Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?  (Read 12998 times)

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« on: September 02, 2011, 08:54:59 AM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart, Dr Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian institution dismissed the female/gender specific related artefacts found at the seven site by suggesting that the island had had a population of up to 200 people, been inhabited until the 1960’s and was a small area of land.  In a nut shell they could have come from anywhere.

In reply to a post helping to understand Ric nicely explains that “any artefact, taken by itself, can be explained away”. This got me thinking, where might these items have come from if they come together, as a package? 

1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

It is possible that these ladies may have had in their possession makeup items from the mid 1930’s but how likely is it that they would have dropped or left them at the seven site and why would some of them been in fire features.

2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

How plausible any of these are I don’t know but in the absence of a smoking gun how else do you explain the gender specific items at the seven site?

[1] 7 Years of Island Hopping ISBM 0952424711, 9780952424710
[2] Dr Tom Kings Novel 13 Bones also mentions this in its final chapters and has an extract from Ms Cordons book.
Logged

Don Dollinger

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2011, 10:57:45 AM »

With my limited knowledge and the fact that I have never been to Niku I will impart on you how I wrapped my head around these using my life experiences.

Quote
1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

It appears that the whomever was at the 7 site spent a considerable amount of time there.  I would not expect that a woman of Eurpean Descent would relish spending that amount of time in the bush but would be more inclined to stay in around the inhabited areas other then the occassional hike perhaps.  I also decline to think that they would relish a BBQ of the local wildlife.

Quote
2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

My experiences with "natives" from South America such as the Kunni Indians as well as bush people of the Philipines seem to view makeup as a commodity more geared at the rich as a status symbol and the more common folk would not have no use for it.  When worn it is usually more in the fashion of face painting and used mainly by someone in an exalted position amongst their people or during some type of ritual or celebration and something as simple as rouge would be somewhat lacking.  Granted I have no experiences with Pacific Islanders but just watching Discovery Channel and History Channel programs of different areas and cultures there seems to be quite alot of similarities between rituals as well as decoration of the skin from one end of earth to the other.

Quote
3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

Uh, um, ur, uh  :-[.  Read in one of the other reports that the Coasties CO basically made a rule that they were not to be out just roaming around per se.  Would think that stealing a away to the bush to change from Stephen to Stephanie is somewhat of a stretch.

Quote
4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

Would have had to have been collected from the beach and then transported there and would think that to accumulate that much it would not be a one storm event but over a period of time.  It also does not account for items that have no flotation qualities such as the knife and compact.  Also if the compact washed ashore I would suspect that all of the rouge itself would have been dissolved in the water.

Quote
5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

The first part of your argument holds water, the second part does not.  You have seen how ingenious the local population was at using everything at their disposal by turning it into something else, like the aluminum comb, lures, etc.  Most of those items would have been reused or reworked into some other use and not "dumped".

Well thats my 2 cents worth.  All pure conjecture as we are talking about a different era, a different culture, and a different place but it is what I used to settle them same issues in my mind when I pondered them some time ago.  YMMV.

LTM,

Don
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5445
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2011, 11:11:46 AM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart, Dr Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian institution dismissed the female/gender specific related artefacts found at the seven site by suggesting that the island had had a population of up to 200 people, been inhabited until the 1960’s and was a small area of land.  In a nut shell they could have come from anywhere.

This is his usual tactic - to dismiss with generalities.  The only defense is to counter with specifics.

This got me thinking, where might these items have come from if they come together, as a package? 

1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

I'm not so sure.  In the archival research Bill Carter and I did on Tarawa earlier this summer we saw no references to visits by non-adminstrative civilians of either sex. During the war there were visits by personnel from U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships and aircraft in support of the Loran station but there is no record of nurses being among them. In 1946 there was a request that the wives of Coast Guard officers be allowed to visit their husbands but by the time the request was approved the Loran station had been deactivated and secured.  As you say, Laxton's wife was with him during his time on the island in 1949 but she was not American and there is no reference to her ever going down to the southeast end - although we don't know that she didn't.

Laxton's tale about the American lady having a surprising experience with the plumbing in the Rest House is curious. It seems to be a story he heard from the locals but we've found no record of an American lady visiting the island at any time - and the District Officer diaries and correspondence seem excruciatingly thorough.

Roddy Cordon and her Girl Guides are not an issue.  They were there in 1968, five years after the colony was abandoned. They only stayed for a few hours and never went beyond the lagoon shore.

