WEST KIMBERLEY PLACE REPORT - Department of Sustainability ...

Very little work has been done at the site of Careening Bay. A search of relevant
databases and journals for any record of archaeological fieldwork undertaken at the
site came up with the one result; a report entitled Wreck Inspection North Coast
(WINC). In this report Sledge (1978) noted that the boab tree, known as the 'Mermaid
Tree', still existed and its inscription is still readily identifiable. He also located the
fresh water pools King describes in his journal. However, no other archaeological
evidence is recorded. In his visit to the site of Careening Bay in 1993, Hordern (1997)
noted the presence of the 'Mermaid Tree'. He also stated that, while he actively
searched for the copper sheet and the tree it had been nailed to, he was unable to find
evidence for either.
The Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (December 2009 newsletter)
reported that no work had been completed by the Department of Maritime
Archaeology, along the Kimberley coast, since the 1978 WINC report. The
Department of Maritime Archaeology (DMA) at the Western Australian Museum,
confirmed this (J Green pers. comm. and R Anderson pers. comm. March 2010).
Susan Cox, also from the DMA, similarly confirmed that there was no known
archaeological evidence for the Mermaid or her crew at Careening Bay, apart from the
'Mermaid Tree' (S Cox pers. comm. March 2010). Ross Anderson also claimed that
recent fieldwork undertaken by the DMA in the Kimberley area did not include any
investigation of this site in any further detail.
Thus, while there is known archaeological evidence for the careening of the Mermaid
and her crew at Careening Bay, due to the continued existence of the 'Mermaid Tree',
the necessary fieldwork has not been undertaken to ascertain the existence of other
possible archaeological remains, such as refuse pits/areas, lost or discarded personal
items, the copper sheet which could be expected near where the camp was located,
and evidence for the repair of the ship itself, in this case a stone forge, charcoal and
decayed iron nails, might still exist.
The assessment guidelines (Australian Heritage Council 2009) for criterion (c) state
that for a site to be considered of outstanding significance, it must have the
demonstrable potential to yield information, not just the possibility. It is not enough to
identify that there may be archaeological evidence at Careening Bay and what form it
could take. As stated above, the necessary fieldwork has not been undertaken to
establish the existence of the archaeological remains that could potentially yield
further information. As such, the site of Careening Bay is below threshold under
criterion (c).
The assessment guidelines for criterion (c) also state that the potential information
offered by a site must make a contribution of national importance. It should offer a
greater understanding of one or more periods in the history of Australians or ways of
life or cultures characteristic of Australia. Even if the necessary fieldwork was
undertaken at Careening Bay and the archaeological evidence as described above was
uncovered, it is unlikely this evidence would offer any greater insight into the period
of the nineteenth century or the lives of maritime explorers. Many such individuals
kept detailed journals and as much, if not more information can be gained from these.
There are also a number of other sites with known archaeological evidence of a
similar nature from around this period. For instance, at Endeavour River (present day
Cooktown) in Queensland, Cook careened the Endeavour for repairs. At this site coal,
156