Southeast Ferrous Feature: General Description
. 
The feature trends roughly S-SW down
the slope of the ridge, covering a linear distance of about seven meters. We documented it photographically, with
video, and with a sketch-plan on June 4, 2010, and took samples of larger and
relatively identifiable fragments from six locations, shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the feature as viewed from the
photo tower at an elevation of about 3 meters.
Figure 2: Plan of SE Ferrous
Feature
Figure 3: Upper
(NE) part of feature from photo tower
|
General Characterization of the
Feature
Although very badly deteriorated, the organization of fragment
concentrations on the ground resembled a collection of more-or-less
similar-sized rectangular corrugated iron sheets. It appeared that there were at least five
sheets, approximating the dimensions of corrugated sheets measured in the
village at Ritiati (each 70x275 cm.).
Precise measurements could not be obtained on the components of the SE
ferrous feature due to the deteriorated and scattered condition of the
deposits. Some sheets appeared to be
stacked or overlapping, and some fragments were thick enough to represent two
or three stacked sheets.
Characterization of Sample 1
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83A)
Sample 1 (Catalogue # 2-9-S-83A) came from near the
northeast end of the feature. Besides small
indeterminate fragments, it included the following:
Four fragments of flat ferrous
metal, rectangular to subrectangular, each with at least one straight,
apparently machined, edge
·
Dimensions: 65.9x26.94x4.16
mm; Description: 1 edge machined, the
other broken, very slight “lip.”
·
Dimensions: 47.67x24.13x4.39
mm; Description: 1 edge probably machined, other broken, very slight “lip”
curved at roughly right angle to the cross-section.
·
Dimensions: 34.74x21.62x4.06 mm;
Description: Laminated. 1 edge probably machined, other broken
·
Dimensions: 42.84x25.79x4.38 mm.
Description: Laminated. 1 edge probably machined, other broken,
distinct bend.
Five fragments probable
corrugated iron – amorphous in shape, laminated, curved.
·
Largest: 42.61x28.6x3.94 mm.
·
Smallest 23.62x22.8x3.46; something
of a straight edge and lip
Comments: The corrugated iron appears consistent with
corrugated siding/roofing. The
rectangular/subrectangular fragments are notable by being of rather consistent
width – 22 to 27 mm. – and having one long edge that seems to have broken along
a right-angle bend parallel to the long axis of the object.
Characterization of Sample 2
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83B)
Sample 2 came from just upslope of the feature’s midpoint, in an
area where it looked like two or more sheets might have overlapped. In addition to unidentifiable fragments,
Sample 2 contained:
Five evident pieces of heavy
and/or multi-layer corrugated –curved cross-section, sub-rectangular to
amorphous in shape:
·
Dimensions: 61.66x36.81x5.3
mm.
·
Dimensions: 43.18x36.28x4.16
mm.
·
Dimensions: 29.92x35.82x3.95
mm.
·
Dimensions: 45.4x26.57x4.1
mm.
·
Dimensions: 34.54x32.14x4.02
mm.
Six rectangular to subrectangular
flat fragments with parallel long edges
·
Dimensions: 52.32x24.19x4.77mm;
Description: One edge machined, other
broken but relatively straight
·
Dimensions: 35.77x21.34x3.64
mm; Description: One edge possibly machined,
other slightly bent, broken
·
Dimensions: 32.88x23.4x4.46
mm; Description: Laminated, one edge possibly
machined, other broken but straight
·
Dimensions: 27.83x23.52x4.68
mm; Description: One edge machined,
other broken
·
Dimensions: 28.39x21.57x3.62
mm; Description: Both parallel edges
machined?
·
Dimensions: 35.87x21.03x4.23
mm; Description: Laminated, straight
edge is bent and broken; other edge irregular
Two flat fragments,
subrectangular but no evident finished edges
·
Dimensions: 47.74x17.12x5.36
mm.
·
Dimensions:
46.48x17.35x5.04 mm.
