TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Monty Fowler on July 10, 2015, 07:24:45 AM

Title: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 10, 2015, 07:24:45 AM
Dr. Tom King has put up a summary of the archaeological items gleaned from the Fiji Princess's Niku cruise. Some of the items make for quite interesting reading: http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/ (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/).

I had to laugh at his "my boring lectures" comment. Tom is anything but boring.

LTM, who proved at field school that you really can screen gumbo mud for artifacts,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 10, 2015, 10:32:22 AM
I wonder what the waste management process was for the colonial village.  I know in the UK it was common to burn waste items including bottles and cans as a method of getting rid of waste.  OK it would make more sense to just throw it in the ocean but that may not be how a colonial officer would see the duty of waste disposal.

I asked Emily Sikuli (http://tighar.org/wiki/Emily) about this when Roger and I interviewed her in 2003.  My question was whether there was a "garbage dump" on the island.  The question seemed to make no sense to her.  As I understood what she said, they did indeed just throw what they couldn't use or burn into the ocean.  But I don't have a recording or transcript of the conversation, and I remember well that I have remembered poorly, so you take this with as much salt as your doctor will allow in your diet.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 10, 2015, 12:25:09 PM
The presence of bottled makeup and pharmaceutical products from the pre-war? Era make some of TIGHARS artefacts more problematical to pass off as Earhart objects.

Chris,
I think I am going to take a close to opposite approach to your post. Maybe we have to think about how the freckle cream bottle got there in the first place instead of how it was disposed of. I realize everything has to be discussed and analyzed...no telling what one might find in a burn pile.
I think what I am getting at is "preponderance" or "circumstantial". I don't know just how civilized these native folks were in 1937, probably more than in Capt. Bligh's time, but to the point of using freckle cream? Were they that vane or did they even have mirrors to comb their hair? When you compare the odds of the freckle cream being the native's or Amelia's, who had freckles AND was very vane, I don't see that there is any contest.
 
Jim
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2015, 02:08:03 PM
The people of the Gilbert Islands are fastidious about personal hygiene - far more so than Europeans. I can easily see how French perfume (presumably cheap perfume) and perfumed soap would be in demand.  Travel-size bottles of 1930s-vintage American hand lotion, liniment and freckle cream? Not so much.   But then my good friend Tom King has always been quick to embrace the negative while I tend to be equally and just as irrationally optimistic.  I'm sure we're about to learn more than we ever wanted to know about French perfume. 
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 10, 2015, 05:53:37 PM
Yes, Chris,
There are other cosmetic bottles or fragments, but who knows who they belonged to? If only one belonged to Amelia, then that means she was there. I was concentrating on the freckle jar because of the odds that it could be hers rather than the natives. The fact that there are other bottles found the island doesn't lessen the odds that the freckle jar was Amelia's.

Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 11, 2015, 10:56:48 AM
Yes Chris,
The jury is still out on all this stuff, and I guess we'll just have to wait until they get back to find out. Everyone has their own opinions on all of this, and until the smoking gun is found, I am going to take the optimistic approach and believe that the "TRAVEL SIZE American made freckle cream, hand lotion, etc..." were Amelia's.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 11, 2015, 11:20:05 AM
There is a train of though, unproven that Freckle cream was used as a basic sun screen in those days and as there were pale skinned Europeans on the island it makes sense that the store or Loran station 'could' have stocked this item.

Chris, Can I ask you where you got the info on the cream being used for sun screen? I am not doubting you, I would like to read it myself.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html

Initial comparative studies suggested that it might represent a container of Dr. Berry’s Freckle Ointment, a skin-lightening ointment that Amelia Earhart, who had freckles, might have used.

If the Europeans were light skinned, why would they want to lighten their skin even further?
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Matt Revington on July 11, 2015, 06:06:19 PM
The first commercial  sun screens were just becoming available in the 1930s and Would not have been widely available. Some cold or vanishing creams like ponds advertised themselves as sun protectors.  I, like many others looked at a lot of material on freckle cream a couple of years ago and I never saw them advertised as sun blocks. But that doesn't mean it wasn't done.

http://kitchenretro.blogspot.ca/2012/07/life-before-sunscreen.html

http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/online-resources/thanks-to-chemistry/ttc-health-suntan_lotion.aspx

Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2015, 06:24:45 PM
There is a train of though(t), unproven that Freckle cream was used as a basic sun screen in those days and as there were pale skinned Europeans on the island it makes sense that the store or Loran station 'could' have stocked this item.

