Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Seven Site  (Read 172373 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5498
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2012, 06:56:13 PM »

John,
This is good work.  I didn't know that hydrographers used sextants the way surveyors used transits.  I'll accept that the Bushnell party probably used sextants and it seems likely that the sextants they used were Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants (just as it seems likely that Noonan used a Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant as his "preventer").
So we have two likely, but in neither case proven, sources for a Brandis sextant being present on the island.  In the absence of documentation about who owned Makers's number 3500/N.O. # 1542, the question of which (if either) was the source of the sextant box found by Gallagher comes down to a subjective judgement of likelihood.
The box was found in the context of a castaway campsite and was assumed at the time to be associated with the castaway.  What other items found by Gallagher and TIGHAR do you see as being reasonably attributable to the Bushnell party?  Or did a Bushnell sailor happen to drop only his sextant box on the way through while not noticing the skeleton? 



Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2012, 08:47:42 PM »

Sharyn Jones, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of Alabama, inspected and classified some of the faunal material taken from the Seven Site . . . [Entire post not quoted to avoid clutter]

Joe, I really enjoyed this post for several reasons.  First, and shame on me, I was not previously familiar with Dr. Jones's report; and it does contain a wealth of interesting and valuable information.  I have to admit that, from your references to it, my poor brain was unsure how to get a grasp on the huge, impressive numbers of bones you cite.  (I have had some poorly prepared fish in restaurants that I imagined to have at least 1,400 bones in one body . . . joking . . . I think the typical bony fish has about 300.)  Thankfully, in the report itself I find a conceptually more approachable estimate of from 46 to 75 individual fish and turtles (on page 10). This gives me, at least, a better sense of the scale of what is discussed.

Another reason I give you credit is that you clearly stipulate that you're "looking with a slant"/"arguing to persuade". Such honesty is not always found, and is very welcome, as we engage in these forum discussions! And yet another reason is that you present your argument very well, and it is indeed food for thought in terms of persuasion.

If I may, giving notice of "attempted persuasion" (not a crime, just a descriptor  :D ) sort of invites others to engage in a little "devil's advocacy".  If I do so, my first stipulation is that I have no extensive training or background in either anthropology or archaeology.  Thus the work of both Dr. Jones and Dr. King remains for me an area of reference and not dispute.  What I might question, though, is your implicit interpretation that these 46 to 75 fish/turtles were all consumed by a single castaway as a single continuous event. As in:

Quote
. . . the broad array of species ostensibly used as food at the site and make educated guesses about the individual who might be consuming them.

As I recall the relevant TIGHAR articles and reports, and previous postings by those who do have archaeological background, the seven site cooking artifacts and residues are not deposited in vertical layers or otherwise found in patterns that allow relative dating.  (Other artifacts have been intrinsically datable, such as the can label with modern barcoding, but this is not true for fire remains, fish bones, etc.)  Therefore from a scientific standpoint I don't see how it can be assumed that:
  • all the cooking was by one individual, as opposed to any other number;
  • the entire "broad array of species" was chosen and consumed by a single individual; or that
  • the findings all represent one continuous sequence, as opposed to separate events spread over a number of years.
Another interesting conclusion that you highlight in the Jones report is that the cooking pattern tends to indicate "non-islander" activity.  That finding I had not fully realized before.  However, given the lack of firm dating, I think that must stand as a separate conclusion, and does not bear on the absence of evidence as to the number of non-islanders involved, or the number of events that occurred.  We know of non-islanders on Niku over a wide time spectrum: logging parties of unknown cultural heritage early in the 1900's, sightseers, survey parties, colonial administrators, the Coast Guard, visitors into the 1960's.  Also, I wonder if Dr. Jones considered that during the settlement period there were also children in the resident population, who may not have been fully trained in islander methods - a juvenile cookout?

Joe, in the above I am not expecting to persuade you in any direction, or even attempting to.  I just want to suggest that given the extent of the evidence, all is not cut and dried (not meaning dried fish!); and any attempt to persuade must be considered for what it is.  Again, I appreciate your forthrightness in so characterizing what you said and the enthusiasm—supported by considerable skill—with which you say it.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #47 on: November 03, 2012, 06:43:34 AM »

Thanks Alan for your kind words.  I should say that my background is that of the "well-rounded" individual.  That's a fancy way of saying I'm the most limited of specialists.  But I have placed myself, in uncharacteristically pushy fashion, into the midst of a number of conversations, many of which did not take place here, and I feel at this point I can serve as a kind of "integrator" of various data points from the Nikumaroro Hypothesis.

