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