Hello Cryptid 1990
Your conclusion about the alleged Avery documents is a little premature.
Your words below.
Both these narratives themselves are of questionable historical reliability and improbable, so when you look at the 1818 document claiming that Avery buried three chests of gold and jewels, it becomes far more plausible to see it as a product of early 19th-century romantic imagination.
IS that fact or an assumption? The problem I have is that you have committed a cardinal sin: procrastinating about others about confirmation bias, but dismissing it on the assumption of your own predetermined narrative without determining the authenticity of documents in question. Isn't that confirmation bias?
That case you presented on questioning the authenticity of the Scottish document is based on the following claims:
Historical Skepticism: Many historians and researchers have questioned the letter's authenticity. Critics note several inconsistencies:
1 Henry Avery historically spelled his name with an "E" (Every), not an "Avery".
That assumption is based on a document, British Library IOR/E/3/50 f 354 : 28 Feb 1695 - seems like this was written by a scribe and not Every himself. Please see link.
Every pirate letter (Reddit source). So criticism 1 is questionable. At least an official clarification of the document from the British Library that the handwriting is of the pirate. My guess is they will have no answer to that.
2 Pirates of that era rarely referred to themselves as "pirates" or signed their real names to intelligence/spy correspondence.
There is no evidence that Avery or Every could even read or write. So these letters were either dictated or written by others writing about treasure connected Avery or Every. So criticism 2 does not credit or discredit the documents.
3 The document is marked as a "Copy" and dates from around 1700, several years after his supposed disappearance.
Since the document, like all the others, has never seen by the hand of Avery. I am still interested in confirming the age of the document in question. But that requires clarification on the age of the paper: Scottish Records Office. Without that being verified. At least it will help give an approximate age of the document in question. So Criticism 3 is weak also.
So the three above key criticisms of the Scottish Records Office document being fake are weak. But it does still not prove the documents are legitimate either.
Others claimed Dr Sean Kingsley's conclusion was based on the authenticity of the document. Which, funny enough, I agree with you, as Kingsley never tried to authenticate the age of the paper on the documents. So he is guilty himself of confirmation bias. However, he does have credentials.
Dr Sean Kingsley, Director of Wreck Watch & the Centre for East-West Maritime Exploration. Sean has over 25 years of experience working in marine archaeology, specialising in the recording and interpretation of shipwrecks, harbours, pottery and trade patterns. With a doctorate from Oxford University, and as a former visiting research fellow of Reading University, he has consulted as far a field as Montenegro and Israel, where he discovered the largest concentration of shipwrecks in the Eastern Mediterranean in the ‘Solomonic’ port of Dor. He has worked in ancient harbours containing material culture varying in date from 1800 BC to the modern day and on Canaanite, Phoenician, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, medieval and post-medieval wrecks. Sean specialises in Late Antique, Near Eastern, marine archaeology, Biblical Archaeology.
Sean is also Director of the Centre for East-West Maritime Exploration (EWME). EWME is an independent research hub and think tank focused on investigating global culture, economy, history and archaeology between the Eastern and Western world. We carry out cutting-edge science, research and fieldwork to deepen understanding of our shared past and bring people together to build bridges towards a clearer consideration of where we came from and where we are going. The EWME community bridges past and present to influence the foundations of a clearer future.
Now if we look at document (J 2277) from Kresen Kernow (Cornwall's archive centre); I have openly stated that that document was 1818 watermark manuscript and in no way written by Avery. However,.
The description of treasure in document (J 2277) with the alleged earlier document.Scottish Records Office document description of treasure in remarkably similar.
There were searches for alleged treasure connected to Avery carried out in 1701. Here is something of interest: the information about treasure to being alleged to be connected to Avery's crew in Cornwall dates back to 1701 as it IS recorded in official Charles the III state papers; the 1701 correspondence mentions it. Calendar of state papers, Domestic series, of the reign of William III... Preserved in the Public Record Office v.6 1700-1702; see link below
Charles the 111 state papers, Public Record Office, v. 6, 1700 -1702
Both official Charles the III state papers of 1701 and Scottish Office records allegedly predate the claims of Captain Charles Johnson, who wrote about the famous English pirate Henry Avery (also spelled Every) in his 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the most notorious Pyrates
Fact vs. Fiction: Scholars note that Johnson’s account blended real trial records with tall tales, including the dramatic legend that Avery tricked his fellow captains, stole the entire treasure, and vanished. So the information sources we have about Avery are very questionable.
The Mystery: "Captain Charles Johnson" itself is widely considered a pen name, as no historical record of a sea captain by that name exists
The Author's Identity: "Captain Charles Johnson" is a pseudonym. Historians have long debated who actually wrote the book, with strong theories pointing to writer/spy Daniel Defoe or publisher Nathaniel Mist?
The Defoe Theory: In the 1930s, scholar John Robert Moore and others argued that Captain Charles Johnson was a pseudonym used by Daniel Defoe, pointing to stylistic similarities, shared themes, and Defoe's known interest in maritime crime and piracy. The Dispute: Later researchers, including P.N. Furbank and W.R. Owens in the late 1980s, challenged this attribution, citing tonal differences and a lack of direct historical or archival proof connecting Defoe to the text. Alternative Candidates: Other scholars have proposed alternative possibilities, such as writer and journalist Nathaniel Mist, an associate of Defoe who had a background as a sailor.
So, your conclusion on the documents in question is that it is far more plausible to see it as a product of early 19th-century romantic imagination or literature. I disagree unless the document's age, as dated by the Scottish Office, is properly verified; at the very least, it's early 18th-century imagination, isn't it?
If I were to speculate on the source of the treasure story relating to Avery, either Mist or Defore promoted the legend for their various personal agendas and political intrigue in the power play between the Whig party and Tories.
Crow