It is possible that these ladies may have had in their possession makeup items from the mid 1930’s but how likely is it that they would have dropped or left them at the seven site and why would some of them been in fire features.

Doesn't seem too likely, does it?  From the archival work and the recent interviews in the Solomons we have a much better handle on the series of events that transpired at the place we call the Seven Site.  I'll be pulling all that together for a paper to be published in October in the "TIGHAR Journal 2011."

2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

We can't say that didn't happen but we'd have to come up with some way she could get her hands on those 1930s-vintage American products.  We checked the invoices for the colony's Co-Op Store.  No cosmetics and everything (not surprisingly) came from Australia.

3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

You too could write a novel about the Seven Site.

4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

No over-wash at the Seven Site.  Too far inland.
 
5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

Possible, although it would be an odd coincidence that all of the beach combed items happened to be American.  Also, the folks our team interviewed in the Solomons said that bottles were a valuable commodity.  They would never throw one away or put one in a fire.

How plausible any of these are I don’t know but in the absence of a smoking gun how else do you explain the gender specific items at the seven site?

As you've shown, you can do it - but you have to propose events and coincidences for which there is no evidence and which are far more unlikely than the simple solution suggested by multiple other independent lines of evidence.
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2011, 12:06:03 PM »

Don't worry I have no intention of writing that version of events  :D

Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2011, 05:17:58 PM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart, Dr Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian institution dismissed the female/gender specific related artefacts found at the seven site by suggesting that the island had had a population of up to 200 people, been inhabited until the 1960’s and was a small area of land.  In a nut shell they could have come from anywhere.

In reply to a post helping to understand Ric nicely explains that “any artefact, taken by itself, can be explained away”. This got me thinking, where might these items have come from if they come together, as a package? 

1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

It is possible that these ladies may have had in their possession makeup items from the mid 1930’s but how likely is it that they would have dropped or left them at the seven site and why would some of them been in fire features.

2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

How plausible any of these are I don’t know but in the absence of a smoking gun how else do you explain the gender specific items at the seven site?

[1] 7 Years of Island Hopping ISBM 0952424711, 9780952424710
[2] Dr Tom Kings Novel 13 Bones also mentions this in its final chapters and has an extract from Ms Cordons book.

---------------------------------

Homosexuality has a long tradition in Polynesia. Even today, families that do not have a daughter will raise a son to take on the female role around the house and to dress, act and behave as a female. This is completely accepted and without the westerner's prejudices against it. You find "mahus" everywhere you travel there.

gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2011, 06:35:20 PM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart, Dr Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian institution dismissed the female/gender specific related artefacts found at the seven site by suggesting that the island had had a population of up to 200 people, been inhabited until the 1960’s and was a small area of land.  In a nut shell they could have come from anywhere.

In reply to a post helping to understand Ric nicely explains that “any artefact, taken by itself, can be explained away”. This got me thinking, where might these items have come from if they come together, as a package? 

1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

It is possible that these ladies may have had in their possession makeup items from the mid 1930’s but how likely is it that they would have dropped or left them at the seven site and why would some of them been in fire features.

2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

How plausible any of these are I don’t know but in the absence of a smoking gun how else do you explain the gender specific items at the seven site?

[1] 7 Years of Island Hopping ISBM 0952424711, 9780952424710
[2] Dr Tom Kings Novel 13 Bones also mentions this in its final chapters and has an extract from Ms Cordons book.

---------------------------------

Homosexuality has a long tradition in Polynesia. Even today, families that do not have a daughter will raise a son to take on the female role around the house and to dress, act and behave as a female. This is completely accepted and without the westerner's prejudices against it. You find "mahus" everywhere you travel there.

gl

For heavens sake you dont have to travel far to see that.  Come on over to my house and see how well my wife has me trained. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2011, 08:24:31 PM »



For heavens sake you dont have to travel far to see that.  Come on over to my house and see how well my wife has me trained.
[/quote]


     LOL! :D
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2011, 01:56:54 AM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart, Dr Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian institution dismissed the female/gender specific related artefacts found at the seven site by suggesting that the island had had a population of up to 200 people, been inhabited until the 1960’s and was a small area of land.  In a nut shell they could have come from anywhere.

In reply to a post helping to understand Ric nicely explains that “any artefact, taken by itself, can be explained away”. This got me thinking, where might these items have come from if they come together, as a package? 

