buried treasure

[robert]

I just finished reading under the black flag and it was noted in the book that Pirates were rarely documented as hidding plunder by the academia. few if any records exist that this happened, kidd is mentioned. Now where on earth did they get that idea from? The history of humans is one of coveting and hiding items that appeal to them. Theres not a city in the world that does'nt have many buried treasures. Pirates would have had the same drives from the capt'n to the lowest deckhand. I dont buy the image of squandering all the spoils in port. Now granted much of the treasure was in the form of goods but those could and were sold to become coin. The facts speak otherwise, small to large chest bound cashes of period coins have been found in the caribbean Islands. Roatan Island as one example , which I've wandered, has given up small to large cashes, particularlly in Augusta city, was big time pirate hang out. The pirate Henery Morgan was documented to frequent Port Royal and Augusta. You'd have to see it with your own eyes to know that the academics are have it wrong.

[Longarm]

That be an interesting idea ye bring up. Where can one find some of this information for oneself. If the treasure cashes were found in the city it's self might it have been some merchants stash hidden from the pirates that visited there? Or, maybe hidden from the local tax collecters ( they be much worse than pirates).

I think the hardest part fer pirates to be burying plunder is that to many of yer mates might know where it be and might come back after ye be gone and dig it back up. Not that hideing it couldn't be done mind you but it wouldn't be easy to do it alone and not look suspicious doing it.

But than again Henry Morgan was buried in a secrete spot so as no one knows where he lies. Not wanting his grave to be molested or robbed he gave order for a secrete burial. To this day no one knows where he be buried.

Yer right when ye say that humans covet and hide things that appeals to them. And why wouldn't a lowly deckhand not want to save up his cash so as to improve his station in life. And any captian that doesn't think about the time when he may no longer command a ship may well be a fool.

Keep us informed on anything else ye may find.

[Spydre Rogue]

Arrr...

On t'other hand, t'would venture, would I, thet fer th' most part, pyrates looked not ta th' future but lived in th' present; well dockumented it be th' outrageous spendin' sprees wot occured when pyrates made shore after ackwirin' loot. Not so well dockumented be examples o' pyrates savin' fer a rainy day.

It be not truly part o' th' crim'nal mentality, sich as thet which pyracy t'would have bred. Much like yer common bandit er highwayman, wunst set, e'en with a prodigious take, they come back ag'in shortly thereafter havin' squandered it'all, which be their undoin', as sooner er later tis th' noose they ketch round their neck.

If'n ye was ta indulge me, I'd e'en speckulate as ta why, fer this very reason (thet o' bein' free an' easy with their coyne), thet pyracy t'was allowed ta flourish fer so long in th' Caribee.

-Spydre

[robert]

Most of the notions of pirates as drunken & squandering louts seem to be movie ideals. from the eariest films to the present day with POC..I have'nt seen it but its based on the ride i think. These were extremely wily shrewd men in desparate times and knew well and good that criminal behavior would be their doom. So it stands to reason that banking money for a life after piracy would be in their best interest, sort of getting out while the getting was good in style. So the various piracy writers are just perpetuating the movie concept and what other writers have said. Of course there were exceptions, after all, all cultures have their party animals..Pirates too I suspect, but not to the deteriment of their endevours. What capitan would allow that? Examples of communal pirate banks(cave systems) have been found in Haiti, scsheles and possibly Jamica. Roatan and Grand Caiman have some that are alleged. Treasure has been recovered from some of these systems. Barry clifford found a cannon on the whydah that was lead sealed with treasure most likely about to be hidden but the ship sunk before that could happen. That's not the only treasure cannon thats been found, in effect buried treasure. Even today's pirates, all you fine people here, have some "plunder" banked away in checking and savings accts. Your brethern of old were no different.

robert

[Matty Bottles]

Well, I'm sure some thrifty and clever men were pirates, but I would not be so bold to assume all pirates were so. And of those that were clever and thrifty, I can't imagine they were THAT clever or thrifty, or they wouldn't have become pirates in the first place (Yes, I know about specialists being pressed into pirate crews). That assumes, of course, that those who were thrifty were also clever. Now, there were cunning pirates, and smart, and tactical and strategic pirates, of that there is little doubt. But if someone was money smart, I doubt he would end up a pirate. Perhaps a smuggler or privateer, sure. But a pirate - whose ending was known to be, with out exception, at the end of a rope?

And if criminal behavior would have led to their doom, why behave like a criminal? Perhaps there were some buccaneers who stashed some away. But wouldn't they more likely retire to a friendly island and openly invest or spend their loot?

[robert]

I agree that those that did hide plunder intended to recovery it as well. Morgan, after his raid on portabello had reportedly buried some of it. He also left piracy for a time and bought land in jamaca and built a house there. teache did the same in near the nc outer banks. It was'nt like they had banking to rely on. many never got the chance to recovery what they hid. Going back to my orginal premise, the prevailing academic thought is that pirates never buried plunder, is flatly ignoring human nature and history. Pegging a cashe to anyone particular pirate i think is quite difficult, but it certainly happened . augusta was a pirate town founded a run by pirates. Treasure chests have been found there along the one of the east walls. Many such cashes exist waiting to be recovered.

['Salem Bob']

I agree that those that did hide plunder intended to recovery it as well. Morgan, after his raid on portabello had reportedly buried some of it. He also left piracy for a time and bought land in jamaca and built a house there. teache did the same in near the nc outer banks. It was'nt like they had banking to rely on. many never got the chance to recovery what they hid. Going back to my orginal premise, the prevailing academic thought is that pirates never buried plunder, is flatly ignoring human nature and history. Pegging a cashe to anyone particular pirate i think is quite difficult, but it certainly happened . augusta was a pirate town founded a run by pirates. Treasure chests have been found there along the one of the east walls. Many such cashes exist waiting to be recovered.

Ahoy Robert,

History is concerned with occurances that can be documented - not idle speculation based on human nature. By definition, written history has to give weight to documentary evidence, and 'historians' who rely on speculation and their 'theories' become marginalised by their peers who follow the discipline of historical methodology.

If human nature is to be the guide, and your assumptions regarding it are correct, then we should see proof of same in the world around us today. In point of fact, the vast majority of Americans are terrible savers, and run up huge debt, keeping little more than a week or twos pay banked (to write checks upon).

The idea of piracy being taken up by thoughtful, thrify men is I think a misplaced one. The fact of the matter is most piratical careers lasted a matter of mere months, most ended up on the end of a rope, or dead of wounds, and most pirates weren't particularly successful at ammassing hauls of cash. People look to the few famous examples of successful pirates, and then extrapolate that success incorecctly onto the majority of those who took up the black flag.

I do not think Morgan can be defined as a pirate properly - he did not attack all and sundry shipping - while the Spanish considered him a pirate, the English did not. Pirates do not get to be governors of English colonies (at least not people the English classified as pirates).

[John Maddox Roberts]

Recall also that most pirates never saw "treasure" in the cherished image that we know it - chests full of gold coins. Coined money was the best plunder of all - it could be divided evenly and spent without a discount, but it was rare. Mostly what they got was trade goods that had to be sold to port middlemen. Like all thieves throughout history, they usually got about 10% of what their swag was worth. The real fortunes were made by the middlemen. Many very respectable fortunes in New England, Charleston and elsewhere were founded by pirate fences. They buried the treasure indeed - in their bank accounts.

[PirateQueen]

We can thank Robert Louis Stevenson for a lot of the characteristics of piracy that have become stereotypical today, from buried treasure and maps to the dreaded "black spot."

[Spydre Rogue]

Arr...

Tho' I'd need ter do some ack-tual research, I'd be positin' th' theory thet pyracy as a whole t'were allowed ta' be conducted (more er less) with th' tacit permission o' all th' countries wot laid hands on th' Caribee Isles, and t'was this alone wot allowed it ta flourish an' be considered as a trade by those wot norm'ly t'would have steered clear o' criminality fer fear o' retribution by th' state.

Since pyrates as a whole needed ta be allied with somone at sometimes in order ta have safe harbor ta put ashore, t'were constantly courtin' and bein' courted fer favour with th' local guv'ner's an power-brokers an' functioned as a mercen'ry naval force fer these small but important colonies, wot were too far away ta be policed by forces more needed in th' troubled European homelands. With th' pyrates constantly turnin' coat with th' winds o' fortune, t'would ne'er be a problem about th' balance o' power fallin' in favor o' anyone nation in partic'lar. O' course those pyrates wot proved least trust-worthy when honor bound, an' crossed more nations then t'any other, were marked out as examples an' hunted down if a'tall possible.

