John, maybe. Either way, it doesn't preclude the possibility of Wethered and Simpson's contention, does it?

Forrest, I'm not sure I understand your point in relation to the likelihood that man created bunkers via repeated play to a spot.

But your post did get me to think about the likelihood that golfers would have teed off from a concentrated area, increasing the probability that balls would have come to rest in the same spots.

The first rule of the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers' 13 rules of golf, circa 1744, reads:

1. You must Tee your Ball within a Club's length of the Hole.

I would guess the movement of the holes, and therefore the tees, was rather limited. So from day to day, there likely was a smaller dispersion of shots than today (with all the different tees and the daily repositioning of the hole). But more importantly, the teeing area would have been smaller back then than today. So, on any given day, in the olden days there likely was a smaller dispersion of where shots came to rest versus today.

In other words, in ancient times it was more likely that balls came to rest in the same spot -- enough to generate the repeated play necessary to wear out the turf!

Mark