I am extremely interested in the ways in which modern science cannot tell us about our past. Take, for example, a recent boat wreck rediscovery off the coast of Alabama. The wreck has so far been identified as either the Rachel (wrecked in 1933) or the Monticello (wrecked during the Civil War). Of course, further study may reveal more possibilities for identification. The wreck was originally half-buried in sand off the coast and was then (or this is my understanding from the poor wording ofthe article, but that’s another story) thrown further on shore by recent storm systems.
Now, both boats were schooners that did wreck in that general area at about the appropriate time. So the shape of the ships themselves would probably be somewhat similar. Still, there are small things that would probably lead to the identification of one boat or the other. One expert mentions steel cables, which the wreck may or may not have, as possible only for the later ship. Also there should be some apparent burning on the Civil-War era boat, which supposedly was burning as it ran aground. Still, Museum of Mobile marine archaeologist Shea McLean says “You can never be 100 percent certain unless you find the bell with ‘Monticello’ on it, but this definitely fits.” Ok. How about reasonably sure? How about even more than half sure? Do I hear 55%?
I can understand some hesitation on the part of the experts to make faulty claims when they have not yet had a real opportunity to understand and investigate the wreckage, so I’m perfectly hapy to wait for some real results. I also agree that the wreck should be moved and protected as quickly as possible, especially after one strom flung it right up on shore from being half-buried. Still, the idea of another storm sending the wreck flying “through those houses there like a bowling ball” amuses me. But I’ll leave the current shipwreck flying jargon in the hands of the experts.