there are accounts from the native Pacific Islanders who lived on the island supporting this claim after all. Emily Sikuli and Bauro Tikana both makes references to bones from multiple people being discovered along the shoreline as well as around the ship and/or possible airplane wreckage:

Quote
Sorting out the bones associated with the shipwreck is more difficult. Emily told Tom King of

    “Maybe 10 different people whose bones were found along that area.”

(near the shipwreck). She is quite clear that these bones were found on land.

    “You would come up on the reef, then the beach comes up where the island shrubs start to grow. That is where the bones were found.”


Emily’s account is consistent with the recollections of Gallagher’s clerk, Bauro Tikana, who wrote in 1991 “When we first arrived I saw the ship wreck and asked Mr. Gallagher about it. He told me that it was Norwich City. Later when the laborers were cleaning (clearing) the land they told me that they found bones near the ship. I do not know if Mr. Gallagher knew about the bones as I did not tell him about it. The laborers also told me they found bones at the other end of the atoll.”

Mr. Tikana marked a map showing that bones were found on shore near the shipwreck, but to show where the “other bones” were found he could only circle the entire southeast portion of the island.

We know that there were eleven men lost in Norwich City disaster in 1929 and that three bodies washed up and were buried by the survivors. If the burials were not very deep and were on or close to the beach, it seems possible that they may have been uncovered by storms in the ensuing ten years or so. It’s also possible that other bodies from the wreck washed up after the survivors were rescued. However, if a body from the airplane wreck (Noonan?) also washed up or was buried on that same beach it could be indistinguishable from the shipwreck bones.

Bottom line is both the critic's arguments have merit, which I was hoping would not be the case!
It's not too late to be great.
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 04:03:07 PM by Jeff Scott »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 642
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2011, 04:35:38 PM »

The reason I'm asking these questions is to see if this critic's arguments are valid. Both the ideas that the skeleton is of a Norwich City sailor and the bones of other ship victims were found all over the beaches are points he uses to discount a key element of TIGHAR's hypothesis. So let's look at each claim in greater detail...

1) The skeleton (presumably found at the 7 Site) was a Norwich City sailor: In searching the site, I'm not seeing anything to refute the idea of the bones being a sailor.  The most compelling argument seems to be the rumor about women's shoes being found on or near the skeleton, but this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story which contains a number of inaccurate or at least dubious details.

Your assertion that it is a "rumor about women's shoes being found or near the skeleton" and that "this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story" is amusing.  You need to read some of the most basic contemporaneous documents about the discovery of the body by Gallagher.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 04:45:05 PM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP