Recovery of electra by Koshu
Crash landing at Mili atoln
http://earhartonsaipan.blogspot.ca/
The Nikumaroro bones identification controversy: First-hand examination versus evaluation by proxy — Amelia Earhart found or still missing?
Highlights
- •
- The 1940 British investigation of possible Amelia Earhart remains concludes that the bones were a man's.
- •
- A 1998 paper suggests that the 1940 analysis is wrong and the bones are possibly consistent with Earhart's.
- •
- We critically review the 1998 and 1940 papers — 1940 British conclusions appear robust.
- •
- Evaluation of the 1998 cranial analysis shows that 4 measurements were unable to identify ethnicity/sex.
- •
- Available evidence supports that the Nikumaroro bones are most likely a robust male's, not Amelia Earhart's.
Abstract
American
celebrity aviator Amelia Earhart was lost over the Pacific Ocean during
her press-making 1937 round-the-world flight. The iconic woman pilot
remains a media interest nearly 80 years after her disappearance, with
perennial claims of finds pinpointing her location. Though no sign of
the celebrity pilot or her plane have been definitively identified,
possible skeletal remains have been attributed to Earhart. The partial
skeleton was recovered and investigated by British officials in 1940.
Their investigation concluded that the remains were those of a stocky,
middle-aged male. A private historic group re-evaluated the British
analysis in 1998 as part of research to establish Gardner (Nikumaroro)
Island as the crash site. The 1998 report discredited the British
conclusions and used cranial analysis software (FORDISC) results to
suggest that the skeleton was potentially a Northern European woman, and
consistent with Amelia Earhart. A critical review of both
investigations and contextual evidence shows that the original British
osteological analyses were made by experienced, reliable professionals,
while the cranial analysis is unreliable given the available data.
Without access to the missing original bones, it is impossible to be
definitive, but on balance, the most robust scientific analysis and
conclusions are those of the original British finding indicating that
the Nikumaroro bones belonged to a robust, middle-aged man, not Amelia
Earhart.
Keywords
- Palaeopathology;
- Forensic analysis;
- Cranial analysis;
- CRANID;
- Osteology;
- Human identification;
- Female airplane pilots;
- D.W. Hoodless;
- Nikumaroro skeleton
1. Introduction
Forensic
and palaeopathological investigations of historical individuals often
fascinate both the scientific community and the general public. The Journal of Archaeological Science, British Medical Journal, Scientific American, and Journal of Forensic Sciences
have all published articles using physical anthropological methods to
identify historic individuals such as Egil Skallagrimsson, Armstrong
Custer, John Paul Jones, and Adolf Hitler ( Byock, 1995, Hardarson and Snorradottira, 1996, Marchetti et al., 2005, Rogers et al., 2004, Weinstein, 2005 and Willey and Scott, 1999).
These articles, and other research, use expertise in osteology,
taphonomic processes and palaeopathology to re-evaluate actual skeletal
remains or published descriptions of remains to assign personal
identity. This paper continues that tradition by evaluating two reports
with contrasting findings regarding the identification of a set of
skeletal remains as possibly those of the missing American celebrity
pilot Amelia Earhart.
Earhart,
one of the first female airplane pilots and a celebrity of the early
20th century, disappeared with her navigator, Fred Noonan, during their
attempt to circumnavigate the world in 1937 (Adler, 2015 and Long and Long, 2000).
Amelia Earhart and her contemporary, Charles Lindbergh, were the
glamorous faces of the 1930s Age of Aviation, and her status as an
American icon was already well in the making when she and Noonan began
their record-breaking journey around the world's equator. They never
made that last record. Instead they became legends, when, after one
last, brief radio message, they and their plane disappeared in the
mid-Pacific. Today, the bright red Lockheed Vega Earhart flew solo
across the Atlantic in 1932 flies in the Smithsonian galleries, a
reminder and symbol of both her disappearance and her enduring fame.
On
June 29th 1937, after flying some 20,000 miles, Earhart and Noonan
began the last, most dangerous portion of their round-the-world flight.
Between them and California was 7000 miles of the vast, remote Pacific.
Leaving Lae, New Guinea, their first refuelling stop was the tiny, two
mile by one mile Howland Island 2556 miles (4113 km) away. Balancing
flight conditions, speed, altitude and navigation were crucial and
difficult. The plane left overloaded with the fuel necessary to make the
long flight and soon after take-off the expected headwind speed
increased dramatically from 15 to over 26 mph. Sporadic radio conditions
plagued communication, but still indicated they were on course for
Howland shortly before Earhart's last message saying they were nearly
out of fuel. The US Coast Guard vessel waiting near Howland to help
guide them in never sighted the plane. Extensive search efforts were
made by the Coast Guard and Navy without success. Two years later, with
no signs of the lost flight, Earhart and Noonan were declared dead (Gillespie and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2006 and Long and Long, 2000).
Given
the dramatic life and disappearance of Amelia Earhart, it's not
surprising that the fate of that lost flight continues to intrigue.
Books, papers, articles and television programmes continue to speculate
on the fate of the missing aviators and their plane. Theories abound
from expert research to the most dubious of conspiracy theories and have
produced films, articles and books (Adler, 2015, Aron, 2005, Burns et al., 1998, Fox, 2011, Griffiths, 2014, King, 2009, King and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2004, Long and Long, 2000, Lorenzi, 2012 and Mendelsohn, 2012).
The discovery of a partial skeleton on Nikumaroro, a small atoll of the
Phoenix Islands about 300–400 miles from Howland Island seemed
particularly significant (Burns et al., 1998 and King and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2004).
British officials treated the discovery seriously and had the remains
analysed in 1940. The medical official, Dr. D. W. Hoodless, concluded
that the skeleton belonged to a stocky, middle-aged man and the
investigation was dropped. Records of this investigation were found by
researchers of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery
(TIGHAR) in the late 1990s, including the osteological report and
examination notes by Dr. D. W. Hoodless.
In
1998, a paper by TIGHAR and two forensic anthropologists re-examining
the identification of the Nikumaroro skeleton was presented at the
American Anthropological Association (AAA) annual convention (Burns et al., 1998).
The paper was highly critical of the original British analysis and,
with caveats, suggested that the skeleton was more likely to have
belonged to a European woman, consistent with Earhart. Aspects of the
AAA paper are problematic, and following a brief summary of the
historical context of the Nikumaroro skeleton investigation, the authors
evaluate the Burns et al. (1998) critique and conclusions.
The
following summary of the British recovery and analysis of the bones
from Nikumaroro is based on primary documentation from the Republic of
Kiribati National Archives and Western Pacific High Commission archives (Burns et al., 1998 and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2011b).
In September 1940, British colonial administrator Gerald B. Gallagher
discussed with various officials the discovery of a skull, bones,
woman's shoe and sextant box which he felt might belong to the missing
Amelia Earhart. These communications noted the c. 1930 wreck of the
ship, “Norwich City,” (which lost eleven crew members,
including Europeans) and recovery of some survivors from Nikumaroro.
They also gave details of the remains and the deposition site. On the
basis of the shoe, Gallagher suggested the skeleton might be female and
therefore possibly Earhart's. Gallagher listed the bones recovered, but
declined to suggest the sex of the skeleton, saying an expert was
required ( Gallagher, 1940d).
Central Medical Authority, Dr. Duncan C. M. Macpherson, concluded that
Gallagher's evidence was insufficient to identify or exclude the bones
as belonging to Mrs. Putnam. He recommended that the bones be sent to
the University of Sydney Anatomical Department or Fiji (Central Medical
School) for further examination ( Macpherson, 1940).
The remains were shipped to Suva (Fiji) via the R.C.S. “Nimanoa.”
On board they were examined by Dr. Lindsay Isaac, acting Senior Medical
Officer “in charge of Medical and forensic investigation throughout the
whole colony” ( Isaac, 1941a).
Isaac examined the material and identified the remains as belonging to
an “elderly male of Polynesian race,” and adding, “the bones have been
in sheltered position for upwards of 20 years and possibly much longer” (
Isaac, 1941b). Isaac also noted that some of the bones crumbled during transport.
At the Central Medical School (CMS), the bones were examined by Hoodless (1941).
Hoodless concluded that the remains most likely belonged to a c. 5' 5
1/2" stocky male of European or mixed European ancestry, probably
between 45–55 years old. Upon receipt of the Hoodless report, Macpherson
concluded that the remains were not those of Amelia Earhart and the
case was closed without further action.
2. Examining the original analysis and counter claims
The
re-examination of archaeological skeletal remains is undertaken on a
regular basis. Different examiners bring different specialisms and
perspectives, and new analytical techniques are developed offering new
data for interpretation. Sometimes new examinations confirm old
conclusions and sometimes they radically alter the old interpretation.
In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, the skeletal evidence was lost
during World War II. Subsequent attempts to trace the bones indicate
that they were moved to Australia, probably Sydney, but no further
evidence has been found. Despite the lack of the original bones, TIGHAR
felt a re-examination of the reports and data using modern expertise
might suggest different conclusions. Using the materials gathered by
TIGHAR researchers, Burns et al. (1998)
produced a paper re-analysing the case with two aims: evaluating Dr.
Hoodless' competence, and applying new techniques to the data provided
in Dr. Hoodless' papers. The Burns et al. (1998)
paper accepts Hoodless' conclusion that the bones represented an
individual too short to be Noonan, but challenged the overall findings
that the bones represented a c. 65 inch, 45–55 year old stocky male of
European or mixed-European heritage.
In
particular, the paper challenges Hoodless regarding his anatomical
expertise and his methods for estimating stature. Towards the second
aim, Burns et al. (1998)
reinterpret Dr. Hoodless' cranial metric data using the statistical
software FORDISC to produce a result supposedly indicating that the
skull was most similar to Norse females. The paper concludes, with
caveats, that the Nikumaroro bones appear consistent with the missing
Earhart. Subsequent references tend to lose the caveats.
2.1. Hoodless' medical and osteological expertise
“Skeletal
measurements taken over 55 years ago by a now-deceased individual of
unknown expertise, with no description of the methods or assumptions
employed, must be used with great caution” (Burns et al., 1998 and King and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2004).
The function of this statement appears simply to label Hoodless as not
competent to assess or measure a human skeleton. However, even basic
research reveals a great deal about Hoodless' expertise, all of which
underscores his competence. King et al. (2004:260–262) makes it clear that TIGHAR researched Hoodless' background.
Dr. David W. Hoodless (1887–1955)
was not some ‘individual of unknown expertise’ asked to evaluate a
partial skeleton on a whim. As is obvious from the communications
referenced earlier, the British thought the remains might belong to
Earhart or Noonan and considered their identification an important
issue. Hoodless, chosen to make the assessment, was the Principal of the
Central Medical School (CMS) in Fiji (Fig. 1).
At his death, the British Medical Journal described Hoodless (BSC,
LMSSA) as a respected medical teacher and principal (1955). He completed
his medical degree in 1935, having been teaching at the CMS since 1929.
Hoodless taught theoretical/practical anatomy and physiology (CMS was
known for dissection and skeletal analysis), and also did pathological
lab work and clinical practice (Guthrie, 1979, King and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), 2004 and Robertson, 1991).
He could also be described as a practising cultural anthropologist.
Hoodless was active in native communities as a doctor and collected
information about Fijian beliefs and practices, particularly regarding
disease and health (Guthrie, 1979:23–5).
While Hoodless was obviously not trained as a modern forensic
anthropologist, his background indicates he was perfectly competent to
assess sex, age, body type, and ancestry of a human skeleton.
