Kidd-Palmer Treasure Maps SOLVED by Oliver D. Smith

[Bocaj]

If you try to prove a direct link between the RI and the Palmer maps it would be a great but very difficult task. It is of course the simplest and most probable theory so far but probability and simplicity are not the same as a prove.

So far just be comparing both charts I can see a almost complete symmetry in argumentation of what is original and what copy. It means the differences can be explained from both assumptions. I still have a hard time with the explanation of a public link. Means that the publicly available print of the RI map was used as a base for the hoax. Who in their right mind would risk exposure using a map of a popular book? The fact that the map was only printed in the limited RI version would hardly be known to the hoaxer! I therefore try to find personal links between Tracy and Cutler.

 

[Randawg72]

The map appeared in the 1903 first edition. I already proved this here. Even if you bizarrely refuse to accept this, I will soon own a 1910 reprint with the map and 1910 print date (predating 1917 by seven years). I will post a photograph in this thread by the end of the month.

Anyone can write dates in a book. Proof cannot be subjective Mr Smith.
I will watch for your pics of the 1910 dated reprint.

 

[Bocaj]

Anyone can write dates in a book. Proof cannot be subjective Mr Smith.
I will watch for your pics of the 1910 dated reprint.

Please do state things correctly: He got a first edition (red ink). The book itself doesn't show a date that's why it has been added by a pen. I am sure he will present the 1910 map but even the rest is older then the published Palmer maps so there can be no doubt that the RI map has not been copied from the Palmer maps after their discovery. That said it is not totally excluded (here I differ from cryptid) that the Palmer maps (their source) predate the RI map. Their discovery was certainly a hoax but it doesn't mean that hey were created for the hoax.

As I wrote before my best guess is that they were earlier sketches for the RI or some other story. I do not have any prove of this so it is pure speculation...

 

[Carl-NC]

As I wrote before my best guess is that they were earlier sketches for the RI or some other story.

Tracy died in 1928. Didn't the Palmer-Kidd maps materialize around this time? I wonder if these maps came from Tracy's estate, as you say they were early sketches in the developmental process of the story. Someone got a hold of them and turned them into a money-making opportunity. It's also important to keep in mind the the Great Depression began in 1929, which may have played a major role in creating the hoax.

 

[Bocaj]

Tracy died in 1928. Didn't the Palmer-Kidd maps materialize around this time? I wonder if these maps came from Tracy's estate, as you say they were early sketches in the developmental process of the story. Someone got a hold of them and turned them into a money-making opportunity. It's also important to keep in mind the the Great Depression began in 1929, which may have played a major role in creating the hoax.

Actually my guess is M.P.Shiel not Tracy created those charts. His books in contrast with Tracy repeat nautical topics and most of all islands. He did co-write books under Tracy's name around the time when RI was first published. There is a high probability that Tracy just rewrote an unpublished manuscript which had no further use for Shiel. I do not think Shiel wrote RI but most certainly collaborated on it with the island idea coming from him.

Shiel’s Collaborators II: Louis Tracy (1863-1928)

Shiel separated from his wife around 1929 and had to sell his furniture - one can see what happened next. He also wrote stories with hidden compartments in furniture - more coincidences. Somehow I just wait for "Pamela Hardy" to pop up as his friend around that time...

 

[Cryptid1990]

A few corrections to my earlier comments on two Rainbow Island reprints (1910, 1930):

Reprint by London: The Romance Book Club, 1910; dust jacket.
The Romance Book Club frequently partnered with Ward, Lock & Co. in London.
"London: Ward, Lock & Co" appears on the publication or copyright page, alongside a "Romance Book Club Edition" imprint.

This was an error by the book seller. The book was incorrectly described as a reprint by The Romance Book Club. It is possible that the confusion was caused by the bookstore's inventory using a genre heading like"Romance Book". I can confirm, the 1910 reprint, was in fact by Ward, Lock & Company (see below) since the book arrived in my post today.

Reprint by A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1930; colour pictorial dust jacket.

Another error by the book seller possibly an algorithmic glitch when the book was listed for sale on AbeBooks. The 1930 reprint was by Ward, Lock & Company. There was only a single publisher of Rainbow Island that published the first edition (1903) and all reprints between 1904 and 1953: Ward, Lock & Company (excluding the rare collected works [4 vol.] of Louis Tracy 1904-1907).

The RI map indisputably appears in the 1910 reprint (note the print year is on the title page):

The Rainbow Island map appears between pages 16 and 17:

This is different to the post-1910 reprints (in those, the RI map appears on earlier pages).

 

[Randawg72]

Please do state things correctly: He got a first edition (red ink). The book itself doesn't show a date that's why it has been added by a pen.

Hi Bocaj,
How does an altered title page without a pic of the map in question prove anything?
(PS: .. I almost always do state things correctly. 😉)

 

[Cryptid1990]

Hi Bocaj,
How does an altered title page without a pic of the map in question prove anything?
(PS: .. I almost always do state things correctly. 😉)

Can you confirm/deny if you bought that (first edition) copy? It does not help someone has been in competition with me to buy all copies of Rainbow Island. Unlike me, the rival buyer is not actually doing anything useful with the copies - they are not scanning and uploading pages including the RI map to assist with research. It is also frustrating the rival buyer will not share a photograph or digital scan of the map from the first edition (1903). Had I purchased it, I would done this like the 1910, 1917 and later 1920s reprints I have already scanned and uploaded. This means we cannot examine the map in the first edition and compare it with reprints. An unfortunate situation to say the least.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Something I recently realised about the Yunnan Parchment. As I earlier noted:

In 1940 (or 1942?), Hubert Palmer was sold the 'Yunnan Parchment' by Arthur Cutler; the parchment came with an oak framed mirror with the words 'Yunnan Island' made by pin-holes. Wilkins (1942) described the parchment as follows: "Palmer found (as he wrote me): An arrow on the top of the frame of the looking-glass, pointing upwards from a Death's Head and crossbones, inlaid with small diamonds and the initials 'W. K.' On the back of the mirror another arrow pointed downwards to a slight bulge in the vellum backing. The bulge, slit open, revealed, first, a wooden fragment scored with perforated letters reading 'Island.' Behind the wood was a bit of screwed-up parchment, looking [like a vellum, duodecimo book]."

Wilkins (1942) translated the first line:

"... [South] China Sea. 4th Map."

The unambiguous two lines read:

"2 ft [feet] deep at the back of the cave [or cove] in cliff under ledge on left side."
W. K. [William Kidd]"

There have been numerous other suggestions of what the text reads on the first line.

Howlett (1958) translated the first line:

"Sh [South] China Sea 4th Near."

Edmunds (1996, 2016) translation:

"Sh [South] China Sea 4th N&at [North and at]"

Finally, Bath (2013) suggested an epsilon.

Let us take a look at the last words of the first line:

I translate this as:

"4 ° N Lat [latitude]"

This seems to be the correct reading. There is no "th" after the 4 but a degree symbol. There is a capital N (for North) and Lat (Latitude). Note that 4 ° N latitude marks the southernmost boundary of China's (disputed) maritime territory, passing through Spratly Islands region.

 

[Bocaj]

my interpretation was always:

Sh China Sea 4th Neat
2 Fts Deep at Back of Cove in
Cliff under Ledge on left side
W.K.

it is clearly a short of 'th'
and the 't' is clearly written in both this and the 'Neat'

It means the 4th part of the treasure - with 3/4 of it overall value being goods and only 1/4 gold and precious stones as the "Neat" part - this is how I read it at least.

 

[Bocaj]

my interpretation was always:

Sh China Sea 4th Neat
2 Fts Deep at Back of Cove in
Cliff under Ledge on left side
W.K.

it is clearly a short of 'th'
and the 't' is clearly written in both this and the 'Neat'

It means the 4th part of the treasure - with 3/4 of it overall value being goods and only 1/4 gold and precious stones as the "Neat" part - this is how I read it at least.

 

[Cryptid1990]

my interpretation was always:
it is clearly a short of 'th'
and the 't' is clearly written in both this and the 'Neat'

It means the 4th part of the treasure - with 3/4 of it overall value being goods and only 1/4 gold and precious stones as the "Neat" part - this is how I read it at least.

Compare the letter after N to the "e"s in the second line (Deep) and third line (ledge / left / left / side):

The "e"s in the second and third line all look different and are considerably shorter.

So after N in the first line it is more probable to be "l" than an "e".

 

[Bocaj]

View attachment 2260120

Compare the letter after N to the "e"s in the second line (Deep) and third line (ledge / left / left / side):

View attachment 2260125View attachment 2260126View attachment 2260127
The "e"s in the second and third line all look different and are considerably shorter.

So after N in the first line it is more probable to be "l" than an "e".

The 'e' letters vary a lot but they all have a top loop in them. There is no other letter with that loop besides the 'l' (left) and 'h' (like in the '4th'). The other 'e's are smaller because they follow a letter ending in a low stroke while the 'N' in 'Neat' stops high. to start the 'e' you need to lower the pen too much - the result is an elongated 'e'.
It is clearly no 'i' (compare with 'side' 'in' 'Cliff')
'l' would be too small but even if it is not Lat as it would be 'L' following the style of rest.

I think its quite neatly written! I would advice to take it as it is and not to adapt facts to your theory...

 

[Cryptid1990]

The 'e' letters vary a lot but they all have a top loop in them. There is no other letter with that loop besides the 'l' (left) and 'h' (like in the '4th'). The other 'e's are smaller because they follow a letter ending in a low stroke while the 'N' in 'Neat' stops high. to start the 'e' you need to lower the pen too much - the result is an elongated 'e'.
It is clearly no 'i' (compare with 'side' 'in' 'Cliff')
'l' would be too small but even if it is not Lat as it would be 'L' following the style of rest.

I think its quite neatly written! I would advice to take it as it is and not to adapt facts to your theory...

I have to respectfully disagree. The way to interpret the parchment is contextual reading. Making the first line as "4th Near" or "4th Neat" means it is functionally gibberish and does not explain the writer's intent. "South China Sea 4th Neat" provides no actionable starting point for someone searching for a specific cliff/cave/ledge. In other words, "4th Neat" does not match the geographical or navigational context of the parchment. "Sh [South] China Sea, 4° N Lat" in contrast makes the most sense based on contextual logic and is supported by Occam's Razor. South China Sea, 4° N Lat is a precise navigational line. On a parchment that is clearly directing someone to a specific location (a cave, a cliff, and a ledge) in the (southern) China Sea, having a starting coordinate makes the most logical sense. Also, there is a distinct circle denoting the degree symbol (°), however, the handwriting is messy and ° is part a scribble. I cannot see "th"; enlarge this part of the first line:

The parchment itself is part of the wider Kidd-Palmer map hoax, so there is no real cave to dig; but the hoaxer was trying to dupe people into believing there was something hidden or buried 2 feet deep at the back of a cave on an island in the southern China Sea. It can hardly be a coincidence that in Rainbow Island, there is the following line:

Measure thirty-two feet from the mouth of the tunnel, dig one foot in depth, and you came upon the mother-lode of this gold-bearing rock. This, then, was the secret of the cave.

 

[Carl-NC]

How does an altered title page without a pic of the map in question prove anything?

If it turns out (and it probably will) that the 1903 1st ed contains the map, how will that change your perspective on the KP maps compared to knowing it's definitely in the 1910 edition and even in the 1904 edition?

 

[Cryptid1990]

If it turns out (and it probably will) that the 1903 1st ed contains the map, how will that change your perspective on the KP maps compared to knowing it's definitely in the 1910 edition and even in the 1904 edition?

Someone bought the only first edition that was for sale online. They did this within 48 hours of when I scanned and uploaded the RI map from a 1920s reprint and showed the Skeleton Map was copied from the RI map. I did that on 4 June and the first edition sold on 6 June (within 48 hours). I received confirmation of this by email from the seller (Shapero Rare Books). Regardless, I have now found that a copy of the first edition (1903) is in the British Library. I have contacted staff at the library for a digital scan and will post it here in the near future.

 

[Bocaj]

I have to respectfully disagree. The way to interpret the parchment is contextual reading. Making the first line as "4th Near" or "4th Neat" means it is functionally gibberish and does not explain the writer's intent. "South China Sea 4th Neat" provides no actionable starting point for someone searching for a specific cliff/cave/ledge. In other words, "4th Neat" does not match the geographical or navigational context of the parchment. "Sh [South] China Sea, 4° N Lat" in contrast makes the most sense based on contextual logic and is supported by Occam's Razor. South China Sea, 4° N Lat is a precise navigational line. On a parchment that is clearly directing someone to a specific location (a cave, a cliff, and a ledge) in the (southern) China Sea, having a starting coordinate makes the most logical sense. Also, there is a distinct circle denoting the degree symbol (°), however, the handwriting is messy and ° is part a scribble. I cannot see "th"; enlarge this part of the first line:

View attachment 2260132
The parchment itself is part of the wider Kidd-Palmer map hoax, so there is no real cave to dig; but the hoaxer was trying to dupe people into believing there was something hidden or buried 2 feet deep at the back of a cave on an island in the southern China Sea. It can hardly be a coincidence that in Rainbow Island, there is the following line:

I can't prove its 'th' neither but it looks like 't' and 'h' to me and this is certainly more probable then a single '°' with the rest meaning what exactly?

Another issue is the idea that the maps are a hoax: if they are like I assume for the moment earlier sketches for RI or a completely different story then labeling them a hoax would be wrong even when their finally use was being part of a hoax. While we will probably never know but all those details on the maps could have been part of a story. So they would make sense in within.

4th Neat would not point to any location but describe what the treasure contains - the 'Net' or in older English 'Neat' part would contain the high value items made from gold and precious stones/pearls while the rest would be plundered goods. The fat round dots on the Coral Island Map could stand for the rest. It makes sense that to goods were left in some hidden place while the gold was buried (much smaller space needed).

Another idea is that whoever created the maps did study the Avery expeditions and documents. Especially the "3 stones covered with grass"/ "3 stumps" and the "corner of a high promontory" / "ledge of a cliff" and off course the treasure being "buried" in a "cove" is too much of a coincidence. The sum of 100k£ would also correspond to ca 1/4 of the total value of Avery's haul which I speculate was taken apart as a bribe for the crown to assure pardons for Avery and his crew.

 

[Randawg72]

View attachment 2260069

View attachment 2260074

I translate this as:

"4 ° N Lat [latitude]"

This seems to be the correct reading. There is no "th" after the 4 but a degree symbol. There is a capital N (for North) and Lat (Latitude). Note that 4 ° N latitude marks the southernmost boundary of China's (disputed) maritime territory, passing through Spratly Islands region.

I hate to be "That guy" but I believe I deciphered the correct meaning of the YP way back on Jan 7th 2025 on my thread. It fits with the etymology of the period, and its simplicity makes more sense than the elaborate secret meanings that people like to create.

"At oR Near 2 Ft Deep at Back of Cave"

Look carefully:

"A toR Near"

(The phrase "at or near": Similar to modern usage, 17th-century texts—such as naval records and diaries from the period—used "at or near" when charting ships, giving directions, or describing battlefields (e.g., describing troop movements "at or near" a specific village).

This is just my opinion of course..

 

[Cryptid1990]

I hate to be "That guy" but I believe I deciphered the correct meaning of the YP way back on Jan 7th 2025 on my thread. It fits with the etymology of the period, and its simplicity makes more sense than the elaborate secret meanings that people like to create.

"At oR Near 2 Ft Deep at Back of Cave"

Look carefully:

"A toR Near"

(The phrase "at or near": Similar to modern usage, 17th-century texts—such as naval records and diaries from the period—used "at or near" when charting ships, giving directions, or describing battlefields (e.g., describing troop movements "at or near" a specific village).

This is just my opinion of course..

This is obviously wrong if you compare the last letter in the first line to the "t"s in the other two lines, for example "at" and "left":

It is clearly not an "r" but a "t" (closely resembling the "t" in "at" and "left"):

You would need to explain why the last letter in first line closely resembles the "t"s in other two lines and not an "r". Furthermore, your explanation does not make any sense in regards to why the letters after A (in your interpretation) are so small/superscript. I cannot find any evidence the phrase "at or near" was typically used in naval records (such as logbooks) and diaries by sailors from the 17th century. On the contrary, naval documents typically used exact coordinates and direct prepositions instead of imprecise or colloquial "at or near".

 

[Randawg72]

Obviously.
I guess Kidd just suddenly decided that he was a little 'off' on the island's location by 5.16 degrees, and 356 miles? 😂
Hey look, I found a rare first Edition Tom Sawyer!