Treasure Mountain, CO - Lost Frenchmens Gold

[UncleMatt]

Most aspen trees only live 50 or 60 years, in rare cases reaching 150. Their root system lives longer than what we see above ground.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[cyzak]

I always tried finding the rocks monuments they are the permanent markers the trees were always a problem. If there was something that was important they always had a second way of marking the trail such as rock by stacking up or maybe even a carving. The tough thing is we deal with granite in these mountains the boys down south in New Mexico have sandstone so they could do all kinds of things with it.

 

[sdcfia]

Most aspen trees only live 50 or 60 years, in rare cases reaching 150. Their root system lives longer than what we see above ground.

All aspens in a stand are connected by the same root system. The entire grove of trees is a single organism. That's how they spread and survive, as opposed to most other trees which grow independently and singly from seed. Even if an individual aspen tree happens to exceed 150 years, you've got to have a good-sized trunk to carve on in the first place (30 years, more or less?). Then, considering that the very large majority of trees never even reach 80 years, what are the chances of any aspen bark carving surviving from before about 1900 CE? Extremely slim, likely zero.

 

[UncleMatt]

Exactly

 

[cyzak]

The French had a big advantage in their explorations being at higher latitudes and having rivers to follow. This gave them easy access to water, lots of game to hunt, and significant additional natural food choices (nuts, berries, greens, etc) at certain areas along their routes, not to mention abundant forage for their livestock. Feeding the troops was critical when moving lots of men, animals and supplies through unsettled country. They did get starved out and had to retreat from Des Moines, but that was a military punitive operation in the dead of winter, with heavy resistance from the natives - not an organized steady journey. Compare these conditions with those of the Spanish mining ventures in the Southwest (mostly alleged, by the way, not documented), who had scant water, less game, fewer natural edibles and scarcer grass for the horses. When you look at it this way, the alleged Treasure Mountain expedition in the 1700s seems quite feasible. It seems to me that it would have been easier to make it work with, say, 50 men rather than 300. Think about those French trapping parties who worked the streams all over the Rockies. They traveled light, lived off the land (with the help of natives in some cases), amassed hundreds of pounds of fur pelts (which they cached in numerous locations to be recovered later). A placer mining operation would have been quite similar, it seems to me.

I see this has really gotten your attention you as well all the others are investing some time in this legend. I have invested a small amount of time in it also what I would like to ask you. And this is entirely up to you if do not want to answer the question is were do you think they built and deposited it.

 

[sdcfia]

I see this has really gotten your attention you as well all the others are investing some time in this legend. I have invested a small amount of time in it also what I would like to ask you. And this is entirely up to you if do not want to answer the question is were do you think they built and deposited it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were no caches in the mountains.

Why leave that hard-earned gold behind after all the work required to accumulate it? These southern Colorado mountains were in largely uncharted territory in the 1700s and it would have taken another full expedition just to return later and retrieve it. Instead, it seems much more likely to me that they would have loaded up all they could carry and gone back down river with their placer gold. Fifty men, let's say, carrying their gear, weapons, food, etc, could have added five/seven more pounds of placer gold each. This would have amounted to about 5,000 ounces total - $6 million in today's values. If it were me, I'd want my share now, not "maybe later."

Reportedly, there were people who were later looking for a cache of gold near Wichita on the Arkansas River. This could very well have been from the French "Treasure Mountain" party. If their ranks had been reduced by, say, Indian and other troubles on the return trip, the gold may have become too heavy to keep carrying, and some or all of it may have been abandoned. Wichita would have been about halfway back to the Mississippi River.

 

[cyzak]

Interesting I to believe it is not on that mountain area either I have slowly been working my way from that location over the years. I believe that most of the gold that they accumulated came form the Summitville area it is a very highly mineralized belt.