What is a train of unproven thought? 
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Matt Revington on July 11, 2015, 06:40:09 PM
This link also mentions that a crude veternary petroleum gel sun block was supplied to service people in the Pacific theatre of WWII so it's unlikely that alternative cosmetic sun blocks would have been stocked at the Coast guard loran station.

http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/online-resources/thanks-to-chemistry/ttc-health-suntan_lotion.aspx


Here a couple of tins of it
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Small-Cans-of-Original-WW2-USGI-Sunburn-Prevention-Creme-North-Africa-Pacific-/321771114130?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aeb0d8e92
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2015, 06:49:20 PM
It is also not true that were Europeans routinely living on the island and shopping at the Co-Op store.  Throughout the entire colonial period (1939 to 1963) Gallagher was the island's only resident European and the inventory of his personal effects includes no products resembling anything found at the Seven Site. Paul Laxton and his wife lived on the island for a couple months in 1949.  Other than that, and the mysterious "American woman" mentioned by Laxton, the island diaries mention only the occasional visit by the District Officer.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 12, 2015, 12:19:36 PM
I'm a little concerned that a number of things (new graves, an apparent warehouse) are only now coming to light despite numerous sweeps through the same general area in the past by TIGHAR.

I guess it validates the truism that "Nothing is found until it wants to be found."

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 12, 2015, 03:47:52 PM
Jim,

I think I was mixing up a discussion I saw that suggested that AE could have used Freckle Cream as a basic sun screen and this (and other articles) about sunscreen during the war. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Uw5BAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KqgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4033,3888321&dq=serving+in+pacific+ask+for+sun+lotions&hl=en

Chris, there is a lot of info here and it is easy to get mixed up sometimes.
Just to sum up what we were debating about, if one uses some common sense deductions, odds are there is no reason whatsoever for that freckle jar to be on that island.

cept. one
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jennifer Hubbard on July 12, 2015, 05:58:48 PM
well in some quarters there is a debate as to whether it is a freckle cream jar or some other jar. 

Yes, to be exact, the artifact was not conclusively identified as a freckle-cream jar, but as being strongly consistent with a freckle-cream jar.

For anyone who cares to look further, the evidence (pro and con), and possible connections to AE, are summarized and discussed in this thread, which includes a link to the report on the jar: New Artifact Report: A Freckle in Time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1337.0.html)





Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 12, 2015, 07:20:11 PM
well in some quarters there is a debate as to whether it is a freckle cream jar or some other jar.  Jury's out unless you imbibe of the cool aid.

You're on thin ice Chris.  What "cool aid" are you referring to?
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 12, 2015, 07:32:18 PM
Can I reply Ric?
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 12, 2015, 07:37:02 PM
Can I reply Ric?

Be my guest.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 12, 2015, 08:06:59 PM
well in some quarters there is a debate as to whether it is a freckle cream jar or some other jar. 

Yes, to be exact, the artifact was not conclusively identified as a freckle-cream jar, but as being strongly consistent with a freckle-cream jar.

For anyone who cares to look further, the evidence (pro and con), and possible connections to AE, are summarized and discussed in this thread, which includes a link to the report on the jar: New Artifact Report: A Freckle in Time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1337.0.html)

Yes, Jennifer, I am aware of that report, as I referred to it in a previous post. and as the phrase Chris likes to use, the jury is still out. The jury is still out on all this info folks, until the smoking gun is found. Yes, the freckle jar is not positively id'd as Dr. Berry's freckle cream, but using a phrase that I like to use is, the odds or probabilities are strong that it is the jar in question.

"but as being strongly consistent with a freckle-cream jar."

Any other suggestions are welcome.

" My own view as an armchair pundit is that the narrow occupancy of Gardner Island and it particular surface makes for a very mixed top soil that see's different strata mixed together"

Chris, what in the h... does that mean? That's the second time you have used a similar phrase. I am from Texas, sir, and topsoil to me is dirt, and strata is a bunch of flat rocks piled on top of each other. Please splain the statement.
 And, what is the world do the bones in the 7 site have to do with what we are talking about? As with, water catcher, stenciling, Tarawa Police markings, skull hole, rentress? "Me thinks you doth protest too much"
You seem to be very eloquent with your words,  and I respect that, but maybe you need to stay on topic. Some people think that when you stray from the topic like you do, they are not sure you know what you are talking about.
As far as the Kool-Aid comment is concerned, here is a 66 yr old Texan telling an Englishman how to behave. No irony here. Happy 4th of July Sir.

Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 12, 2015, 08:20:14 PM
Everyone knows it was grape Flavor Aid anyway. Sheesh ...

LTM, who appreciates the ironies of history,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Simon Dale on July 13, 2015, 03:16:29 AM
Just as a matter of interest, according to the vessel finder website Fiji Princess is currently on course 360 degrees, trundling along at 102.3 knots.  I won't post the link as I'm not sure on the rules about that on this forum, but perhaps the next expedition should consider using this boat to get to Nikumaroro.  It would certainly save on time!

Have followed TIGHAR's work for a long time and look forward to hearing more.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 13, 2015, 04:01:52 AM
Just as a matter of interest, according to the vessel finder website Fiji Princess is currently on course 360 degrees, trundling along at 102.3 knots.  I won't post the link as I'm not sure on the rules about that on this forum ...

We love links and encourage people to use them (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).

You gave sufficient clues so that a good Googler could follow your path anyway (https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/FIJI-PRINCESS-IMO-9199907), but the whole glory of the Internet is in linking one thing to another.  By all means, provide links so that it is easier for your readers to see what you are talking about!   :)

Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Simon Dale on July 13, 2015, 04:22:59 AM
We love links and encourage people to use them (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).

You gave sufficient clues so that a good Googler could follow your path anyway (https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/FIJI-PRINCESS-IMO-9199907), but the whole glory of the Internet is in linking one thing to another.  By all means, provide links so that it is easier for your readers to see what you are talking about!   :)

Thanks Martin, and I've updated my profile as well.  Link to my original comment:

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/FIJI-PRINCESS-IMO-9199907
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 13, 2015, 06:13:35 AM
Perhaps the spurious speed of 102.3 knots for Fiji Princess is related to the bogus longitude and latitude shown: 91 degrees N and 181 degrees E!
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Tim Collins on July 13, 2015, 06:31:10 AM
There is a train of though(t), unproven that Freckle cream was used as a basic sun screen in those days and as there were pale skinned Europeans on the island it makes sense that the store or Loran station 'could' have stocked this item.

What is a train of unproven thought?


A train of thought that is unproven ;)


The term you are looking for is hypothesis.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on July 13, 2015, 07:03:09 AM
Perhaps the spurious speed of 102.3 knots for Fiji Princess is related to the bogus longitude and latitude shown: 91 degrees N and 181 degrees E!
Wow!  I've been on some fairly fast ships, but 102 knots is truly impressive!  It's got to be interesting to watch a vessel that big get up on plane!
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: JNev on July 13, 2015, 01:31:37 PM
The only thing more astonishing here than a cruise ship making 102.3 knots is watching a senior admin give the green light to another poster to 'moderate' a well-intended if challenging poster of long standing in this place for one not-so-flattering reference.  I realize senstivities are running high, but is this really a positive way to encourage thoughtful and respectful posting?  But, I'm glad to hear of the Republic of Texas celebrating the 4th in any case, LOL!!!

I will say that ANYONE who ventures into speculation, postulation or adoption or adaptation of any theory or hypothesis regarding the Earhart disappearance is on very slick ice at the very least, IMO - the thickness of which can only be tested by venturing out onto it to test the veracity of the given set of assumptions.  I respect those who differ - and that includes that Ric recently made it clear to me in this place that one of our biggest differences is that he is absoluately convinced that she's there, whereas I've come to treat the matter as more of a 'jury still out' proposition over time.  I also appreciate that he gave me credit for sincerity - and yes, I am that, even in criticism.

The findings of more graves and the stores evidence by tourist-investigators did in fact get my attention and made me wonder a bit about what went before.  I do however also respect the comment that more people were available and briefed by Dr. King to look about than TIGHAR's been able to field in that place before, so I will give credit there as well.

The stores situation does however cloud the 'freckle cream jar' and possibly other prospects for me, personally (YMMV, of course) - it seems to introduce more possible sources for the stuff found there.  I am at least informed all the more that many possiblities do in fact exist, no matter how I'd prefer to read the 'signs' of it all.