I sent your inquiries on to the specialist, Dr. Tom King, and he asked me to thank you for your questions and to let you know that they have also been forwarded on to the author herself, Sharyn Jones, Ph.D., who has been in the process of taking a fresh look at some of the data.  In summary, Dr. King states we do not know for certain that one individual selected, cooked, and consumed the animals represented by the faunal remains.

He further stated, "As for the length of time involved in the creation of the fire features, he's right that we can't be certain about their dating.  They're all at about the same depth (surface to 10-15 cm.) and they're scattered over the site, not stacked in a vertically stratified sequence.  It appears very likely that the two most "productive" (in terms of artifacts) features -- SL and WR -- are roughly contemporaneous, however, because both contain artifacts datable to the 1930s-40s (various bottles and bottle fragments) and both contain fragments of the red stuff that we think most likely is rouge, presumably all from the same compact.  Some of the other features contain artifacts of roughly the same probable vintage (e.g. electronic components probably from the Loran station), but these may well either be intrusive (introduced at a later date) as the detritus of Coast Guard target practice or post-war camping by local residents.  On the other hand we have little or nothing to suggest that the features (or the site) were used prior to the 1930s-40s -- no prehistoric artifacts, for example."
###

I would refer you as well to Gary Quigg's Preliminary Synopsis of Oral History Interviews, Solomon Islands 2011.  The report here is still under interpretation and debate as to how the events and stories described actually impinge on the Seven Site (and on other items like the curved metallic "door" seen on Aukaraime South).  But you will find, if you read closely, certain references to possible associations of children hunters that are vaguely reminiscent of what you speculate.  Bear in mind, however, that Jones still concluded that the assemblage of faunals was quite unlike what she would have expected to find (and has found) in the assemblages she has studied elsewhere of Pacific Islander cooking sites.

In conclusion, I would say, not merely as a response to your post but to others as well, that we are observing here a real location, with all of its quirks and history.  The artifacts in micro and the environment in macro has not arrayed itself for our convenience in figuring out what, if anything, happened here to two lost aviators.   A good many of the things we are studying appear to be fairly difficult to explain using the ordinary and known happenings on the island.  No one thing, so far, can be said to overshadow the other things.  Everything needs to be taken in context.  You can look at the Tridacna (Clam valve) feature, but this has to be taken into consideration with the other numerous faunals.  You can look at these two together, but these must be taken into consideration with the odd artifacts datable to the 1930s or perhaps 1940s.  You can combine these, but then one must consider there is good reason to believe human remains were found very close by, and there is reason to think some sort of aircraft aluminum parts of various shapes and sizes got recycled as handicrafts or were simply left where found, or were perhaps used by children as local curiosities (the curvilinear door is most interesting and yes, the Electra had them)... and so on, and so on.

I have seen many a dispute against individual items, and I'm not above saying any one of these disputes may in fact be correct.  I've never seen an integrated hypothesis for how all these things taken together can just happen coincidentally and not be part of what we suppose they might represent. 

I recognize, on the other, other hand, that tolerance of coincidence may be a trait unique to the individual.  If my display of this trait would seem deficient compared to yours or any readers, then I would only ask your patience as we wade through the evidence together.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2012, 07:53:02 PM »

Dr. Sharyn Jones has kindly responded to the recent discussion on this thread.  I know you will join me in thanking Dr. Jones for taking her valuable time to speak to the forum.  We genuinely appreciate it, Dr. Jones!

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-------------
Dear Tom,
Thank you for sharing these comments with me. It is always helpful to have new perspectives and ideas in order to refine our archaeological interpretations. I am working on a paper to present at the SAA's in April and plan to submit it for publication at some point in the near future, so I appreciate this feedback.  Please feel free to pass my comments on to Joe and the person who brought these issues up in the forum.

As you stated Tom, there are contextual suggestions about the timing of the feature creation, but from the faunal data alone, I cannot speculate about that.   

It is also not possible to say that all the cooking and consuming was done by a single individual, vs. multiple individuals and/or multiple episodes. However, I can say that the contents of the features are similar in terms of contents (taxa represented, body elements)  and some of the features have striking similarities taphonomically (breakage, burning, degree of fragmentation), suggesting that they could have been created by a single group of people or even a few individuals.

Finally, my interpretation that some of these features appear to have been created by non-islanders is based on years of experience living and working with Pacific Islanders. I have spent a great deal of time in domestic settings and kitchens in particular working with and documenting women, adolescents, and children's food ways. Young children are quite skilled at appropriate ways of eating and their food preferences are the product of social learning in a specific culture context (e.g., any Pacific Islander, adult or child, knows that opening giant clams should be done in a specific way). For example, a 5-6 year old Fijian child (in a traditional, non-industrialized village setting) will likely be able to catch a fish with his/her hands, scale and gut the fish with a sharp knife, and start a fire in the kitchen hearth to cook it.  As a result of culture-specific social learning, kids eat the same things their parents eat and in the ways their parents eat; they also produce remains (bones and food rubbish) that are structurally similar to the remains produced by adults in the same community. This fact often comes as a surprise to many Westerners where we tend to give kids special, easy to eat foods and assume children are less capable of preparing and eating foods than adults. 

I think the faunal data is best interpreted in light of all the other archaeological, ethnohistoric, and historic evidence.

Please let me know if there are any additional questions. I enjoy the feedback.
All the best,
Sharyn


*********************************************************
Sharyn Jones, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Department Chair
Department of Anthropology
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Book and News Editor for the Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2012, 01:41:29 AM »

Dr. Sharyn Jones has kindly responded to the recent discussion on this thread.  I know you will join me in thanking Dr. Jones for taking her valuable time to speak to the forum.  We genuinely appreciate it, Dr. Jones!

I do join you in thanking Dr. Jones, and genuinely appreciate it! 

And I thank you as well, Joe, for posting it!  As we have determined, you and I differ in how we choose to look at the elements and the overall picture of the hypothesis and the research into various aspects.  For my part, inputs like Dr. Jones's (and Dr. King's as well, of course) are exactly the sort of material that I most want to read.  They give me the conclusions that qualified professionals can reach within the bounds of the scientific method.  Beyond those, they may offer suggestions and commentary as to possibilities, but at all times those are clearly identified for what they are.  They are neither claimed otherwise, nor just left "hanging" for the unwary non-qualified person (read: me) to guess what the level of confidence is.  I am getting information, but not a political speech.

It would be pointless and boring for me to repeat Dr. Jones's message here, but just to illustrate what I am saying, the primary conclusions are that:
  • It is not possible from the faunal evidence to state how many different individuals were responsible for the cooking and consumption, nor to determine the number and timing of those episodes.
  • Although not quite stated as a conclusion, Dr. Jones's interpretation that the cooking was done partly or whollly by non-islanders seems to be so well supported by her experience and her examinations that it rises to that level in my mind.
Left as suggestions or comments are that:
  • The examinations by no means rule out the possibility that all the cooking and consumption episodes were closely related.
  • Her experience suggests that Pacific Island children would normally or typically follow adult methods of food preparaton and consumption.  This is subtly different from, and she is not, ruling out any possibilty that children might have been involved.
Good stuff!  Give me the building blocks and let me build the structure on my own.  I guess it's a matter of taste, do you want to get your news from the articles or the editorials?  If you're a detective, are you like Joe Friday (Just the facts, ma'am) or Hercule Poirot (I let the little gray cells wander)?    :D
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2012, 02:13:02 AM »

I'm new here and I've been reading the posts with awe at the amount of thought that has gone into many of the postings. I've seen archaeology programs on TV and they are so interesting. But when you read closely what the archaeologists actually say, you can see how honest they are about how uncertain their conclusions can be. On the TV it all looks so cut and dried but reading what Dr Jones wrote I really admire their efforts because they have such mixed up and muddled things to sort through.       
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2012, 03:11:42 AM »

Question for Joe, if he cares to answer, what exactly is the visual nature that leads you, or Dr.Jones to think that these fish were cooked in a unique "non islander" method?

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.
The seven site is obviously isolated from the village area. If there were kids or teenagers getting away from their parents for a cookout, or coasties getting away from their supervisors for a party, then naturally the cooking patterns of a villager or coast guardsman would not be the same as cooking in their hut or base.

As far as I know there are only a few ways to cook fish in the 'wilds', without pans, and that is usually to gut them perhaps, scale them usually, and run a stick through them and prop them over a fire.
Same technique since caveman days.

Tighar is not examining bones of fish cooked in the village where village practices would necessarily be followed. If they were found in the village and they were different than Dr.Jone's observed cooking methods, then a variation could be noted. An Inference on that variation could be that someone stranded of desperate cooked in a different manner than an islander normally performed.

 However, this is not the case here. When you went to parties as a teenager in the woods(assuming you did), did you cook hot dogs the same way in the woods as you would at home on your stove?
I imagine not.

So just because crude methods were made at cooking in the "bush" it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the cooking was abnormal for an islander.
Cookouts in the woods are not formal affairs usually, customary cooking methods would probably not be followed, and to say one fish came from a castaway, and one fish came from a teenage islander, or the sum of the total came from either, is impossible.

Yes, everyone agrees it is a "real" site, as you have stated. Who camped there and why, when so many people used the island during the 40's-60's is unknown. It is also impossible to give credence a fish bone came from Amelia Earhart or a teenager having a beer party. I believe the archaeologists state the same. It could be one person, it could be more.

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:47:49 AM by tom howard »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2012, 05:07:48 AM »

And I thank you as well, Joe, for posting it!  As we have determined, you and I differ in how we choose to look at the elements and the overall picture of the hypothesis and the research into various aspects.
Not a problem. Total agreement is poison to the Earhart search, in my opinion. Once you get agreement, you have no motivation to search. Your disagreement, to the extent it's there, is part of the fuel for the motivation to, in the words of another esteemed contributor, "keep on looking."  They are the reason that another says, "This must be the place."  Those statements become tired worn-out truisms in the absence of debate.  Congratulations to you as well on your question on the "children hunters."  The fact that the chair of anthropology of a large university thought it worth a response in this level of detail speaks volumes on your capacity to ask excellent questions!

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2012, 05:52:38 AM »

Question for Joe, if he cares to answer, what exactly is the visual nature that leads you, or Dr.Jones to think that these fish were cooked in a unique "non islander" method?

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.
The seven site is obviously isolated from the village area. If there were kids or teenagers getting away from their parents for a cookout, or coasties getting away from their supervisors for a party, then naturally the cooking patterns of a villager or coast guardsman would not be the same as cooking in their hut or base.
You are substituting a basic understanding of eating for an actual understanding of the characteristics of the site and Dr. Jones' "years of experience living and working with Pacific Islanders." We have these disciplines in order to arrive at a better understanding.  My first question would be have you read Dr. Jones' report that I posted on page 2 of this thread?  You can cite specific things from that report that dispute your claims. 

As far as I know there are only a few ways to cook fish in the 'wilds', without pans, and that is usually to gut them perhaps, scale them usually, and run a stick through them and prop them over a fire.
Same technique since caveman days.

Tighar is not examining bones of fish cooked in the village where village practices would necessarily be followed. If they were found in the village and they were different than Dr.Jone's observed cooking methods, then a variation could be noted. An Inference on that variation could be that someone stranded of desperate cooked in a different manner than an islander normally performed.

 However, this is not the case here. When you went to parties as a teenager in the woods(assuming you did), did you cook hot dogs the same way in the woods as you would at home on your stove?
I imagine not.
Much of the faunal remains recovered appear to have been haphazardly thrown into a fire. Those experienced in analyzing the remains know this.  This is only one example.

Again, you seem to want me to be more categorical and say it was Amelia Earhart cooking fish on the Seven Site.  I have never made any such statement.  Your apparent need for me to say this makes me begin to wonder why.  I agree I could say that and your debating task would become much easier.  I am not going to say this.

So just because crude methods were made at cooking in the "bush" it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the cooking was abnormal for an islander.
You are confronting the experts here, not me.  I'm really just a messenger in this particular aspect of the thread.

