Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology, the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.
Why do you think the sextant part was found in or at the same time as the sextant box? Gallagher doesn't say it was.
Let’s go back to your original question, which was:
“Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?”No, don’t think it is more likely that the sextant part was found when the skull and Benedictine Bottle were found circa April, 1940. As far as we know, the finders of those two items did not see the rest of the castaway’s remains or any other personal effects. A few posts ago you speculated that the skull and Benedictine bottle rolled down a slope and were found some distance from the skeleton and you further speculated that the finders were not inclined to go look for the rest of the castaway’s remains. Unless the sextant part rolled down the slope and wound up next to the skull and bottle, a neat trick I would say, I don’t see how the sextant part could have been found with the skull and the Benedictine Bottle. I also note that Gallagher doesn’t say anything about the sextant part being found with the skull and bottle, he only discusses in the context of the items that he says were found in the later, careful searches made at the castaway site. I further note that entry 1 of the
Bones Chronology says:
“1. ca. April 1940 Skull and bottle are found on Gardner Island by unknown Gilbertese colonist.”If you believe it is more likely that the sextant part was found along with the skull and bottle, I think you need to modify entry 1 to make this clear.
Can I ask you to provide us with your own answer to your question – “Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?” The way you phrase the question suggests to me that you think the answer is Yes, but in any case please explain what you think the likeliest answer is.
There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related. For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.
But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.
Same standard. Yes, there is evidence that a Bushnell surveyor was at the Aukeraime Shoe Site. A small broken glass rod found near the site has been identified as a thermometer from a sling psychrometer (the wet bulb/dry bulb device you twirl around to measure relative humidity). It's not unheard of for one of the thermometers to come loose and fly out of the device as it is being twirled. The Bushnell survey seems to be the most likely origin for such an artifact.
Well, I see you are applying a consistent standard in interpreting the things you find. But it’s a bad one. It is possible for someone to leave behind a single object at a particular site. To ignore a possible source for an artifact found at a site unless other artifacts you’ve found might also be attributed to that same source is a bad idea.
It would be interesting to know more about this glass rod and how sure you are that it came from a sling psychrometer. Did you do some research to determine that the Bushnell guys actually were making relative humidity measurements? In any event, since you think it is possible that Bushnell sailors might have ventured far enough from their surveying points to leave a shoe sole and part of a sling psychromenter at the Shoe Site, you should be willing to believe that they ventured through the Seven Site. Your own tentative interpretation of the Shoe Site suggests such a thing is possible.
In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, ...
Not true. The notion that the Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants is a reasonable possibility but it is not "undoubtedly" true. It's important that we draw a clear line between supposition and documented fact.
Fair point. It’s not undoubtedly true. I would say however that the assumption that Noonan was carrying a Brandis Navy sextant on the Electra seems less certain to me than the assumption that a Bushnell sailor was carrying a Brandis sextant on Gardner Island
and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner.
We disagree on the plausibility of that possibility.
Agreed
That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.
Agreed
I'm with you, brother!
Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar. This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site.
No it doesn't. All it suggests is that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there. All of the glass artifacts TIGHAR has found that we interpret as most likely attributable to the castaway are broken and may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher's search. Broken pieces of glass are hard to find in coral rubble. Gallagher says he searched for coins, keys, rings but he doesn't say how he searched. Did he scuff the leaves aside with his foot or did he meticulously pick up every leave and twig, put them in buckets and carry them off site, then pick through the coral rubble with trowels the way TIGHAR did?
First, note I said ‘suggests’, not ‘proves’. I agree that it is possible Gallagher missed spotting things that Tighar later found. But in assessing where the glass artifacts at the Seven Site came from, I think it is reasonable to consider the fact that Gallagher missed them to indicate that they were left there later by someone other than the castaway.
Second, you have said that two of the bottles, the Campana bottle and the Mennen bottle were used by Coasties for target practice. If so, surely they didn’t conduct a careful search for them, they just found them. The Campana bottle, was small, only 2-3 ounces (I think); I’m not sure how big the Mennen bottle was, but I suspect based upon my experience with Mennen bottles that it was smaller than the beer bottle which also Gallagher missed. If the coasties could find these bottles without applying archeological search methods, I think Gallagher had a good shot at finding them, however he conducted his careful search. You say that the bottles ‘may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher’s search’. How strong is your evidence for that statement?
You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features.
Gallagher mentioned only one fire and said nothing about shellfish. TIGHAR has identified two fire features that appear to be castaway-related.
If you take the position that Gallagher found everything there was to be found at the site then, by definition, everything TIGHAR has found at the site must have arrived later - but not knowing how or for how long or with how many helpers (if any) Gallagher searched, I think that's a difficult position to defend.
It doesn’t seem like a hard position to defend. The Seven Site is small in area, Gallagher and Co. made a careful search, they looked for small possessions, they failed to find the bottles, but the coasties found two of them. I understand the arguments you’ve made about why Gallagher might have missed finding the bottles. If you are comfortable defending that position, great. I think it would be even greater if Tighar simply acknowledged that Gallagher’s failure to find the glass objects poses a problem to its interpretation of their origin; respectfully acknowledging an alternate explanation for a set of facts is part of good research, isn’t it?
Finally, I do think we can say that Gallagher had help making his search. Gallagher’s October 17 messgae to Vaskess says:
“We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result.” I don’t think Gallagher was using the Royal We.