Ye also be noticin' how, fer bands o' roavin' cutthroat thieves, pyrates us'lly be noted fer bein' oathbound an' honorable; almos' down-right chivalrous a'times? I figger it be based on these constant deals an' agreements thet would determine who be fair game fer whom on th' open seas. They t'were made pro'lly more with th' individual guv'ners and merchant barons o' th' islands then with th' actual direct consent o' th' nations they represented. Plausible deniability it t'was. An' it meant thet no matter who th' pyrates attacked, they was usually doin' it on behalf o' someone else, wot claimed 'em as heroes (pro tem) so as ta justify their own hired cutthroats as th' stuff o' legend an' story.

Also, th' powers o' control needed th' income an' resources from th' 'pelligoes, but t'weren't much in th' way o' investin' back inta th' econimies they were bleedin' off. Now mind ye, pyrates t'weren't no investors or financial backers, but after weeks er more at sea, t'weren't int'rested in buryin' their treasure they were--but spendin' it! An' they spent it with wild abandon; by some accounts, practically hirin' out entire towns fer wild bouts o' drunken debauch and excess. Why, in one week a crew o' pyrates, wot had bin siccessful in raidin' another country's bounty, could provide more gold an' silver an' goodes in revinue fer th' colony wot welcomed 'em in then that same colony would e'er see in anytime soon from 'er own motherland! So, whilst no partic'lar country wanted ta see its hard earned loot pyrated away, pyracy helped all th' colonies remain self-sufficient, as well as insurin' thet no one colonial power was goin' ta make off with th' lion's share o' th' islands' wealth fer 'emselves. A'sides, all th' money t'would 'ventually make its way back home anyways in th' form o' trade and goodes perchases.

When politicks back home settled somewhat, pyracy as a desir'ble means o' makin' a livin' came ter a somewhat abrupt end. Military forces were diverted ta policin' th' islands an' th' shippin' lanes. Pyrates, th' once oft-time allies, were granted no more deals or amnesties and were hunted down by any means; tried and hung.

Trade routes became more'n a sight safer then t'were in th' past an' goodes flowed outta th' islands like ne'er before. Th' economies o' th' islands themselves dwindled in comparison, as they t'were beginin' ta lose more resources then t'were able ta be bringin' in or holdin' on to. Thus ended th' golden age o' pyracy in th' Caribee.

Havin' said t'all that, it be entirely conjecture on th' part o' olde Spydre; so's ye kin take it t'all with o' grain o' salt.

-Spydre

[Matty Bottles]

Well, again, that is more or less the position of the sea dogs and buccaneers, but they are mostly the exception to the rule. And very few crews accrued enough after a few months at sea to equal, say, a year's worth of trade. That is not to say that merchants didn't welcome the spendthrift pirate - money being money, and all - but I doubt any crew made enough to justify a governor courting them, at least not in peacetime. And even among sea dogs, buccaneers and privateers it was rare to capture a grand (as in retire for the rest of my life) prize. Very, very few crews matched the hauls of Drake or Morgan, even among their contemporaries.

[robert]

of course B. Roberts did extremely well, purhaps more so than Morgan or teach. Black ceasar was said to have done very well indeed. Drake did so well that it staggers the imagination , even he was reputed to have hidden some of it. Huge sums of gold, silver and precious jems were shipped by the spanish from the americas and some very rich prizes were plundered. On bellamy's ship whydah, pure gold african idols were cut up to distribute to the crew. Of Course the capts, officers etc would have reaped such rewards in greater number. Not one to impune the experts, never, but not all pirate life is known due to its secrecy, that what is considered solid will of course change as more is learned. Consider this, captured plunder was a two edged sword, one edge being instant gratifing wealth and the other a difficult liability. Pirates have been known to plunder weaker pirates, privateers and warships also presented problems. What better way to deal with fortuna than to hide that which was not neccessary at a given time. Ships themself offered no real security but a calm bay to carreen your ship, away from prying eyes and communally bank your excess gain would fit the bill. metal and wooden chests were used and in some an Identifing item was left, engraved spoons were used. Some were simply stacked silver bars melted from coin or other larger bars. Smelters can be found close by where slag silver, gold and lead is found. pistol and rifle shot is there as well as reminent weapons and ship rigging. my humble views of course.