About 20 smaller, amorphous fragments,
thickness equivalent to above
Comments: As in Sample 1, there appear to be two kinds
of ferrous object here: corrugated iron siding/roofing and flat pieces of
consistent thickness and width, some with one long edge exhibiting a bend
parallel to the long axis of the object.
Characterization of Sample 3
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83C)
Sample 3 was southeast of Sample 2, at another location where it
appeared that two sheets overlapped – one running NE-SW, the other NW-SE. Sample 3 included some 15 non-diagnostic
fragments, flakes, and rust-dust, together with:
12 fragments of various sizes,
apparent thick or stacked corrugated – characterized by curved cross-sections
and generally amorphous shapes though with some straight edges that appeared to
represent breaks along the peak or trough of corrugations. .
·
Largest, dimensions:
46.88x35.1x4.87 mm.; Description: one straight edge, looks broken
·
Mid-range, dimensions:
37.06x34.97x4.78 mm.;
Description: amorphous.
·
Smallest, dimensions:
22.43x23.07x4.46 mm.; Description:
Laminated, looks like it represents multiple (2? 3?) sheets.
Four Subrectangular straight sided
·
Dimensions: 77.8x28.4x3.48 mm.;
Description: Laminated. one edge machined; opposite edge has
pronounced bend
·
Dimensions: 57.10x23.8x4.81
mm.; Description: Both parallel sides broken; one has something
of a lip/bend
·
Dimensions: 44.46x15.86x4.23
mm.; Description: One edge appears
machined, the other has a pronounced bend – strange because this one is narrower
than others with this trait.
·
Dimensions: 53.82x37.97x4.7
mm.; Description: Laminated; one edge
appears broken, not machined; opposite has pronounced lip or bend. Strange because WIDER than others with this
trait.
Ca. 15 small amorphous fragments
equivalent in thicknesses to the above
Comments: Here again there appear to be two essential
kinds of ferrous material: corrugated iron and something resembling a metal bar
with an L-shaped cross-section, which has consistently failed along the bend
between the “L’s” two legs. Each leg of
the “L” – that is, each side of the L-shaped bar – here as in the other
samples, seems to have been between 22 and 28 mm wide. Oddities in this sample only are one piece
that appears to retain the bend between the two legs of the L, but is almost 40
mm. wide, and another that appears to retain the bend and an opposing finished
edge but is less than 16 mm. wide.
Characterization of Sample 4
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83D)
Sample 4 was at the far SW end of the feature. It contained:
Twenty-one mostly large, heavy
pieces, slightly to obviously curved in cross-section, fairly irregular to
subrectangular in shape, often clearly laminated. These appear to represent multiple stacked
sheets of corrugated iron.
Examples:
·
Largest: 56.49x75.27x5.08
mm.
·
Smallest: 21.03x24.55x3.24
mm.
Unusual and interesting:
·
Dimensions: 39.05x37.06x5.47
mm. Description: Lazy S cross section not inconsistent with
corrugated but probably from near edge of sheet.
Six flat, subrectangular
fragments fairly consistent in width, not laminated.
Examples:
·
Largest: Dimensions: 40.49x23.47x4.07 mm.
·
Smallest: Dimensions: 33.46x19.93x3.88 ,,/
Comments: Consistent with the other samples, Sample 4
appears to consist of corrugated iron fragments and fragments of a bar, whose
dimensions are consistent with those of the apparent L-cross-section bar found
in other samples, but without evidence of the bend connecting the two legs of
the L.
Characterization of Sample 5
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83E)
Sample 5 was from the southernmost edge of the feature, at what
appeared to be the end of a sheet of corrugated metal with its long axis running
NE-SW. It contained some thirty ferrous
fragments, the largest fifteen of which are described below:
One probable fragment of
corrugated iron
·
Dimensions: 38.86x21.97x5.85 mm.; Description: amorphous,
curved cross-section, heavily laminated
Rectangular to subrectangular fragments:
·
Dimensions: 46.9x26.27x4.6 mm.; Description: two parallel edges, one with lip suggesting
breakage along a bend
·
Dimensions: 38.42x23.69x3.9 mm.; Description:
subrectangular, one long edge machined?