Cookouts in the woods are not formal affairs usually, customary cooking methods would probably not be followed, and to say one fish came from a castaway, and one fish came from a teenage islander, or the sum of the total came from either, is impossible.
Read Dr. Jones' report.  I do recall her stating that the Site is actually a fairly poor one for effective fishing, situated too far from the mouth of the lagoon, unlikely to be favorable to islanders. "Second, Pacific Islanders know, and marine biological surveys have confirmed (see surveys cited in Uwate and Teroroko 2007:36-37), that the numbers of fishes and fish species in the lagoon decrease with increased distance from the lagoon opening.  Specifically, in the Phoenix Island surveys, marine biologists found that, “The richest fish populations were on the reef slope outside the lagoon” (Uwate and Teroroko 2007:37).  The Seven Site is located far from the lagoon opening on Nikumaroro. Therefore, the people who placed their camp at the Seven Site were either uninterested in easy access to a diverse and abundant supply fish or they had no knowledge of how to easily access local marine resources."

Bear in mind as well that there are no proscribed limits on human behavior with regard to fishing and hunting.  The question is not, did such a group do a specific thing with regard to the Seven Site. The only question Dr. Jones attempted to answer was, was it likely?

Yes, everyone agrees it is a "real" site, as you have stated. Who camped there and why, when so many people used the island during the 40's-60's is unknown.
I agree that isolating one or another denizen of the island, known or unknown, to that site, is most challenging.  We can probably never do this with absolute certainty.

It is also impossible to give credence a fish bone came from Amelia Earhart or a teenager having a beer party. I believe the archaeologists state the same. It could be one person, it could be more.
Straw man. While I might have erred in casually failing to pluralize castaways (for which I was roundly castigated I might add) I have never claimed categorically it was Amelia Earhart or one person. 

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra.
I've been amazed at how degraded and deformed much of the artifactual evidence is.  You would be amazed at how Nikumaroro appears deliberately designed to erase things like carvings on trees.  I could talk about the "G" feature, but I need to dash, so I'll leave that for someone who will inquire. (Someone should at least inquire.)

But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Straw man.  You're saying we know these things came from a castaway or from Amelia Earhart. We don't.  Then you're saying they did not, and you know where they did come from.  Come on.

Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
When have we not done so?  I will answer any question you would like to pose on any of these topics.

Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
We're applying archaeology to a most specific question, one probably more specific than archaeology usually tries to answer.  This is the conundrum.  Weighting evidence is a somewhat subjective concept.

These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.
Dr. Jones did not feel this way. By the same token, she did not oscillate from the pole of total knowledge to the pole of total lack of knowledge.  Nor are we.  I would contend the circumstantial evidence may be the best we will have and preponderance of evidence may be the best we can do.  Your standard is higher.  I understand this.

We have no disagreement coasties cooked fish and other animals on the island.  Here are two photos of these activities.  These images are released by kind permission of Dr. King, courtesy of Steve Sopko, son of Loran Station boss Charlie Sopko. 

The fish depicted here is of a somewhat larger size (putting it mildly) than the size of many of the fish bones found on the Seven Site.  Regarding the pig, Tom King states, "Wild (i.e. feral) pigs at the loran station could certainly help account for some of our mystery bones, though some of them are pretty definitively mutton, presumably from a can."

Notice the statement above is not categorical.  Knowing something and having evidence pointing to something are two different things.  I never said anywhere that I knew anything, and the more I look at the evidence the less I know.  I did say, however, that I saw evidence pointing in a certain direction and will maintain that position.


Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 06:30:09 AM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2012, 07:04:49 AM »

You're right, Chris.  My mistake for implying one of the photos was a fish.  Great photos, don't you think?  The baby fish Dr. Jones observed, however, don't seem all that compatible with the photos.  This is not to say Coast Guardsmen could not have cooked them, only that it is not consistent with their known behavior and from what they said in interviews. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2012, 10:00:50 AM »


Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.

Tom, if you are going to "pick apart" the conclusions that highly trained and experienced archeologists have arrived at, I assume that you must be much more experienced than they are. However, IMHO, before you start throwing rocks, you should review your statements to ensure that your facts are correct.