As much as I have been attracted to the 'seven site' finds and character of that place, TIGHAR herself has always had to admit risk that it might not be 'the place' of the skull ('Gardnergotha'?).  Yes, we have (or had) an old Ren tree - and a hole that might be 'it' (the skull hole).  But I have to respect Chris's comments - much remains to be understood before claiming these things as hard evidence because there are truly so many other possibilities.  The very findings of the Princess' explorers underscores that point: Niku still appears to hold many little facts that are little known so far if at all, whatever they mean (Earhart or not).

Bottom line, I hope our long-time poster Chris needn't worry so much over a purple-tinted comment and that we can all find a more civil and calm objectivity again.  Personally, if I didn't still think Niku had a chance of yielding Earhart (I think deep sea / broader area searching is the only way to answer that now) and value the good I've seen here (the trove of hard history gathered and pasted into TIGHAR's 'stacks' from men like Friedell, Hooven and others), I wouldn't bother at all.  And again I'll thank Ric for recently giving me credit for sincerity, even when my criticism is distasteful.

Thanks be for the fourth... and for my heritage predating that, actually - I'm not above remembering that, where my people came from.  I'll also tip my hat toward Texas on March 2, I promise - and remember that a Georgian was there at that critical moment that followed with Mr. Crockett, among other great people - and think of April 21 as well - when a general was caught in a corporal's blouse and the matter settled. 

But we are after all, as we've been reminded, a very international organization here.  I hope we can be charitable in criticism as well.
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 13, 2015, 04:27:52 PM
Well said Jeff,
And thanks for your appreciation of Texas history.
My purpose for challenging and although not intentional, provoking Chris was to mainly concentrate on the freckle jar itself. Maybe I was too sensitive about this, but Chris kept trying to change the subject and entering many other items into the discussion. After all, it only takes one item traced to Amelia to prove she was there. I was simply trying to objectively discuss the probabilities and possibilities of how that jar got on that island.
I respect Chris and I have told him so. I do wonder, however, how often he gets challenged or disagreed with.
Maybe that's why he reacted the way he did.
It's ok, though, I can take it, and the "aid" comment didn't bother me so much. Ric found it more questionable than I did. However, I am not so sure about the "green light" comment. From where I was sitting at the time, after the "thin ice" comment, I thought Ric was going to say something else to Chris. All I did was to ask if I could reply first, that's all. And by the way, Chris was not on "thin ice" because of his discussion agreeing or not agreeing with Tighar, he was on "thin ice" because of his demeanor. Ric doesn't mind disagreement, that's how you get spirited discussions going, but if you are the least bit rude, you will be on thin ice.
I thought I was being very courteous, respectful, and thoughtful to Chris, how was I not? I was trying to convince him to focus on that one object.
Yes, Chris is a long-standing poster, but, in my opinion, he needs to learn how to handle provocation, and disagreement.
Jeff, I think you are right about sensitivities being high, myself included, this is way too much. I have said everything twice now, so I have gone full circle,  and I hope this has been clarified.

OK OK the 4th of July was too much of a jab, so I apologize to the gentleman from England.

Jim
Title: Re: Archaeological summary of Fiji Princess trip
Post by: JNev on July 13, 2015, 05:12:01 PM
No blood, no foul as Marty has often said, and thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I'm familiar with the moderation habits here by many years, but appreciate your positive view.  That is after all why I bothered...  ;)

You do live in one fine state, I always enjoy my visits - including having been to the Alamo.

I realize my friend Chris can be pointed and drift is a hazard I contribute to, often enough.  I also fully appreciate that any single artifact that could be definitely linked to Earhart would cinch the case for all but the most dense critic, but am sobered by the potential pool of sources for the bottle, etc., heretofore not so realized.  It is also sobering to think of 'ordinary tourists' stumbling upon finds that TIGHAR did not know of, such as the graves and store evidence.  But that does serve to underscore how difficult it is to land on and survey Niku in enough force to truly scour the island.

Not to discourage any who hold to the review of these landed artifacts, but I've become convinced that nothing short of the bird itself - likely in deep waters somewhere, will answer this thing definitively.  YMMV, of course. It has been a great pursuit trying to puzzle out provenance to Earhart by these hard-won articles, and I've been fascinated by having seen them in person a few times as well - but at this point I can only wish those who continue that pursuit the best of luck: it is daunting to tie such things to our heroine, to say the least.