·
Dimensions: 51.33x16.67x4.42 mm.; Description: one long edge straight, machined?
·
Dimensions: 36.44x20.92x3.9 mm.; Description: one edge straight, possibly machined.
·
Dimensions: 33.84x18.57x5.07 mm.; Description:
subrectangular, both edges broken
·
Dimensions: 24.03x23.89x5.4 mm.; Description: one
straight edge, opposite broken.
·
Dimensions: 30.84x20.6x4.35 mm.; Description: subrectangular
·
Dimensions: 41.46x17.59x3.29 mm.; Description: one
straight (machined?) edge
·
Dimensions: 32.23x14.91x3.15 mm.; Description: one
straight edge
Unusual fragments
·
Dimensions: 27.44x24x4.23 mm.; Description: one straight
edge. Possible pin or rivet opposite but
no penetration evident.
·
Dimensions: 44.42x21.24x3.98 mm.; Description: subrectangular, two parallel straight
edges. One edge appears to be “lined” with
square-cross-section wire
·
Dimensions: 25.49x21.01x6.44 mm.; Description:
subrectangular, heavily laminated, two rather unambiguous pin heads
·
Dimensions: 42.3x25.54x5.99 mm.; Description:
subrectangular, heavily laminated, cluster of six apparent pinheads on one side, two on the other
·
Dimensions: 24.51x17.29x3.17 mm.; Description: subrectangular-amorphous, contains punched
hole 2.56 mm diam.
Comments: This sample is generally consistent with the
others, being made up of corrugated iron together with what could be an
L-cross-section bar with each side being about 3 cm wide, broken along the bend. The small subrectangular piece with the
punched hole could well be a piece of corrugated iron. The oddities are the pieces with what appear
to be pinheads, in one case at least six on one side, two on the other, and the
piece with the rectangular cross-section wire along its edge. Both kinds of object are similar to items
found in the SL fire feature, about four to five meters to the north.
Characterization of Sample 6
(Cat. # 2-9-S-83F)
Sample 6 is from near the SW end of the same deposit as Sample
5. Its contents are summarized below:
Amorphous, no straight edges
·
Dimensions:
45.05x37.09x4.48 mm.; Description: curve consistent with corrugated,
laminated
·
Dimensions:
34.87x28.07x2.57 mm.;
Description: curve consistent with corrugated
·
Dimensions:
34.31x32,06x3.96 mm.; Description: curve consistent with corrugated
Flat pieces with straight
parallel long sides, one edge of on each often exhibiting a near right-angle
bend.
·
Dimensions: 74.49x33.26x3.05 mm; right-angle bend remnant 7.71 mm.
wide; Description: rectangular.
·
Dimensions: 73.58x22.30x2.71 mm;right-angle bend remnant 10.98 mm
wide; Description: rectangular.
·
Dimensions: 48.49x31.46x4.27 mm; bend remnant 10.02 mm. high; Description: Angled piece extends out from main body at
about 30 degrees. Edge opposite this
bend is parallel to it, perfectly straight, appears machined.
·
Dimensions: 39.1x24.03x3.06
mm; bend remnant 9.07 mm high.
Description: edge is clearly bent over, not two separate welded pieces.
·
Dimensions: 65.41x21.44x4.79
mm.; Description: subrectangular.
