Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Seven Site  (Read 243265 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #75 on: November 19, 2012, 10:09:54 AM »

Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway, but did not find
the Tighar artifacts. Or was not interested in them.

Read the material. Gallagher did not gather up any bottles.  A work party found a Benedictine bottle near the skull.  That happened, as closely as we can figure, in April 1940.  Gallagher arrived in September. By the time he heard about the discovery and burial of the skull, the Native Magistrate, Buakee Koata, had a departed for Tarawa with the bottle.  Gallagher never saw it.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2012, 11:10:59 AM »

Discussing my suggestion that the sextant box marked with the numbers 1542 and 3500 was from the USS Bushnell, Ric asks:

The box was found in the context of a castaway campsite and was assumed at the time to be associated with the castaway.  What other items found by Gallagher and TIGHAR do you see as being reasonably attributable to the Bushnell party?   

At this point I don’t know enough about the identification and dating of the artifacts found by Tighar to say whether the Bushnell is a more likely source than the Coast Guard guys, colonists, or the castaway.

I agree.

The possibility that some items found at the Seven Site once belonged to Paul Laxton’s wife is something that has been mentioned but which does not seem to have been discussed much, and I'm not sure why.

Probably because it's not worth much discussion.
• There is no evidence that Laxton's wife was ever at the Seven Site.
• All of the items that appear to be gender-specific to a western female are of pre-war American manufacture.  Laxton's wife was British and was was on the island for a brief period in 1949.

Setting aside the glass artifacts, there is one type of artifact found at the Seven Site that I DEFINITELY think could be Bushnalia and that’s the, er, um…coprolites. I think we can be certain the Bushnell guys left scat, if not Skat, behind during their time on Gardner (I hope no one is going to post a reply stating that I need to prove this to be the case before it can be accepted as a possibility). At the moment I can’t find what Tighar has said about those coprolites so I’ll have to leave it at that. Perhaps there will now ensue five or ten forum pages of heated back-and-forth argument about things coprolitic; if so, please accept in advance my apologies for ever bringing the subject up.

Your logic escapes me.  Yes, all humans periodically must relieve themselves and that was certainly true of the Bushnell surveyors, but there is no evidence that anyone from the Bushnell party was at the Seven Site and some evidence (lack of discovery of the skeleton) that they weren't.  The puzzling thing about the human fecal material found at the site (if that's what it is) is that it survived at all.  Normally, anything like that washes away with the next rain squall or is eaten by the crabs (eeewww).  This stuff somehow got protected until it was sufficiently dried out to survive.  One theory that has been offered by a physician is that the material was never excreted but was in the intestine (already quite dry from dehydration) when the castaway died.  Clothing and the tissue mass of the lower torso further protected it until got sufficiently dry.


Or did a Bushnell sailor happen to drop only his sextant box on the way through while not noticing the skeleton?


You’re doubtful that a Bushnell sailor could have left a sextant box near the castaway’s bones without noticing them. I don’t see why this is hard to believe. After all, the Gardner colonists found the castaway’s skull and the Benedictine bottle without (as far as we know) seeing the rest of the castaway’s remains.

We, of course, can't say for sure how that happened but the lay of the land suggests an explanation.  The hole where we think the skull was buried is several meters downhill from where we found the fire features, faunals and artifacts.  Heads will roll.  So will Benedictine bottles.  If the work party buried the skull near where it was found (why would they do otherwise?) it may have been some distance from the rest of the bones.

May I now turn your question around? How do you explain that when Gallagher & Co. searched the castaway’s campsite they failed to find any of the glass artifacts that Tighar has found at the Seven Site? In his message to Vaskess (October 17, 1940) Gallagher says “We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result”. Yet Gallagher and his searchers failed to find the partially melted beer bottle and the partially melted green bottle, and they also missed the Campana/Skat bottle, ointment pot, and the deco-style Mennen bottle.

They also missed the zipper and the compact mirror and rouge. 