In this discription of items found at the The Seven Site there is a list of items probably associated with the Coast Guard. It includes cartridge cases believed to be from an M1 Carbine. This is totally different from an M1 Rifle and the cartridges are nothing alike. Picture 1, below, shows from left to right, a US .45cal automatic pistiol cartridge, a US .30cal M1 Carbine cartridge, and on the right a US .30-06cal cartridge as used in the M1 rifle.

This article discussing items found at the Seven Site, including the broken glass, indicates only fragments from an "American pre-war returnable beer bottle". I hardly think fragments from one bottle would indicate a "party of drunken coasties" as you state. That is not only an insult to the US Coast Guard but also taking a small find to a completely unfounded conclusion.

You have made other statements (conclusions) that indicate to me that you need to check your homework more closely but I will stop here, at least for now. 

 
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2012, 12:32:45 PM »


Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.

Tom, if you are going to "pick apart" the conclusions that highly trained and experienced archeologists have arrived at, I assume that you must be much more experienced than they are. However, IMHO, before you start throwing rocks, you should review your statements to ensure that your facts are correct.

In this discription of items found at the The Seven Site there is a list of items probably associated with the Coast Guard. It includes cartridge cases believed to be from an M1 Carbine. This is totally different from an M1 Rifle and the cartridges are nothing alike. Picture 1, below, shows from left to right, a US .45cal automatic pistiol cartridge, a US .30cal M1 Carbine cartridge, and on the right a US .30-06cal cartridge as used in the M1 rifle.

This article discussing items found at the Seven Site, including the broken glass, indicates only fragments from an "American pre-war returnable beer bottle". I hardly think fragments from one bottle would indicate a "party of drunken coasties" as you state. That is not only an insult to the US Coast Guard but also taking a small find to a completely unfounded conclusion.

1. I was only reading daily reports of m1 shells. But really does it make Any difference the caliber designation? No. 
This reminds me of the highly insulted nra members, of which I am one btw, getting upset because the media reports the ballistics of a weapon wrong. It makes no difference. M1 or m1 carbine. Casings were all over.
2 how does it insult the coasties to say they may have had a party? Is there some shame in drinking and cooking and a bonfire? Ric himself said "can you imagine a coastie party without beer?
This is false righteousness and attempt to show a negative relationship between beer and Partiotism. Sailors have been known to drink beer.
We dont want to go there. There was nothing implied or derogatory about a drunken party. I have never met a navy guy who did not have a funny drunken tale. Bored sailors might get drunk. Is this in dispute?

3. Joe reported wwII coke bottles at the site as well, and tighar themselves have theorized it was a target practice range, with no doubt refreshments in a hot environment.

4 I have picked no artifact apart. The same archaeologists agree they have no idea if this area was Earharts site, only that it was Dr. Jones's opinion that she felt the fires indicated non normal polynesian eating activity. I agree. Cooking In the bush never will resemble cooking at home.

 Culture's change over time  and as was mentioned informal brush cooking would not necessarily be the same as any village Dr. Jones lived  at, no more than my son cooking hot dogs at the beach would resemble my cooking hot dogs at home.


« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 09:23:29 PM by tom howard »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2012, 12:51:07 PM »

One thing that people often forget or choose to overlook is that Gallagher found just at the start of the settlement and pre larger settlement/clearing and coastguards + other post war visitors, signs of a casterways camp site including fire and bones from fish, turtle.
Now this is a good point. It may also explain the multiple fires. One for a castaway and others as subsequent visitors came along. Of course the first fire could again be from the timber cutters. But it is evidence of pre WwIi activity and should not be overlooked. I think the knack in sorting the layers is finding something unique to AE, FN, or an electra. There were ships there a few months before july 1937.and ships tbere a few months after july 1937. To try to tie campfires and such to one 3 month period is impossible unless that unique item is located.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2012, 01:01:02 PM »

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.

Can you provide the source of the quotation above?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 01:25:12 PM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2012, 04:44:51 PM »

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.

Can you provide the source of the quotation above?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

To be fair Mr Cerniglia I think Tom is just using a figure of speech. I imagine he is just paraphrasing the way in which a question was asked not the exact words. Such as the professor asking a person how do they cook their fish but not quoting the exact words of the question. I could be wrong though  :D
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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