·
Dimensions: 51.34x22.77x4.44
mm; Description; one long edge slightly
lipped as though part of bend
·
Dimensions: 35.71x24.22x4.33
mm; Description: clearly laminated
·
Dimensions: 41.44x26.7x4.74
mm; Description: clearly laminated
·
Dimensions: 38.11x23.53x4.58
mm; Description: very slight curve
·
Dimensions: 42.87x20.14x4.25
mm.; Description: subrectangular
·
Dimensions: 38.60x24.0x4.68
mm; Description: clearly laminated, more
broken of two edges edge curved as though beginning of bend
·
Dimensions: 40.09x27.03x3.46
mm; Description: one edge slightly
lipped as though beginning of bend
·
Dimensions: 41.74x28.39x4.01
mm; Description: one edge very straight, machined. Opposite lipped like beginning of bend
·
Dimensions: 55.40x26.21x2.91;
Description: One very straight machined edge; other edge broken but retains remnant
lip
13 other smaller fragments with
remnant straight edges, ca. 30 small irregular frags, much rust
Comments: This sample clearly breaks down into the
now-familiar two groups: corrugated iron and bar with L-shaped cross-section,
each piece of the bar being about 3 cm wide.
General, Tentative Conclusions
It appears pretty clear that the SE Ferrous
Feature represents a number of corrugated iron sheets, perhaps piled up on the
ground, perhaps merely overlapping one another where they fell, together with
some iron or steel rods with L-shaped cross-sections. Such rods are apparently commonly used in
fencing, especially in Europe, where they are called “L-Posts” (See http://www.fencepost.net.cn/fence-post/t-l-post-pipepost.html). The cross-sectional
dimensions given for “Euro L-Posts” on the website referenced above are 25x12x4
mm; it is not unreasonable to suppose that somewhat heavier posts are or were
manufactured that would have been more consistent with the dimensions of our
fragments, but I have not yet undertaken a detailed search for such posts.
If the parallel-sided flat fragments represent
“L-Posts,” they may have supported a sort of wall of corrugated iron running
down the slope of the Seven Site surge ridge – or been intended for use in some
such construction scheme that never reached fruition. Why anyone would want to build such a wall is
a mystery; one can imagine someone attempting a crab-exclusion device, but a
wall across the Seven Site seems even less likely to succeed at excluding crabs
than was Hadrian’s Wall at excluding Picts and Scots, the Great Wall of China
at excluding Mongols, or the Maginot Line at excluding Germans. Small anti-crab walls around young coconut
palms might work; long walls around large areas (assuming the feature was part
of such a plan) seem like they would be exercises in futility. Of course, such considerations didn’t stop
the Romans, Chinese, or French from constructing their barriers.
The Solomon Islands team made a point of
trying to determine whether their interviewees knew anything about corrugated
iron at the Seven Site, and no one evinced any such knowledge[1]. This suggests that the structure or
collection of material represented by the SE Ferrous Feature either was not put
in place until after the colonists left in 1963, or was put in place well
before those alive today frequented the site.
It does not seem plausible that it was a 1944-46 U.S. Coast Guard
construction, which surely would have been apparent to colonists using the site
in the 1950s.
The material appears to be too deteriorated
to be consistent with a post-1963 date, and we have no record of anything
happening on the island after the colonists left that would have produced such
a structure.
One possibility is that the ferrous material
was brought to the site in about 1940 at Gallagher’s behest, to be used in
connection with planting the area in coconuts.
This might be far enough in the past for the former colonists alive
today in the Solomons to have no memory of it, though it seems strange that
they would not recall seeing the corrugated sheets lying around.
Another possibility is that the SE Ferrous
Feature and the other corrugated iron on the site was put there in the 1890s as
part of John Arundel’s effort to plant the island, but we have no evidence that
Arundel tried to develop the southeast part of the island.
The fragments with what appear to be
rectangular cross-section wires and pins in Sample 5 – which are nearly
identical to material found in the SL Feature, could mean several different
things:
- That the SL feature is contemporaneous and associated with the SE Ferrous Feature;
- That whoever used the SL feature salvaged material from the SE Ferrous Feature for use in his or her camp;
- That the SE Ferrous Feature post-dates the SL feature, and that parts of the former were laid down on top of the latter; or
- That the SL feature post-dates the SE Ferrous Feature, and something from the former was laid down on top the latter.
[1]
Based on the team’s initial reports; it is possible that something will emerge
from detailed study of the recordings.
No comments:
Post a Comment