The Seven Site covers about 1000 square meters and in this area Tighar has found a number of features that it thinks match Gallagher’s description of the castaway’s camp, e.g., the skull hole, bird and turtle bones, fire remains, possibly even the Ren tree that the castaway died under, or that tree’s successor. In Gallagher’s time the Seven Site was open Buka forest, not the dense scaveola thicket that Tighar had to cut through so Gallagher would have had any easier time than you guys did seeing an artifact like the beer bottle. How is it that Gallagher & Co failed to find any of the glass objects found by Tighar at the Seven Site?

It's an interesting question but the obvious answer is that he simply missed the stuff that we later found.  However hard he looked, I can pretty much guarantee that we looked harder, with more people, for longer, with better technology.  Even so, it happens in almost any search. You miss stuff that's right there.  We can speculate about exactly how it happened.  For example, Gallagher mentions "fire" singular.  We've identified two fire features that seem to be castaway-related. There is typically a lot surface detritus (fallen leaves, broken branches, etc) in Buka forest.  Gallagher may not have noticed the fire feature where we found the broken, partially melted bottles.  If so, that may be an indication that the bottles were already broken when Gallagher was there.  Here's an interesting question: What happens when you try to boil water in a beer bottle by standing it in a campfire? Does it melt the bottom but shatter the top?  Does that happen the first time?  The second time?  The tenth time?  Never?  In short, how does a bottle get to look like the ones we found?
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2012, 12:41:25 PM »

Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway, but did not find
the Tighar artifacts. Or was not interested in them.

Read the material. Gallagher did not gather up any bottles.  A work party found a Benedictine bottle near the skull.  That happened, as closely as we can figure, in April 1940.  Gallagher arrived in September. By the time he heard about the discovery and burial of the skull, the Native Magistrate, Buakee Koata, had a departed for Tarawa with the bottle.  Gallagher never saw it.

I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D
The point I was making was not about bottles per se, but Gallagher's search efforts in general as they relate to Kada's post. Gallagher mentions Carefully searching the area for items belonging to the castaway. He also mentions a benedictine bottle found, and in one telegram, "a bottle" found.
Is it the same bottle he speaks of in both telegrams? Because as Tighar has documented in one telegram he doesn't mention a bottle at all.

 So I was speaking of the general search and how things could be missed, however, now that you mentioned specifically bottles, since Gallagher attached such importance to the Benedictine bottle, a bottle you say he never saw or touched, and sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it, he was obviously interested in bottles to be found at the seven site.

So I don't think it out of turn to say he was also searching for bottles as well. He obviously did not see or recover the ones Tighar brought back. Were they not there? If they were there why were they not seen during this "careful search" of the area in 1940, for items as small as rings and keys?

I can understand missing a zipper or a button, Tighar's grids are much more effective. But the fact Gallagher tried to search for items like small rings and yet missed a whole firepit with melted bottles is troublesome.
That is the point Kada was making and a good one.
Gallagher was interested in recovering a benedictine bottle he had only heard about, but his own search not only missed the second firepit and burnt bottles, but also the fragmented freckle cream shards that were used as a Castaway tool, a mirror that would have looked nice 75 years ago, a metal makeup case was missed as well.  Given that the site in 1940 did not have corrugated tin roofing and WWII junk and 75 years of time, it is not out of line to think Gallagher had a much more pristine "crime scene" to search, with items not so badly deteriorated. Those items should have been easier to see than today.
Yet he missed a lot if Tighar is correct. I would think it should be the other way around, the guys first on the scene should find the most evidence.

Now in fairness to Mr.Gallagher, how much of the actual work Gallagher did in searching, if he touched an artifact personally or not, cannot be determined from these telegrams. The British did like to delegate duties. So while he talks of a careful search, he himself may have given it but a cursory look, and had others do the dirty work.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 12:50:26 PM by tom howard »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #78 on: November 19, 2012, 01:06:03 PM »

Tom Howard said

Quote
I would think it should be the other way around, the guys first on the scene should find the most evidence.

