Team closes in on Amelia Earhart

Ric Gillespie may be closer than anyone ever thought possible to solving one of the greatest mysteries of the 20th century.

But he still struggles to understand the complicated woman at the heart of it all.

Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Gillespie -- head of the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) -- in announcing a new expedition to solve the disappearance of famed aviator Amelia Earhart.

A worldwide celebrity and American heroine, Earhart, along with her navigator Fred Noonan, vanished in 1937 as they were trying to fly around the world.

There have been countless theories, but Gillespie and his team of researchers, archaeologists and crash investigators -- his own specialty -- believe they are close to solving the riddle.

"I'm a horseman, so we're on the back straight and coming to the wire," Gillespie reasons.

Even oceanographer Robert Ballard, who discovered the remains of the Titanic in 1985, says TIGHAR's research looks promising.

In July, Gillespie's team will set out on a 220-foot research vessel from Honolulu, and head toward the Phoenix Islands in Kiribati.

They believe there's compelling evidence Earhart may have landed in shallow waters near Nikumarro island, and an analysis of a photo taken in 1937 -- showing what could be a piece of mangled landing gear sticking from the surf -- could be the best spot to search.

During past searches, they've found other clues, including an eye-witness account of someone who saw wreckage as a little girl, bones that seem to be those of a woman castaway, bits of makeup and a camp site littered with the bones of countless birds, turtles and fish.

But the newly enhanced picture may lead them to the remains of the plane.

What they're looking for is an "any idiot artifact" -- the thing you hold up and any idiot will say, 'mystery solved'.

Gillespie has been chasing Earhart for decades -- at first not wanting any part of the search, because so many others had already tried.

But clue by clue, he and his team have built a case.

Around his office in Delaware, there are pictures of Earhart and Noonan that sit near a photo of Gillespie's granddaughter.

The flyer has become a part of his life.

But he seems surer of the trail they follow than the pilot they're searching for.

"I have struggled to understand this woman, " he says. "I still don't know who she was, but she's not the Amelia Earhart of legend.

"She's someone else."

The adventurer was among the biggest celebrities of her day. And she used that as currency.

During times when Americans had very little, she offered the clouds - an ambitious woman, Gillespie reasons, who mass-marketed the dream of flight.

"I don't know if I would have liked her very much," he admits, saying that's something he's never come out and said before.

But he knows she did well for aviation.

And he's found a certain connection, beyond the search.

Earhart knew headlines were the way to move forward onto the next great quest.

Standing with Clinton during the recent announcement - happy to have the attention on a project that demands a lot of money -- something came to mind.

"The uncomfortable realization that I do the same thing (as Earhart)," he says. "It gives new perspective on Amelia."

Though it doesn't help to know what her last moments were like -- some suggesting Noonan could have died during the crash.

If only she made it onto the island, with no antibiotics and in 37 C heat amid coconut crabs and isolation, experts say she could have lasted months. But drinkable water would have been limited and death certain.

Now a man who doesn't quite understand her may be the one to finally locate her.

But like the aviator, he knows no course is certain until you actually get there. 

Archaeophotography

In recent months I’ve found myself putting serious thought into artifact photography, or what I prefer to call archaeophotography.  I like the term archaeophotography because it can be used to include not just artifacts, but sites, excavation units, stratigraphic profiles, isolates, artwork, structures and pretty much anything else an archaeologist may encounter.  My thoughts have bounced from equipment to technique right round to photographic preservation and storage to the best books and websites on the subject.  Photo documentation is an essential part of the archaeological process and it is necessary that archaeologists have an understanding of how to effectively execute this step.  Over the course of the next few months, I plan to share what I’ve encountered in my time as an archaeologist and post my thoughts on a variety of subjects related to archaeophotography.  As always, I invite everyone to share their opinions in the comments section below.

First...

The. Most. Important. Thing.

Throughout my undergraduate studies my professors constantly instilled in me the importance of good photography skills.  Actually wait, that's a lie; it was never mentioned!  In fact, most of my friends who studied archaeology in college were not required to take any classes in photography.  The most important thing one must understand is that cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. Cameras are just a tool.  Knowing how to wield that tool is where the real power lies.

I find it upsetting that photography isn’t cold soldered into all Bachelors’ level archaeology programs.  If you’re still in college, I implore taking a photography course if it isn't already a part of your curriculum.  What better way to mark off your electives than with a course you will undoubtedly use?  If you’re beyond your college years, consider taking an adult education course or exploring online programs.

If you’ve taken a photography course and are familiar with how to use a camera, practice!  Consider the artifacts you encounter in your work and explore new ways of approaching them.  I spent the past month working with Iroquois pot sherds because I expect to encounter pottery on my next dig.  Through a process of trial and error I've devised new ways of lighting fragments with intricate patterns; techniques that I plan to employ in the future.  Its also good to familiarize yourself with all the buttons outside of the automatic setting.  Learn what aperture and shutter speeds are used for, two words that have been all but forgotten in the advent of digital cameras.

Search the web for suggestions on how to improve your archaeophotography skills.  Loads of other archaeobloggers are commenting on the subject, see what they have to say.

With that covered, I feel we can now move on to...

The Camera

Choosing a camera should be like choosing a trowel; you want to have something you’ll feel comfortable using every day.  A good camera doesn’t have to cost you a fortune, but it should suit your lifestyle.  I have at my disposal a Nikon FE and a Canon Rebel XTi.  While both are expensive cameras, they are necessary for the type of work I do.  To someone else the features of an SLR (single-lens reflex) camera may seem a bit excessive.

There seems to be a large consensus that believes SLR cameras are a dangerous choice for the field.  The reasoning behind that statement is that they are both expensive and bulky, which I agree.  You’ll find few organizations willing to put a $700 camera in the hands of their field crew.  SLRs are great in the safe and predictable setting of a lab.  But not all archaeophotography takes place in the lab.  Not every all finds can be dug out of the ground and carted off to be studied.  So do you risk toating a pricey piece of equipment out in to the field, or settle for something less?

From an employer stand point, the answer is to almost always settle for something less.  Most of the cameras I've encountered in the field have been Canon’s Powershot series.  Introduced in 1995, these point and shoot cameras make good field cameras because they are inexpensive and easy to operate.  They're not impervious to harm; rain, humidity, dust and dirt make a mess of their insides and I’ve seen at least one destroyed by an accidental steel-toed misstep.

To help solve that problem, this past month Olympus released their Stylus Tough cameras.  Billed as a high performance camera sturdy enough for the most extreme conditions, it immediately appealed to me.  Among its core features the camera shoots at 12 megapixels and boasts dual image stabilization and a 3.6x optical zoom.  It is also watertproof up to 33ft, freezeproof up to -10°C and is designed to withstand 220 pounds of pressure!  I imagined myself in the wilds of Africa, accidentally dropping it over the edge of the Great Rift Valley only to find it at the bottom of the canyon ready to shoot.  Okay, maybe that's a bit unrealistic.  At the very least its a camera I can expect will survive a tumble into a test unit.

Of course what is worse than not having a camera suited to the most extreme conditions?

Not having a camera at all.

There have been a number of instances when I’ve encountered some fantastic artifacts, but found myself sans camera.  Just this past week, a friend and local antiquities dealer found this artifact and wanted help determining what it was.  In cases like this I’ve relied on my BlackBerry Tour which, given adequate lighting, can take fantastic pictures.  I snapped a few photos of the artifact in question and when I found myself in a research setting, pulled up the photos on my phone and determined the artifact's true identity.  I’ve actually grown quite fond of using my BlackBerry in the field as well, something I probably wouldn't have said a year ago.  Here's why...

First of all, the quality of cameras on mobile phones are constantly improving.  Cameras on the most popular smartphones now average between 3 and 5 megapixels.  The camera on my own BlackBerry Tour has a 3.2 megapixel camera.  That will produce a printed image measuring 7” X 5”, perfect for site reports.  The camera also has a moderate level of customization; it allows me to control picture size, quality, adjust white balance, color effect and incorporate geotagging.  I’ve found geotagging to be especially helpful in those instances when I least expect to find something, be it a foundation in the woods or a projectile point on a desert trail.  I snap a picture, geotag it and then have the ability to relocate the find at a later date.

Another advantage of snapping with my BlackBerry is that I have the option of sending the photo off to any number of contacts in my address book for a second opinion.  This has proven indispensible when determining whether or not to bag and tag a sample.  I also have the option of uploading it to photosharing websites, like Flickr, for a much broader critiquing.  In the past few years, several archaeology groups have sprung up on Flickr (Sexy Archaeology, Archaeology in Action, Graffiti Archaeology) making it possible for archaeologists to network their photos.  I can also upload to sites like Twitter and Facebook, or MySpace if you're still trapped in 2005.  Smartphones skirt around the hassle of returning to the lab and uploading pictures via Bluetooth or USB.  In just a few clicks I can have my photo in the public realm without ever having left the dig site.  That saves me time and (potentially) my employer money.

Sure, the major downside of taking photos via this method is the vulnerability of the technology.  Most smart phones aren’t made to withstand the rugged archaeological lifestyle, but everything has its limits.  Even the Stylus Tough, I'm sure.  That's why I stress finding a camera that suits you and your lifestyle.  There are a million cameras out there so do your research.

Most importantly: know what you are doing!  Learn, practice and experiment because no amount of Photoshopping is going to save a picture if you are a bad photographer.