Rob Simpson’s Sites 1, 2 and 3
Queries and Answers
There have been queries over the 18 years I have had this project, and I will list some, with replies:
Q: Shipwrecks would be in water.
A: Several shipwrecks were reported high and dry in the Warrnambool sand dunes (hummocks) in the nineteenth century.
Q: You are not using aerial archaeology.
A: Allow one of the greatest pioneers of archaeology, Sir Leonard Woolley, to define aerial archaeology in his archaeological classic Digging Up the Past: ‘Nowadays air photographs bring to light masses of evidence invisible to one who stands upon the ground.’ That is precisely what I am doing.
Reference:
Woolley, L. (1930) Digging Up the Past. Penguin Books Ltd, Great Britain. (p. 28).
Q: Aerial archaeology is not a valid method for finding a shipwreck buried on land.
A: The confusion must result from the fact that aerial archaeology is not a suitable method for finding shipwrecks in the sea. However, the Mahogany Ship was not reported in the sea, but on land. (It would have been in the sea once, of course.) Aerial archaeology is a valid method for finding large, buried objects of all kinds on land and is used extensively for that purpose by archaeologists globally. Simply type in “aerial archaeology” to start finding all their sites.
Q: The shapes are too big for a sailing ship.
A: While the dimensions are somewhat larger than the average sailing ship, many of them were even larger. For example HMS Victory is 227 feet in length, whereas the hull of the anticipated buried shipwreck at Site 1 is about 145 feet in length.
Q: The shapes could be anything.
A: A buried shipwreck seems the most likely explanation. There is some evidence that there were shipwrecks at these locations. At Site 1 a symmetrical outline resembling a hull is visible from above. Furthermore, at the site itself the exact position of the anticipated hull presents as a hollow in the vegetation-covered sand.
Q: The literary evidence is just anecdotal evidence and therefore not valid.
A: Most unfortunately, it’s all we have. Sometimes you have to make the best of whatever you’ve got!
Q: You have not presented artefacts deriving from the supposed buried shipwreck from the surface of the site.
A: If a shipwreck was buried by wind-blown sand more than a century ago it would be very unlikely for artefacts associated with it to be found on the surface of the site today.
Q: What you have actually found would be rocks or discarded objects.
A: If so they seem, of their own volition, to have formed themselves into large, perfectly symmetrical shapes that resemble the hull of a ship and a separated top deck in the case of Site 1. In the case of Site 2 they have formed themselves into highly symmetrical shapes that match perfectly with the aerial images. I have proved this by measuring.
Q: The shapes don’t look like the exposed ribs of a wooden sailing ship.
A: That’s because we are looking from the top down. Viewed from the side a wrecked sailing ship might display the ribs, but viewed from above at some distance the shape of the hull and top deck would be revealed, hiding the ribs beneath.
Q: A shipwreck viewed from the air would look like the shape of a ship seen from the side as though you were standing at ground level.
A: Not necessarily. It would be more likely to look like the top deck of a ship as seen from directly above, unless it had keeled over completely.
Q: Your project is quirky.
A: I have seen a definition of “quirky” that says:
Unconventional, unpredictable, with unusual characteristics, but in a charming, interesting, and endearing way, not in a negative or off-putting manner. Traits, behaviours, or even appearance are original and unique, making them stand out from the norm in a positive and intriguing light.
Thanks for the compliment.