Maybe it’s the release of the Hitchcock movie, but I’ve had birds on my mind, and have spent some time looking at the analysis of Seven Site avian remains done last year by Sara Collins of Pacific Consulting Services, Inc. in Hawaii (Collins 2011). Some basics:
• 2433 bird bones recovered and analyzed.
• Overwhelming majority are Red-footed Booby (Sula sula) and Lesser Frigatebird (Frigata Ariel).
• Most are adult, a few juvenile
In preparing the bird and fish bones for analysis, I divided the site into eight “clusters” based on geography and the gross distribution of faunal remains. Each cluster represented either a very distinct part of the site (e.g. the 2001 M-units, way off at the NW end), or some sort of concentration of faunal remains, often associated with more or less distinct features (e.g. fire sites, concentrations of shellfish). Seven of these clusters – designated 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, X, and BB – produced bird bones.
Clusters 2 and 3, along the ridge crest in the vicinity of the Big Buka and the fire features excavated in 2001, each contained remains that could be accounted for by the consumption of four boobies and one to two Frigatebirds, but since these clusters were adjacent to one another, it is quite possible that they collectively contain the remains of only four boobies and two Frigatebirds. Cluster 4, containing the WR Feature (containing the partly melted bottles, snap, ferrous items, and probable rouge fragments) also produced the remains of about 4 boobies and two Frigates. Cluster 5, situated between the WR Feature and the immediate neighborhood of the SL Feature (probable rouge, ferrous, bottles, etc.) produced the remains of perhaps one boobie. Cluster X, where most of the jackknife was found, produced the remains of 2 boobies, and Cluster BB – a surface birdbone scatter downslope from the SL Feature – produced bones from 2 boobies and 8 Frigates.
And then there’s Cluster 6, around the SL Feature.
Cluster 6 produced evidence of at least 22 boobies and 6 Frigates, along with one each of Phaeton lepturus and Phaeton rubricaudai, the white-tailed and red-tailed Tropicbird. Many of the bones are charred. Someone processed and cooked a lot of birds around the SL Feature.
As far as we know, four “populations” may have killed and processed birds at the Seven Site:
1. The colonists; we have oral accounts of bird-hunting at the site;
2. Gallagher, who we know from historical data and oral accounts spent time at the site;
3. The Coast Guardsmen, who we know from photographic, oral, and archaeological evidence hunted birds around the site; and
4. The castaway(s).
We have no particular reason to think that Gallagher spent much time at his Seven Site “camp,” or that he or others processed birds while there. As far as we know the Coast Guardsmen shot birds, but did not process or eat them. They might have hauled a particularly impressive bird back to the station for display purposes, but most times probably discarded carcasses on site – where they would almost certainly be quickly consumed by crabs.
The colonists apparently sometimes cooked and ate birds while visiting the site to hunt turtles, but most often – according to oral testimony – did preliminary processing at the site and then took the carcasses back to the village. Preliminary processing involved chopping off the wings, probably removing the heads and gutting the bodies, and skinning the birds, removing the feet in the process. So a deposit of bird bones left by the colonists should include a disproportionate number of wing bones relative to bones of the thorax.
Some of the clusters do have more wing bones than bones of the thorax. Cluster 2, for instance, on the ridge near the Big Buka, produced 11 boobie wing bones to only 5 bones of the thorax, and 4 leg bones. But it produced more thoraxial Frigatebird bones (4) than wing ones (2), along with two cranium fragments. Cluster BB – as noted, a surface scatter downslope from the SL Feature – shows what may be a more expectable profile for a colonist-produced birdbone concentration: 50 Frigatebird wing bones and only one bone from a Frigatebird’s thorax region. BB also produced 3 boobie wing bones and 2 thoraxial bones; I suspect that these kinds of quantities could be found virtually anywhere on the site, reflecting natural distribution of bones by crabs and other factors.
Cluster 4, around the WR feature, produced 5 boobie wing bones and 10 bones of the boobie thorax, together with 4 Frigate wing bones and 7 bones of the thorax. This looks more like the remains of someone’s on-site meals than like food procurement for the colonial village.
And Cluster 6, around the SL feature, produced 60 boobie wing bones to 68 thoraxial bones and 61 leg bones, together with 52 Frigate wing bones to 13 from the thorax and 2 from the legs. There were also 2 boobie and 3 Frigate cranial fragments. This, too, looks a lot more like on-site consumption than like procurement for the village.
So, someone appears to have eaten about 30 birds – 22 boobies, 6 Frigatebirds, and 2 Tropicbirds – at and around the SL Feature, which has produced a considerable diversity of possible castaway artifacts. If the eater was the castaway, what does this tell us about him or her?
Boobies are pretty easy to catch; they lay eggs on the ground and sit on them till they hatch, the male and female taking turns. They roost in trees, but also in low bushes and sometimes on the ground. Frigatebirds usually roost in trees, but when they do land on the ground, their very small feet make it difficult for them to get around. Even a castaway unskilled in bird procurement would probably not have a hard time catching a bird or two each day in the vicinity of the Seven Site. Birds would probably be much easier to catch than fish; fish dart around the tidepools and are inherently slippery, but boobies, particularly when nesting and at least until they become wise to the ways of humans, often just sit under bushes and wait to have their necks wrung.
Former colonists on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands (both Native Hawaiian and Anglo) interviewed for the video Under a Jarvis Moon (See http://www.bishopmuseum.org/special/under_a_jarvis_moon.html ) said that boobies were quite tasty, while Frigatebirds tasted terrible and had little meat. This might account for the much larger number of boobies represented in the Cluster 6 collection, though one wonders why there are even six Frigatebirds.
Setting aside the question of the Frigatebirds, it is easy enough to imagine a scenario in which the castaway(s), arriving at the Seven Site, found a large number of boobies nesting on the ground, ready to be harvested. They would be particularly vulnerable to harvesting if they were sitting on eggs, which they do not abandon readily. According to the Howland/Baker/Jarvis colonists, boobie eggs are quite tasty.
A source cited by Collins (Child 1960) suggests that boobies in the Phoenix Islands fledge (that is, the parents nest, the fledgelings hatch and grow to the point of independence) mostly between April and December, though a more recent study (Gupta 2007) indicates only that those in a given population fledge synchronously (all at more or less the same time), throughout the year but varying by location. We have observed boobies sitting on eggs, and fledging, in late May and early June.
It is not implausible, then, that the large collection of boobie remains in and around the SL Feature represents occupation of the site for a fairly extended period of time (or by a large number of people, for which there is no other evidence), most likely between April and December. The relative dearth of fledgling bones suggests that the feature was in use prior to the actual birth of baby boobies. Exactly when this would be requires further research, but if we simply take the earlier part of the fledging season recorded by Child (1960), the feature would have most likely have been in use between April and August.
A single boobie would probably make a good meal for one or two people, so we might propose as a rough estimate that the boobie bones indicate use of the SL Feature for at least ten days or so by two people, or twenty-plus days by one person. Boobie meat might become pretty boring after a few days, but there is plenty of evidence at the Seven Site for the exploitation of other food sources – fish, shellfish, baby sea turtle, adult sea turtle. But particularly in the nesting/fledging season, boobies would have provided a fairly reliable food source when others failed, or when others were too difficult to procure.
If we assume – and this is, of course, pure conjecture – that the SL Feature was used by a single castaway, who was responsible for all the bird bones as well as the nearby fish, shellfish, and baby turtle remains, then we are surely looking at occupation at the site for a period of at least a month or so.
Sources:
Child, Peter
1960 Birds of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. Atoll Research Bulletin #74, Pacific Sciences Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington DC.
Collins, Sara
2011 Analysis of TIGHAR Faunal Materials. Manuscript, TIGHAR files.
Gupta, Anuradha
2007 Proposed Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Kiribati. Prepared for Birdlife International Pacific Partnership, Suva, Fiji.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Amelia Earhart, Meet Vasili Arkhipov
One thing I think all of us who work on the Earhart mystery regret – not only us Nikumaroro hypothesizers, but, I think everyone regardless of “theoretical” persuasion – is that we've missed opportunities to interview people involved in the 1937 events before they passed on to the Big Mystery in the sky. Another is our failure to copy pertinent documents before somebody tossed them or lost them or put them away where they can’t be found. We are forever shaking our heads and saying “if only…..”
Which brings me to the mystery of Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov. Arkhipov is described by some sources as first officer aboard the D-59, a Soviet submarine that was escorting cargo ships bound for Cuba in late October 1962; other sources say that he was actually in command of the four-sub squadron of which D-59 was a part. The ships the subs were escorting carried missiles for the launchers that Jack Kennedy had just revealed to the world. What Kennedy and his advisors didn’t know was that the D-59 carried a nuclear torpedo. On October 27 – just after Soviet gunners had shot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane over Cuba and another U-2 had wandered into Soviet airspace over Siberia – the U.S.S. Randolph’s destroyers, tasked to enforce the blockade of Cuba, began dropping depth charges to bring the U-59 to the surface for identification. Having been out of communication with his home base for several days, the U-59’s skipper, Valentin Savitsky, had no way of knowing that war had not broken out. He prepared to launch his nuclear torpedo at the Randolph.
Soviet rules of engagement required that to launch a nuclear weapon without direction from home, Captain Savitsky had to have the concurrence of the sub’s political officer and, in this case, Arkhipov. Arkhipov said “nyet.” With batteries running low, the D-59 surfaced, learned the score, and headed for home -- where its officers are said to have received less than a hero's welcome.
Had Arkhipov said “da,” presumably the Randolph would have been vaporized and World War III would have been off and running. It’s for this reason that a recent BBC documentary about Arkhipov calls him “the man who saved the world” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208342/Soviet-submariner-single-handedly-averted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html).
So what’s the mystery? The mystery, I think – a much more important one than that of “what happened to Amelia Earhart” – is, what made Arkhipov say no? What equipped him to reject the logic that Savitsky and the D-59’s political officer not unreasonably employed? What allowed him to overcome the respect for the captain’s decision that must have been part of his training? From what wellspring of wisdom did his calm, reasoned judgment call spring? What went through his head leading up to his “nyet?” There must be important lessons to be learned from Arkhipov’s story; lessons that ought to be studied in the world’s war colleges, military academies, and intelligence services.
When Arkhipov made his call, I was a 20-year old Seaman aboard U.S.S. Terrell County, in the far western Pacific. We deployed and spent a lot of time at battle stations, but none of us enlisted types had much idea why, and the events of the Missile Crisis have remained rather fuzzy for me. I only recently learned about Arkhipov, and was frankly amazed. Has nobody studied this guy’s history and psychology? Has no one written a book? An opera? Not in English, it seems, and my Ukrainian TIGHAR colleague Leonid Sagolovsky has checked Russian sources and tells me he’s not been much celebrated there either.
Arkhipov saved the world 25 years after Earhart disappeared. We’ve lost most of the people associated with Earhart’s life and loss, but there must still be lots of people alive and lucid who were associated with Arkhipov, with his training, with the D-59, and with his career on other ships (He was badly irradiated while foiling a reactor breach as XO on the K-19 in 1961, but survived until 1998, rising to the rank of vice admiral). His wife and daughter are still alive, and perhaps there are grandchildren to whom he told stories. There must be extensive relevant archives somewhere in the former Soviet Union. Somebody with top-notch credentials as an historian, with access to Russian sources, with good control of the Russian language, ought to be seeking a great big fat grant to research Arkhipov’s life and mind, and give us access to whatever it was that gave him the wisdom and courage to save us all, while memories and archives are still accessible.
We who try to follow Earhart across the wilderness of time know how important it is to ferret out documentation before it disappears, and to record recollections before they stop being recollected or become hopelessly distorted. I don’t know anyone with the credentials and contacts to learn more about Arkhipov, but I devoutly hope that someone is working on it. The rest of us, I suppose, ought to be lobbying our governments to make January 30 – Arkhipov’s birthday – an international day for grateful reflection.
Which brings me to the mystery of Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov. Arkhipov is described by some sources as first officer aboard the D-59, a Soviet submarine that was escorting cargo ships bound for Cuba in late October 1962; other sources say that he was actually in command of the four-sub squadron of which D-59 was a part. The ships the subs were escorting carried missiles for the launchers that Jack Kennedy had just revealed to the world. What Kennedy and his advisors didn’t know was that the D-59 carried a nuclear torpedo. On October 27 – just after Soviet gunners had shot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane over Cuba and another U-2 had wandered into Soviet airspace over Siberia – the U.S.S. Randolph’s destroyers, tasked to enforce the blockade of Cuba, began dropping depth charges to bring the U-59 to the surface for identification. Having been out of communication with his home base for several days, the U-59’s skipper, Valentin Savitsky, had no way of knowing that war had not broken out. He prepared to launch his nuclear torpedo at the Randolph.
Soviet rules of engagement required that to launch a nuclear weapon without direction from home, Captain Savitsky had to have the concurrence of the sub’s political officer and, in this case, Arkhipov. Arkhipov said “nyet.” With batteries running low, the D-59 surfaced, learned the score, and headed for home -- where its officers are said to have received less than a hero's welcome.
Had Arkhipov said “da,” presumably the Randolph would have been vaporized and World War III would have been off and running. It’s for this reason that a recent BBC documentary about Arkhipov calls him “the man who saved the world” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208342/Soviet-submariner-single-handedly-averted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html).
So what’s the mystery? The mystery, I think – a much more important one than that of “what happened to Amelia Earhart” – is, what made Arkhipov say no? What equipped him to reject the logic that Savitsky and the D-59’s political officer not unreasonably employed? What allowed him to overcome the respect for the captain’s decision that must have been part of his training? From what wellspring of wisdom did his calm, reasoned judgment call spring? What went through his head leading up to his “nyet?” There must be important lessons to be learned from Arkhipov’s story; lessons that ought to be studied in the world’s war colleges, military academies, and intelligence services.
When Arkhipov made his call, I was a 20-year old Seaman aboard U.S.S. Terrell County, in the far western Pacific. We deployed and spent a lot of time at battle stations, but none of us enlisted types had much idea why, and the events of the Missile Crisis have remained rather fuzzy for me. I only recently learned about Arkhipov, and was frankly amazed. Has nobody studied this guy’s history and psychology? Has no one written a book? An opera? Not in English, it seems, and my Ukrainian TIGHAR colleague Leonid Sagolovsky has checked Russian sources and tells me he’s not been much celebrated there either.
Arkhipov saved the world 25 years after Earhart disappeared. We’ve lost most of the people associated with Earhart’s life and loss, but there must still be lots of people alive and lucid who were associated with Arkhipov, with his training, with the D-59, and with his career on other ships (He was badly irradiated while foiling a reactor breach as XO on the K-19 in 1961, but survived until 1998, rising to the rank of vice admiral). His wife and daughter are still alive, and perhaps there are grandchildren to whom he told stories. There must be extensive relevant archives somewhere in the former Soviet Union. Somebody with top-notch credentials as an historian, with access to Russian sources, with good control of the Russian language, ought to be seeking a great big fat grant to research Arkhipov’s life and mind, and give us access to whatever it was that gave him the wisdom and courage to save us all, while memories and archives are still accessible.
We who try to follow Earhart across the wilderness of time know how important it is to ferret out documentation before it disappears, and to record recollections before they stop being recollected or become hopelessly distorted. I don’t know anyone with the credentials and contacts to learn more about Arkhipov, but I devoutly hope that someone is working on it. The rest of us, I suppose, ought to be lobbying our governments to make January 30 – Arkhipov’s birthday – an international day for grateful reflection.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Artifacts of the Seven Site: The Southeast Ferrous Feature
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)