Print

[Don Dollinger]

Carpnters and woodworkers knew the saying as... Measure THRICE, cut ONCE.

All things being wiki there are 2 adages at play here.  Both are correct:

Measure twice, cut once...
Measure thrice, check twice, cut once...
as well as the shortened version of the 2nd one of Measure thrice, cut once...

You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled programming...

LTM,

Don

[Jeff Scott]

Gallagher is looking at only part of the sole of what he thinks was a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - and yet he seems quite sure that the shoe was a woman's shoe.
What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes? 
What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?

In response to your original question, 3 things come to mind.  All of them have come up at some point in the previous posts.

1) Thickness of heel.  Women's shoes often have a taller heel than men's. This factor also results in a steeper slope to the middle section of the sole. These can be seen in the attached photo of Amelia's shoe.
2) Width of sole.  Women's shoes tend to be narrower than men's.
3) Color. Women's shoes tend to be more colorful than men's.

[Jeff Scott]

OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.

For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.

Here is a simple possibility--what if the bones and the shoe belonged to the same Norwich City castaway?  We know that crewmen went missing, and perhaps one washed ashore elsewhere on the island and was left behind.  The victim may have worn smaller or narrower shoes than Gallagher expected of a man.

[Ric Gillespie]

Here is a simple possibility--what if the bones and the shoe belonged to the same Norwich City castaway?  We know that crewmen went missing, and perhaps one washed ashore elsewhere on the island and was left behind.  The victim may have worn smaller or narrower shoes than Gallagher expected of a man.

Ahh...but you forget Dr. Steenson's statement after examining the artifacts in Fiji.  He said there was part of a woman's shoe AND part of a man's shoe (apparently Gallagher found the part of a man's shoe after making his original comments about finding the woman's shoe part).
Now you need two NC survivors, one of whom wears shoes that are recognizably male and one who wears shoes that two individuals mistake for being female.
Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.

[Jeff Scott]

Ahh...but you forget Dr. Steenson's statement after examining the artifacts in Fiji.  He said there was part of a woman's shoe AND part of a man's shoe (apparently Gallagher found the part of a man's shoe after making his original comments about finding the woman's shoe part).
Now you need two NC survivors, one of whom wears shoes that are recognizably male and one who wears shoes that two individuals mistake for being female.

Not necessarily.  This NC survivor could have found other shoes from the wreck or the camp site that better matched what would have been expected of a man to wear.  All we know for certain is one person's bones were found along with parts of at least two shoes that apparently don't match.  Everything else about gender and number of survivors is speculation.

Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.

I figured someone would raise this argument.  However, Gallagher makes no mention of these things in his correspondence.  This raises a new "paradox." If these items came from the castaway, one would think they'd have been far more intact and visible than when discovered in recent times.  The contemporary reports imply that a fairly thorough search was made of the area around the bones for other remains and artifacts.  Yet they say nothing about any of the bottles, knife parts, cosmetics, etc.  Either the search wasn't thorough enough or these items weren't there in 1940/1941 and arrived later.

[Ric Gillespie]

Not necessarily.  This NC survivor could have found other shoes from the wreck or the camp site that better matched what would have been expected of a man to wear.  All we know for certain is one person's bones were found along with parts of at least two shoes that apparently don't match.  Everything else about gender and number of survivors is speculation.

This is sillier than the coconut debate in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  Everything we do is speculation, but all speculation is not equal. Speculation that one of the shoe parts found in 1940 was from a woman's shoe is based upon primary source historical documents that record the unequivocal opinions of two people who saw the object.  If you want to challenge that speculation you'll need more than elaborate imagined scenarios.

Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.

I figured someone would raise this argument.  However, Gallagher makes no mention of these things in his correspondence.  This raises a new "paradox." If these items came from the castaway, one would think they'd have been far more intact and visible than when discovered in recent times.  The contemporary reports imply that a fairly thorough search was made of the area around the bones for other remains and artifacts.  Yet they say nothing about any of the bottles, knife parts, cosmetics, etc.  Either the search wasn't thorough enough or these items weren't there in 1940/1941 and arrived later.

I agree with that assessment.  We have no way of knowing how thorough Gallagher was but we, and our critics, have been unable to come up credible alternative explanations for the artifacts and features we have found that seem to be most logically attributable to the castaway.

[John Ousterhout]

Regarding “stout” shoe construction – casual leather shoes I’m acquainted with have relatively thin, light-weight soles, for comfort.  “Stout” walking shoes I’m familiar with have much thicker, heavier soles, as do sandals, which generally lack uppers to begin with.  If all I had to examine was a sole, and it was made of thick leather and significantly heavier in weight than a casual dress shoe, I could easily come to the same conclusions Gallagher reported.  I’m not acquainted with 1930’s era sandal construction – how likely is it that a sandal sole of that period would be made of something other than leather, and how likely would it be identifiable as belonging to a sandal?
Another question this brings to mind - where would Gallagher have seen someone wearing sandals?  Did any islanders he might have come in contact with use them, that is, were sandals of some recognizable style commonly used somewhere he had been?