Why if their only looking where the bones are?  They arn't looking at the who'll 'crime scene' just the place where the body is.

I think a crime scene analogy is not too far off. There was not one spot a body was located. They walked around and collected scattered bones, and specifically mentioned carefully searching for personal belongings of the deceased. That is an area search. Not just retrieving a corpse. If Tighar is correct, they missed evidence that I would imagine would be plainly visible and in far better shape 75 years ago than today. Now how well the search was conducted is of course unknown.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 01:08:17 PM by tom howard »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #79 on: November 19, 2012, 01:43:40 PM »

Jeff,

your quite right. I always understood it to be a ridge between sea shore and lagoon but had missed the 100ft part (or just plain forgot).  Sometimes the photo's of the 7 site give it an illusion of flatness.
Depends on what you call flat. ;D
100 feet from normal high water doesn't mean it's 100 feet high obviously.
It also doesn't mean no flooding.
The site has corrugated tin roofing washed onto it if I read the notes correctly.
So there has been flooding at the seven site unless someone came along and dropped pieces of roofing material which is unlikely.
Not to say it was chest deep, but at least a few inches minimum of water are evidenced,
enough to float roofing material.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #80 on: November 19, 2012, 06:51:49 PM »

I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.


The point I was making was not about bottles per se, but Gallagher's search efforts in general as they relate to Kada's post. Gallagher mentions Carefully searching the area for items belonging to the castaway. He also mentions a benedictine bottle found, and in one telegram, "a bottle" found.
Is it the same bottle he speaks of in both telegrams? Because as Tighar has documented in one telegram he doesn't mention a bottle at all.

You're doing it again.  You say, "He also mentions a benedictine bottle found..." No he didn't.  Gallagher never said it was a Benedictine bottle.  The only place in the correspondence where the word Benedictine appears is in the telegram from the Administrative Officer, Central Gilbert Islands District, Tarawa to Gallagher on September 30 in reply to Gallagher's September 23 request that a "certain bottle" be obtained from Koata. These details are important.


 So I was speaking of the general search and how things could be missed, however, now that you mentioned specifically bottles, since Gallagher attached such importance to the Benedictine bottle,

Once again, your representation of events is at odds with the primary source material. Gallagher merely asked his associate in Tarawa to retrieve the bottle from Koata.  Gallagher never mentioned the bottle in his correspondence with the High Commission in Suva.  We don't know why, but it certainly does NOT appear that he placed as much importance on the bottle as he did on other items he found. 


 a bottle you say he never saw or touched, and sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it, he was obviously interested in bottles to be found at the seven site.

You say you've read the material and yet you don't know whether he "sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it." The telegram is right there.  Gallagher asked the AO to "retain bottle in a safe place."


So I don't think it out of turn to say he was also searching for bottles as well. He obviously did not see or recover the ones Tighar brought back. Were they not there? If they were there why were they not seen during this "careful search" of the area in 1940, for items as small as rings and keys?

I think it is definitely a misrepresentation to say, "Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway".  I think it's reasonable to assume that, had he found a bottle, he would have mentioned it but that's not at all the same thing as you imply.

Gallagher was interested in recovering a benedictine bottle he had only heard about, but his own search not only missed the second firepit and burnt bottles, but also the fragmented freckle cream shards that were used as a Castaway tool, a mirror that would have looked nice 75 years ago, a metal makeup case was missed as well.

Now you know that the mirror "looked nice"and that the makeup case was metal.  I'm curious to know where you got that information. The compact we have that fits the mirror is not metal.

  Given that the site in 1940 did not have corrugated tin roofing and WWII junk and 75 years of time, it is not out of line to think Gallagher had a much more pristine "crime scene" to search, with items not so badly deteriorated. Those items should have been easier to see than today.

Now you're a time traveler with all kinds of knowledge about what the site looked like 75 years ago.
 