[julius27]

Well, here's my two bits on the subject. Based on observing modern criminal orginizations, few individuals, especially from the lower ranks give significant thought to the consequences of their actions. Only those in the upper levels of the organization have the forethought to try hiding some of their ill gotten gain. As has been pointed out, human behaviour has changed little over the centuries. Most successful drug dealers, smugglers, etc. spend their money as fast as they can make it. Most of us that are not involved in any criminal scheme (other than govornment) live beyond our means. As an example of what I mean, look at George Jung whose life was the basis for the movie, "Blow". He was extremely successful, made literally millions of dollars, and yet he's completely broke now. Henry Morgan never buried treasure; he invested it buying plantations. I would say that it is correct to assume that the practice is not a complete fabrication, however, based on the fact that a great deal of time and effort was expended at that time to find the buried treasure that Kidd claimed he had hidden. My personal opinion on the matter is that it must have happened, though on extremely rare occations.

[JoshuaRed]

I think it's safe to say that very few pirates among the 3-5,000 active at any given time during the Golden Age would consider it wise to bury their loot. Especially when most of their plunder was in the form of bulky trade goods. When coin was confiscated from plundered ships and divided among the crew it rarely would have been enough for them to live any real time on, let alone forever. Thus, a steady trickle of moderate coin coming into a pirate's hands would be easily spent here and there on the usual vices.

Not to mention that the transient vagabond life of a pirate meant that he HAD to know that there was a very real chance that his first visit to any given island or coast could be his last. Burying 50 lbs. worth of sterling in a muddy hole on the Yucatan coast was a foolish "investment" when he knew there was no probably way he'd ever find his way back to that spot. The only reason I can see for them justifying this would be "If I can't have it...no one can".

Nah. So many sailors lived in such miserable squalor that suddenly finding their pocket full of money would be an impossible temptation to resist. Look at today's low level drug dealers. Like pirates, most are young and desperate. When they finally come into money, they spend as fast as they can get. On the same things: booze, drugs, women, or shiny things like jewelry and cars to illustrate to other thugs their prowess and get more women. Just like pirates would have done with the "bling" of their time.

I think the myth of buried treasure began when somewhere along the way some pirates needed to hide some loot very short term, perhaps a matter of weeks or months, and the rumor mill got ahold of it. Or even more likely, pirates like Kidd used it as a tool to tempt officials to spare the pirates from hanging.

[robert]

Many outlaws did in fact bury treasure, there were many reasons for this.. I can't speak to drug dealers or those involed in modern crime white collar or other criminal activities. obviously not all criminals squander tainted money or many off shore banks would have no business. Police constantly confiscate large sums of money from dealers, houses cars to cash. the very act of laundering money is in fact hiding it for later recovery. Whether Pirates may have rarely or commonly buried plunder, will most likely never be known. Some people think it was more often than not, but they did engage in the act at least once. Nothing more can i say. thanks for all the views and great discussion on the subject.

[Mission]

This is sort of interesting, if only tangentially related.

"[1701] We passed within three-quarters of a mile of Anegada, much of which is covered by the sea at high tides, and this is why the Spaniards gave it this name [Anegada is basically Spanish for "drowned island"]. It is said that years ago a great Spanish galleon laden with treasure wrecked on Anegada, and that the treasure was still buried on the island. There it still remains, or so they say, because most of the men who buried it were lost at sea, and the few survivors did not

__

know where the treasure was hidden and were never able to find it.

This treasure has caused many men including several filibusters to waste their time. I knew a man who stayed four or five months on the island, digging and sounding. he said that he had found something, but no one has yet discovered the real treasure." (p. 205-6, The Memoirs of Pére Labat 1693-1705, translated and edited by John Eaden.)

It sounds like Oak Island. Some things never change.

[Daniel]

Johnson's General History of the Pyrates has at least three references to buried treasure. Besides Kidd, who everybody knows about, Blackbeard's crew at least thought that he had buried his treasure, and Blackbeard encouraged the notion:

One of his Men asked him . . . if his Wife knew where he had buried his Money? He answered, That no Body but himself and the Devil, knew where it was, and the longest Liver should take all.

The third reference very explicitly says that Calico Jack Rackham's men buried their treasure on the Island of Princes (not clear on exactly where this was; it's in the Caribbean close to the Isla de Pinos off Cuba, and is not to be confused with Principe in the Gulf of Guinea, which was also called the Island of Princes).