[Jeff Lange]

Good thought as to sandals, but it seems to me shoe soles would have small, evenly spaced holes from the stiching around the edges, whereas sandals generally would only have them in  a few locations around the edge where the straps attached. I know the shoe parts we have seen were in poor shape, but I seem to recall that they exhibited the remnants of holes around the entire remaining sole. That would tend to indicate a shoe rather than a sandal, would it not?

[Ric Gillespie]

Regarding “stout” shoe construction – casual leather shoes I’m acquainted with have relatively thin, light-weight soles, for comfort.  “Stout” walking shoes I’m familiar with have much thicker, heavier soles, as do sandals, which generally lack uppers to begin with.  If all I had to examine was a sole, and it was made of thick leather and significantly heavier in weight than a casual dress shoe, I could easily come to the same conclusions Gallagher reported.  I’m not acquainted with 1930’s era sandal construction – how likely is it that a sandal sole of that period would be made of something other than leather, and how likely would it be identifiable as belonging to a sandal?

We should check into 1930s sandal construction. Neither Gallagher nor Steenson say what the sole fragment was made of but it almost had to be rubber.  Leather gets eaten up very quickly in that environment.  If part of a leather sole survived it seems like other leather parts should have survived. 

Another question this brings to mind - where would Gallagher have seen someone wearing sandals?  Did any islanders he might have come in contact with use them, that is, were sandals of some recognizable style commonly used somewhere he had been?

Gallagher undoubtedly saw people wearing sandals back home in England - with socks. (They still do it.)  These days Pacific Islanders often wear flip-flops if they don't go barefoot, but there were no flip-flops back then and the Niku colonists in all of the pictures I've seen are barefoot.  Shoes of any kind were, and are, a problem for islanders.  Their feet are usually incredibly wide and heavily calloused.

[John Ousterhout]

Jeff sez: "...Good thought as to sandals, but it seems to me shoe soles would have small, evenly spaced holes from the stiching around the edges, whereas sandals generally would only have them in  a few locations around the edge where the straps attached."
Really simple sandal soles are a single layer of leather.  "Stout" sandal soles could be made of two or more layers stitched together.  For that matter, layered construction is still common, using a tough leather for the bottom, and a softer layer in contact with the foot/sock.  We're just guessing what Gallagher might have seen to base his statements upon.  All we can do is to try to figure out what is most likely.

[Ric Gillespie]

Recall that there are at least four requirements:
- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not.
- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal.
- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish."
- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal.

[John Ousterhout]

Good points.  I'll offer my opinions:
1) "- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not."
IF the sole was abandoned only months before, then a thick layer of leather (or rubber?) might survive to be examined.  Also, sole leather may be made of leather tanned by different methods than uppers, possibly making them less palatable to crabs and other fauna.  An obvious test would be to leave a variety of foot-wear for the crabs to nibble on, and see what they like and don't.
2)"- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal."
If the sole were thick but completely missing uppers, then Gallagher might have guessed that it might have originally been a form of sandal. I would not rule out the presence of a row of stitching around the edges as being indicative of sandal construction.  Crabs might have eaten the soft top layer, leaving the tough (differently tanned) bottom layer.
3) "- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish.""
Aside from assuming that the simple presence of a leather sole after some unknown number of months of exposure might have given the impression of "stoutness", perhaps the thickness or stiffness of the sole remnants gave the impression of being "stouter" than light walking shoes or dress shoes.  Note - would exposure to Niku's environment have caused a soft leather sole to transform into a "stout" form?
4) "- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal."
Here I prefer to defer to "British" knowledge of the time - from my 21st century American background, a "woman's shoe or sandal" would be narrower than a man's, have a more pointed toe, have a narrowed instep, and a more raised heel.  It also might me more likely to be made of multipe layers, with fine colored leather on the outside, and fine-textured leather on the inside.  The current construction methods of women's shoes in the US are also commonly found in expensive Italian men's shoes, raising the idea that a fancy Italian shoe sole found on an island might be assumed to have belonged to an American woman.  However, to follow that idea up, how would a fancy Italian shoe end up on Gardner Island around 1940?  My mind boggles!

[Ric Gillespie]

Good points.  I'll offer my opinions:

I'll offer mine. I think there is a known shoe that fits all of the criteria much more simply.

1) "- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not."

The shoe shown in the attached photo has a rubber sole. We know from shoe parts we have found on other parts of the island that rubber soles survive and leather uppers and soles do not.

2)"- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal."

Sandals with rubber soles almost always have a one-piece sole with a molded-in, rather than a nailed-on, heel. The shoe shown in the attached photo has a rubber sole with a molded-in heel.

3) "- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish."

All that is required for a sole to be "stoutish" is that it be thicker than a normal leather sole. The shoe shown in the attached photo has a relatively thick sole.

4) "- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal."

The shoe shown in the attached photo has a white or cream colored sole - convincingly female in 1937 and even today. 

[Tim Collins]

Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?

[Ric Gillespie]

Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?

By Pacific Islanders?  Unheard of.  By Europeans? I would guess (but don't know) that sandals may have been popular in major settled areas like Fiji.