There can be no confidence that the “first marine” and “in situ” artefact scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia are in their primary archaeological context.
The absence of known prehistoric underwater cultural heritage (UCH) sites on the inner continental shelf of Australia stands in stark contrast to the thousands of sites revealed elsewhere in the world. Two recent claims – Dortch et al. (D2019) and Benjamin et al. (B2020) – put forward the first in situ (i.e., primary context) marine UCH sites in the shallow waters of the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia, each arguing the stone artefact scatters are at least 7000 years old and are now submerged because of post-glacial sea-level rise. From the data published in D2019 and B2020, we assess the explicit and implicit assumptions and uncertainties of these claims. We include new results of hydrodynamic modelling, new data on coastal erosion and new bathymetric data of northern Flying Foam Passage, leading to a reinterpretation of the archaeology and the sites' sedimentary settings.Whilst the presented lithic material of D2019 and B2020 clearly includes cultural artefacts, we find that the arguments for the sites being of primary context and reflecting early Holocene land surfaces do not stand up to scrutiny and that the available evidence is insufficient to establish the facts. In describing the assumptions and uncertainties in D2019 and B2020, we include example tests to help resolve them. On balance, it appears that these sites are intertidal, and many or all artefacts are likely to have been reworked. These and similar sites would benefit from a thorough appraisal of past and present coastal processes to produce a defensible understanding of site formation processes before it is possible to determine their true nature and significance, noting that, even as secondary sites, they would still inform our understanding of process and change. Such work would support more powerful contributions to submerged prehistory than attempts to seek the first, the earliest, the oldest or deepest.