Now in fairness to Mr.Gallagher, how much of the actual work Gallagher did in searching, if he touched an artifact personally or not, cannot be determined from these telegrams. The British did like to delegate duties. So while he talks of a careful search, he himself may have given it but a cursory look, and had others do the dirty work.

Based on everything I've read about Gerald Gallagher, what you suggest would be entirely out of character.

 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #81 on: November 19, 2012, 06:55:32 PM »

Depends on what you call flat. ;D
100 feet from normal high water doesn't mean it's 100 feet high obviously.
It also doesn't mean no flooding.
The site has corrugated tin roofing washed onto it if I read the notes correctly.
So there has been flooding at the seven site unless someone came along and dropped pieces of roofing material which is unlikely.
Not to say it was chest deep, but at least a few inches minimum of water are evidenced,
enough to float roofing material.

I have already explained that there is no evidence of flooding at the Seven Site.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2012, 07:52:20 PM »


I have already explained that there is no evidence of flooding at the Seven Site.

Just curious Mr Gillespie, when you say it doesn't flood, I guess you mean from the ocean, but what about if a tropical rain storm was heavy enough to wash bits of these bones and things into the pits you mention. I've seen rain do that with things if it's heavy enough. They are sort of like natural sumps. I might be wrong but is it in the report that the surface is hard and bare in parts so that would cause any heavy rain to run off and carry stuff with it into these holes or pits or whatever they're called?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 02:24:30 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2012, 08:09:26 PM »

Ric,

Some comments in response to your reply # 88 above:

You present an interesting explanation for how the skull and Benedictine bottle were separated from the rest of the remains, but I don’t see the relevance to the post of mine that you quote. My point wasn’t about how the skull and the bottle got to where they were found, but rather that the colonists who found them apparently failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains. You have no trouble accepting that the colonists failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains, but for some reason you’re unwilling to accept that a Bushnell sailor could similarly have failed to see the castaway’s remains. Why is the former possible and not the latter?

You say that perhaps Gallagher and Company just plain failed to see any of those artifacts when they performed their close search of the castaway’s camp site. If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice . Perhaps the Coasties didn’t find these bottles at the Seven Site, maybe they brought them to the Seven Site to shoot at. And perhaps all of the glass artifacts found at the Seven Site are not castaway associated, whoever brought them there.
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2012, 10:35:26 PM »

I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?
Holy cow.
Neither ignorant, thank you, or intentionally mistating the record.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2012, 11:43:38 PM »

I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?
Holy cow.
Neither ignorant, thank you, or intentionally mistating the record.

I got the joke, he was probably referring to me Mr Gillespie  :)
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2012, 12:14:59 AM »


On October 6, 1940, Gallagher replied:
"(a) Skeleton was not buried – skull was buried after discovery by natives (coconut crabs had scattered many bones),
(b) l00 feet from high water ordinary springs, [in other words, 100 feet above the highest high tides]
(c) Improbable,"

......

The area we've excavated is more than a hundred feet above the highest of high tides but, by comparing and overlaying aerial photos taken down through the years, we can see that the island has built gradually northeastward in that area so that area we've excavated is now further from the ocean than it was in 1940.
According to the British manual, Pacific Islands Sailing Directions, the height of Gardner is only 40 feet including the height of the trees so I think you might have given readers the wrong impression that the 7 site is 100 feet above sea level in altitude when it is actually much lower. Gallagher said is was 100 feet FROM high water, not 100 ABOVE high water. Also, a small point, "ordinary spring" tides are NOT the highest, they are ordinary, and there are rarer but higher "spring tides" than that.

See attached excerpt.

gl
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 01:15:04 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2012, 12:26:33 AM »

If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice .

And the USCG guys would not even have been searching, just casually walking around.  I continue to find John's thoughts on this interesting.

All of the items that appear to be gender-specific to a western female are of pre-war American manufacture.  Laxton's wife was British and was was on the island for a brief period in 1949.