 

[Ryano]

Not particularly related to the Treasure Mtn legend (nor an attempt to debunk it) but I've done a bit of library reading on the Maxwell Land Grants and the stakeholders that financed the development of massive properties and have an observation or two. Hardy folk were needed and stories of rich gold mines or rivers of placer gold in the newspapers of the era were almost guaranteed to bring them in droves. The vast majority would not strike it rich and instead find themselves in the employ of Maxwell (later the English and Dutch companies and other magnates) working timber or mining in exchange for land or living quarters. I imagine this situation wasn't unique to that area of the West.

I haven't found any direct evidence yet that proves stories were deliberately "seeded" via business arrangement in the mid 1800's but I feel confident research into Hearst's newspaper empire (which came a bit later in the 1880's) will show this.

Any thoughts ?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Think that you are corect.

 

[sdcfia]

Not particularly related to the Treasure Mtn legend (nor an attempt to debunk it) but I've done a bit of library reading on the Maxwell Land Grants and the stakeholders that financed the development of massive properties and have an observation or two. Hardy folk were needed and stories of rich gold mines or rivers of placer gold in the newspapers of the era were almost guaranteed to bring them in droves. The vast majority would not strike it rich and instead find themselves in the employ of Maxwell (later the English and Dutch companies and other magnates) working timber or mining in exchange for land or living quarters. I imagine this situation wasn't unique to that area of the West.

I haven't found any direct evidence yet that proves stories were deliberately "seeded" via business arrangement in the mid 1800's but I feel confident research into Hearst's newspaper empire (which came a bit later in the 1880's) will show this.

Any thoughts ?

"Grow west, young man, and grow up with the country." You're probably right to some extent, especially after the big gold and silver successes in CA and NV. Those newspaper adventure stories often named people who were putting together big operations to exploit rich mines here and there. If you take the time to really dig into these things, you often can't verify that the people even existed. Rich mines, free land, good wages, etc were a big enticement for young poor men back East. At least WR Hearst came about his stories somewhat honestly, as his daddy got rich with gold mines.

 

[UncleMatt]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were no caches in the mountains.

Why leave that hard-earned gold behind after all the work required to accumulate it?

Perhaps due to the fact that more ore might be recovered and processed than could be carried back to Taos or Santa Fe in the same season. If the mine at Ventana was as rich as claimed, with 1.15 ounces of gold PER POUND of ore, you can easily see how a huge amount of gold could accumulate very quickly. And rather than leave it all in one place, it is much safer to spread it around in several locations.

Also, if they were recovering that kind of ore, they would have wanted to process it well away from the mine itself to try to prevent detection of its location. Smelting requires fire, which gives off smoke. Up there you can see and smell smoke for great distances. Which perhaps explains why they would have processed it a distance of "2 sleeps" away from the mine.

 

[UncleMatt]

Not particularly related to the Treasure Mtn legend (nor an attempt to debunk it) but I've done a bit of library reading on the Maxwell Land Grants and the stakeholders that financed the development of massive properties and have an observation or two. Hardy folk were needed and stories of rich gold mines or rivers of placer gold in the newspapers of the era were almost guaranteed to bring them in droves. The vast majority would not strike it rich and instead find themselves in the employ of Maxwell (later the English and Dutch companies and other magnates) working timber or mining in exchange for land or living quarters. I imagine this situation wasn't unique to that area of the West.

I haven't found any direct evidence yet that proves stories were deliberately "seeded" via business arrangement in the mid 1800's but I feel confident research into Hearst's newspaper empire (which came a bit later in the 1880's) will show this.

Any thoughts ?

It was common practice to use mining and lost treasure tales to draw in tourists and people to an area.

 

[sdcfia]

Perhaps due to the fact that more ore might be recovered and processed than could be carried back to Taos or Santa Fe in the same season. If the mine at Ventana was as rich as claimed, with 1.15 ounces of gold PER POUND of ore, you can easily see how a huge amount of gold could accumulate very quickly. And rather than leave it all in one place, it is much safer to spread it around in several locations.

Also, if they were recovering that kind of ore, they would have wanted to process it well away from the mine itself to try to prevent detection of its location. Smelting requires fire, which gives off smoke. Up there you can see and smell smoke for great distances. Which perhaps explains why they would have processed it a distance of "2 sleeps" away from the mine.

The French certainly would not have ventured into Taos, Santa Fe or anywhere else within the settled Spanish domain in the 18th century. There were severe restrictions (taxation, forced expulsion or prison) against foreign exploitation - trapping to begin with, later with trade commerce, and certainly with any mining that might occur. That's why an 18th-century French foray would have quietly come and gone from the east, where there were few if any Spanish. The Arkansas River was an obvious route.

I also doubt that a large, well-equipped lode mining venture would be capable of avoiding detection in southern Colorado at the time. A smaller expedition force, yes - especially one that found rich placer that could be easily recovered in a much more low-tech, low-profile way. It makes sense to me that this was the case. A scouting mission that unexpectedly lucked out. The alternative - a planned mining venture - implies that such a group would have had prior knowledge of where to go and what would be needed. Possible, I guess, but very risky odds for them.

The Ventana - another "what if" legend.

 

[cyzak]

What is puzzling to me is the amount of men that is claimed to been on this expedition that would have a big foot print in the wood most towns back then did not have a population that big.

 

[UncleMatt]

I doubt the veracity of the French story of Treasure Mountain.

 

[sdcfia]

I doubt the veracity of the French story of Treasure Mountain.

I doubt the story as written too (as I do with all well-known legends), but mdog has provided some compelling documentation that the French were up to something in southern CO in the 1700s, and the French Jesuits were curious about gold in that country in those days. Together with the searches for an unexplained significant gold cache near Wichita on the Arkansas River, I'll reconcile it all as earlier stated in Posts#446 & 453 - a small party that found virgin placer deposits. Of course, I could be wrong, and I'd change my stance if new information surfaced.

 

[UncleMatt]

As would I

 

[UncleMatt]

The French certainly would not have ventured into Taos, Santa Fe or anywhere else within the settled Spanish domain in the 18th century. There were severe restrictions (taxation, forced expulsion or prison) against foreign exploitation - trapping to begin with, later with trade commerce, and certainly with any mining that might occur. That's why an 18th-century French foray would have quietly come and gone from the east, where there were few if any Spanish. The Arkansas River was an obvious route.

I also doubt that a large, well-equipped lode mining venture would be capable of avoiding detection in southern Colorado at the time. A smaller expedition force, yes - especially one that found rich placer that could be easily recovered in a much more low-tech, low-profile way. It makes sense to me that this was the case. A scouting mission that unexpectedly lucked out. The alternative - a planned mining venture - implies that such a group would have had prior knowledge of where to go and what would be needed. Possible, I guess, but very risky odds for them.

The Ventana - another "what if" legend.

I was referring to the people exploiting the Ventana Mine, not the Treasure Mountain story. And until you have been up there as I have you don't really get a real feel for the scale of the landscape involved, and how easy it is to hide things up there. I cache freeze dried food up there along with burner fuel and tools, and no one ever finds it or touches it.

 

[sdcfia]

I was referring to the people exploiting the Ventana Mine, not the Treasure Mountain story. And until you have been up there as I have you don't really get a real feel for the scale of the landscape involved, and how easy it is to hide things up there. I cache freeze dried food up there along with burner fuel and tools, and no one ever finds it or touches it.

I don't doubt it, but it's easy to hide things in a lot of places in the mountains, and many other places too. One of the go-to arguments in support of the existence of a "lost mine", failing reliable evidence, of course, is that it's lost because it hasn't been found yet. This kind of circular argument keeps people wandering in circles.

 

[UncleMatt]

It sure does. I have no idea if ANY of that stuff exists up there or not, but I have a blast looking for it