Talk:Geelong Keys

Can we have a map of it's geographical location inserted somewhere? It is not a well known area, so people may like to know where it's located. Tonyxc600 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geelong Keys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070901210318/http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/exhibitions/history/xaustcat.html to http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/exhibitions/history/xaustcat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Charles La Trobe and the Geelong Keys" by Murray Johns

I found this article just now, printed in the Victorian Historical Journal Vol. 85, No. 2, December 2014.[1] He concludes:

"The story of the ‘Geelong Keys’ is largely attributable to La Trobe and his misunderstandings....He failed to understand the fundamental relationship between the shell-bed and the underlying limestone in the area. On the basis of what Boucher had told him, he assumed that the shells and the keys had been dislodged from the wall of the excavation, at about head-height, or about three metres above sea level. In fact, they were found at the bottom of the hole, where the excavation intercepted the shell-bed overlying the limestone, about 1.5 metres above sea level. La Trobe wrongly assumed that the keys were as old as the shells, whereas we now know that the age of the shells has nothing to do with the age of the keys. La Trobe discounted his own observations about the apparent age of the keys (their modern appearance, with little rust) and tried to reconcile those observations with his idea of a geological timescale in years, which was grossly in error."

"Rawlinson’s error was in thinking that the shell-bed he had seen in the cliff nearby (as in the photograph) was what La Trobe had seen in the wall of the excavation. Gill made the same mistake in 1985 with his diagram of the geological section. Both Rawlinson and Gill perpetuated that aspect of La Trobe’s misunderstanding, which is now clarified for the first time."

"were dropped at the bottom of an open excavation by someone who walked into it in 1847, as La Trobe had done. The keys were probably discovered only a few hours or days after being dropped there,"

There's a lot more detail and comments about other writers, but I can't copy it here as it would be copyvio. The article needs a major rewrite in the light of this paper. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for locating this Doug - Murray Johns' research looks very useful, as was his contribution to the Mahogany Ship legend. Nickm57 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)