True enough, but the possibility of women retaining old bottles for long periods has been encouraged before on the forum with regard to the Hazel-Atlas jar; and one candidate product, Dr. Berry's, has been shown by Randy and others to have been available in Europe and New Zealand.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2012, 07:27:48 AM »

Just curious Mr Gillespie, when you say it doesn't flood, I guess you mean from the ocean, but what about if a tropical rain storm was heavy enough to wash bits of these bones and things into the pits you mention. I've seen rain do that with things if it's heavy enough. They are sort of like natural sumps. I might be wrong but is it in the report that the surface is hard and bare in parts so that would cause any heavy rain to run off and carry stuff with it into these holes or pits or whatever they're called?

When I say it doesn't flood I mean it doesn't flood.  I mentioned no pits.  There are no pits.  The former campfire sites we have found - Tom King calls them "fire features" - are not fire pits.  There is no sign that they were dug-out depressions.  They're just places where somebody once made a fire.  Now they are completely invisible on the surface and can only be found by excavating.   The ground surface at the Seven Site is coral rubble.  Coral rubble consists of finger-sized and smaller hunks of coral.  Think pea-gravel.  I've been at the site in driving rain and there is no standing water anywhere.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2012, 08:56:10 AM »

You present an interesting explanation for how the skull and Benedictine bottle were separated from the rest of the remains, but I don’t see the relevance to the post of mine that you quote. My point wasn’t about how the skull and the bottle got to where they were found, but rather that the colonists who found them apparently failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains. You have no trouble accepting that the colonists failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains, but for some reason you’re unwilling to accept that a Bushnell sailor could similarly have failed to see the castaway’s remains. Why is the former possible and not the latter?

Let me walk you through it.  We need to put the original discovery of the skull in context.
In 1939/40 there was nothing about the place we call the Seven Site that made it different from miles of other forested parts of the island - with two exceptions.  Its mild elevation and proximity to both lagoon and ocean apparently made it an attractive place for a castaway to establish a campsite - if you accept that it's where the castaway's remains were found.  It also seems to have once featured a stand of kanawa trees, as did a number of other places on the island.  Kanawa (Cordia subcordata) is a hardwood and was used for construction and other purposes.  The kanawa trees at the Seven Site were eventually logged off which is why the site is now a tangle of scaevola.

In the spring of 1940, Gallagher was in Beru in the Gilbert Islands and planning to establish his headquarters for the PISS on Gardner.  Construction of the Rest House and other buildings at the Government Station on Gardner was underway under the direction of works supervisor Jack Pedro. Timber cutting parties were bringing in wood, presumably mostly kanawa, from various parts of the island.  That much is documented fact.  What follows is my own speculation.

It was most likely one of these timber cutting forays that, in late April, came upon the skull and the Benedictine bottle. In traditional Gilbertese culture it is important that a corpse receive a proper burial so that the ghost can find its way to the next world.  Unburied bones are, therefore, not to be taken lightly. There is probably an unhappy ghost on the loose.  Burying the skull right where they found it and not going any further inland up the hill to where the rest of the bones and artifacts were would seem to make perfect sense.

In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.
BTW, timber cutting as the motivation for the work party being in that area is not speculation.  In his letter of December 27, 1940 that accompanied the bones and artifacts to Suva, Gallagher wrote:
"Should any relatives be traced, it may prove of sentimental interest for them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found."

There is no similar motivation for anyone from the Bushnell party being in that particular part of the forest.

You say that perhaps Gallagher and Company just plain failed to see any of those artifacts when they performed their close search of the castaway’s camp site. If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice . Perhaps the Coasties didn’t find these bottles at the Seven Site, maybe they brought them to the Seven Site to shoot at. And perhaps all of the glass artifacts found at the Seven Site are not castaway associated, whoever brought them there.

Gallagher performed his search in September/October 1940 when the site was virtually untouched forest.  By the time the Coasties were there in 1944/45 the site had been logged off, cleared and planted to coconuts.  This was done after June of 1941 and before the Coasties arrived in July of 1944. By 1946 the planting had failed and been abandoned.  During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 09:01:18 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP