Palmer and Wilkins: Labelling the Maps and Furniture

[gjb]

When discussing the so-called Kidd maps and their discovery, I always have a problem with referencing the maps and the items of furniture in which they were found. Over time, the maps have been variously named, with a tendency to refer to some in terms of the item of furniture or 'relic' in which they were located, or more properly in which they were claimed to have been located.

It’s my feeling that we might try here to standardise names in order to facilitate future discussion and perhaps even to encourage others to use a ‘treasurenet’ nomenclature.

Before I present what Palmer’s correspondence and Wilkins' files seem to say about the sequence of discoveries, that is, which map was found when and where, and to provide some background on Wilkins’ 'creations', does anyone have any initial thoughts or feelings about whether this might be a useful activity and about how to proceed if so?

I've made a number of attempts, ending up using letters of the alphabet to identify the maps, and I gave up trying to put names to the chests (though the bureau seemed to be obvious). I avoided using the term 'chart', but didn't know whether to refer to the Yunnan document as a map etc.

In any event, I'm thinking of providing images here of relevant text scanned from Palmer's and perhaps Wilkins' letters as supporting documentation in order to avoid challenges. However, I've a feeling that some people will always challenge anything Wilkins has written!

 

[Crow]

It could be useful? Perhaps chart1 in artifact 1 in chronological order of discovery might help? Perhaps you need a separate post for each alleged discovery to save it becoming all mixed together. And the common alleged map name for each parchment.

I would be interested in seeing Palmers correspondence. Is it actually documents or copies or interpretations of the documents?

Crow

 

[gjb]

Crow

Thanks. I did think that naming in chronological order might be suitable, but then there might be a question about which came first in a particular year, and I admit that I don’t know exactly when Wilkins created his maps, though I do have a good idea about the order. I felt somebody would inevitably challenge the chronology.

At one stage, I simply allocated a code to the maps as Palmer-Kidd or Wilkins-Kidd chronologically, that is: PK1, PK2, PK3, PK4 and WK1, WK2, WK3. However, the only ones I felt sure about were PK1 and PK4. Incidentally, as a result, the file names of the map images on my computer begin with these identifiers.

Palmer's letters are original pen and ink. Wilkins also wrote in pen and ink, though some of his outgoing letters are typed carbon copies. I also obtained originals (from the files of recipients) typed by Wilkins.

Edit: The letters from Wilkins' brother are also pen and ink originals. In fact, most of the personal letters received by Wilkins are handwritten. Those from publishers and the like, and in response to requests for information, are typed as might be expected.

 

[gjb]

I’ve just begun to put together the likely sequence of events from the information I have at hand. For the present, I’ll use the names I’ve previously given to the Palmer maps: Plain Map, Sarah Kidd Map, Coral Island Map and Skeleton Island Map (or Skeleton Map). This avoids linking a map to a specific container or the claimed contents. I'm still not sure about how to name the Wilkins Maps.

I’m naming two of the containers The Bureau and The Workbox, but haven’t decided yet about how to name the other two chests (Hardy Chest and Morgan Chest). I’ve a feeling that it might be simpler to leave them so named.

As has been suggested, it will probably be a good idea to tabulate the names given by others, notably by Howlett and Edmunds. If there are better suggestions, the names can always be changed. I'll also provide suggestions for a reference number applicable to each, also subject to change.

In this way, maybe we can eventually get a consensus as to what might be sensible and acceptable.

 

[Crow]

Personally, I think the Palmers charts should separate away from Wilkins charts. All Wilkins charts do is confuse the issue.

Crow

 

[gjb]

Crow: Personally, I think the Palmer charts should separate away from Wilkins charts. All Wilkins charts do is confuse the issue.

It's a good point. The topic is the acquisition of the Palmer maps not the origin of the Kidd maps.