1.   Visiting female of European/American origin – Well we have evidence that a number of ladies did in fact visit and stay on the island.  Paul Laxtons wife was a visitor and resident.  Laxton tells the tale of avisiting American Lady  who fell afoul of the plumbing arrangements .  When the island was evacuated a Ms Roddy Cordon was present along with some girl guides, one who is named as Heather Smith [1][2]  I'm sure there were many more un recorded lady visitors.

It is possible that these ladies may have had in their possession makeup items from the mid 1930’s but how likely is it that they would have dropped or left them at the seven site and why would some of them been in fire features.

2.   Native woman –There does not seem to be any evidence that native women wore western makeup and the nature of the settlement makes it less likely that they would have access to it.  This doesn’t mean that a native woman may have obtained some items of makeup and experimented with it at the seven site so as not to be disturbed.  Leaving the items behind or trying to destroy them in a fire.

3.   Cross dressing male – This was not socially acceptable in the 1930’s and 40’s and could explain the presence of the gender specific items in a male environment.  A cross dressing male would need to find a secluded spot to practice their fetish, away from prying eyes.  We know that Gallagher had a ‘house here’ and also the Loran station was nearby.  Could someone cross dressing have kept their items at the seven site and again try using fire to cover their tracks?

4.   Over wash by sea –Items deposited by Storm surge, doesn’t explain how the bottles got burnt in the fire features though.

5.   Beach combed items – found by Native whilst beach combing and taken to seven site and dumped.

How plausible any of these are I don’t know but in the absence of a smoking gun how else do you explain the gender specific items at the seven site?

[1] 7 Years of Island Hopping ISBM 0952424711, 9780952424710
[2] Dr Tom Kings Novel 13 Bones also mentions this in its final chapters and has an extract from Ms Cordons book.

---------------------------------

Homosexuality has a long tradition in Polynesia. Even today, families that do not have a daughter will raise a son to take on the female role around the house and to dress, act and behave as a female. This is completely accepted and without the westerner's prejudices against it. You find "mahus" everywhere you travel there.

gl

I was more angling it towards the Western inhabitants and visitors.  If it had been a Polynesian then he also would have been a visitor not a settler as they are Micronesian's Pacific Cultural Areas.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2011, 02:27:10 PM »

Did anyone notice that "Gilligan" and "Gardner" both start with"G"?  Coincidence?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2011, 03:29:37 PM »

In the recent BBC Radio showthat included a discussion on the fate of Amelia Earhart...


---------------------------------

Homosexuality has a long tradition in Polynesia. Even today, families that do not have a daughter will raise a son to take on the female role around the house and to dress, act and behave as a female. This is completely accepted and without the westerner's prejudices against it. You find "mahus" everywhere you travel there.

gl

I was more angling it towards the Western inhabitants and visitors.  If it had been a Polynesian then he also would have been a visitor not a settler as they are Micronesian's Pacific Cultural Areas.

If it were islanders crossing it up then I'd expect TIGHAR might have found something like coconut half-shells with straps and such... oh darn, got a run in my pantyhose, must be the coral... ;D
But wasn't the nearest grove some way away from the site ;)
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 337
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2011, 01:50:24 PM »

Has anyone give thought to the lack of male artifacts at the seven site?  Seems odd that FN didn't have bottles of pills, lotion, etc.

Ted Campbell
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2011, 02:30:17 PM »

[/size
Perhaps FN died early on from injuries suffered during the landing (untreated concussion?), and AE had to  fend for herself.

I know, that brings up the question of his remains?  Washed out to sea?  into the lagoon?
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Where might the feminine-related artifacts have come from?
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2011, 04:04:43 PM »

Has anyone give thought to the lack of male artifacts at the seven site?  Seems odd that FN didn't have bottles of pills, lotion, etc.

Ted Campbell

What are 'male' related artifacts? Jack knife? Benedictine (sp) bottle?, Shoes?, Sextant box? But a good question non the less!  When I travel I don't have any pills or lotions, bottle of after shave? (not me but FN could have), Razor is a big Yes but otherwise when I travel my luggage is 75% less than the SWTSMBO (She who thinks she must be obeyed)

Of course someone will point out that non of the items I mention are 'male specific' and even a lady can own a razor!
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 02:37:07 AM by Chris Johnson »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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