Rackham made for the Island of Princes, and having great Quantities of rich Goods on Board, taken in the late Prizes, they were divided into Lots, and he and his Crew shared them by throwing Dice, the highest Cast being to choose first: When they had done, they packed up their Goods in Casks, and buried them on Shore in the Island of Princes, that they might have Room for fresh Booty.

I could have sworn that I read somewhere in John Stephens' Captured by Pirates of a captive witnessing two chests on the beach where the pirates were staying, covered with wet sand that appeared to have just been dug up. But I'm damned if I can find the reference now.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Daniel

[hurricane]

But than again Henry Morgan was buried in a secrete spot so as no one knows where he lies. Not wanting his grave to be molested or robbed he gave order for a secrete burial. To this day no one knows where he be buried.

Um, Sir Henry Morgan is buried in the Pallisadoes near Port Royal. He was buried in a very public ceremony and interred in a lead lined coffin in the old cemetery. He stayed there until the 1692 earthquake, at which point that part of the cemetery slid into what is now Kingston Harbour. He remains there to this day. It's no secret where he's located. It's actually very well documented in Jamaica.

As long as we are on the subject, Sir Henry by his station had land. I've been to it. Noel Coward later owned it. His wife Sarah lived there and maintained the plantation while he was "away on business." And yes, he was a buccaneer - true to the crown and only attacked the Spanish. Buccaneers are very different from the pirates who came later on.

As far as the buccaneer era, it is fairly well documented (and I can only speak of the English buccaneers in Port Royal time) that nothing would have been buried outside of perhaps, Isle de Vaca, where the buccaneers met regularly to plan expeditions.

Rarely would the ship return to a given location in an predictable point of time. So, you buried your treasure on Roatan but your captain never returned there. Remember, these folks didn't live a long time. It was a short life and a merry one. If you didn't get killed on a campaign, you could die of injuries and illness aboard ship, or be shot dead on a street in Port Royal over a fight for a whore. So why would you think of saving any money? For retirement?

So what would be the point of burying treasure on a beach or island you may never return to? Especially one that would be safe enough (i.e., probably remote and uncharted). Unless you're the captain, chances are slim you'll ever return there. And remember, even a small chest of gold is damned heavy. It's not like you can just spirit one away without other crewe members knowing about it. A cubic foot of gold weighs 1200 pounds. Even a golf ball sized sphere of gold is 2.2 pounds. It wasn't easy to move this stuff around. It's not like it was in the movies where bullion bars are being tossed around like a small sack of flour.

For the most part (and again, buccaneers in this particular age) returned to town wealthy and quickly blew the money on booze, whores, new weapons and gambling. They weren't seeking security. They were seeking adventure and in many cases, revenge against the Spanish.

I'm sure there are cases where an idiot buried his treasure. But I don't think it's human nature to leave your wealth out of sight and out of mind. If it was, why do people stuff their mattresses full of money today? They want to be as close to it as possible.

-- Hurricane

Edited February 10, 2010 by hurricane

[oderlesseye]

There is a National Geographic link Below my Signature that pertains to hidden treasure and the treasure hunter who has sought after it for many years.

"My Treasure to he who can understand" "

Edited February 10, 2010 by oderlesseye

[Mission]

From Labat again:

“[Feb. 4th, 1705 - I believe] As soon as our men received their share of the money for the caique and her cargo, they promptly went ashore to carouse as long as the money lasted, according to custom.” (Labat, p. 244)

"Most of the crew had spent all their money by the 20th February [1705], so I helped [Filibuster Captain] Daniel to make them return to the ship. In order to do this we spread a rumour in the town that an English merchantman was expected at St. Thomas [where they were], and on hearing this all the crew came aboard in the evening." (Labat, p. 244)

[Fox]

There are a handful of historical examples of pirates burying treasure, but the significant fact about most of them is that they had a very specific reason for doing so. Kidd buried his in the hopes of using it as leverage later; Rackham, IIRC, hid his because he was about to go and seek a pardon and didn't want to hand it over; Lady Killigrew ordered some plunder (in the form of half a dozen chairs) to be buried in her garden because they were recogniseable and she didn't want them in the house; Peter Easton is recorded as having buried some in Ireland because he had so much that he couldn't fit any more on his ship...

Why we shouldn't always believe buried treasure stories:

'Lisbon. Sept 28 N.S. On the 20th instant the Victory, a Portuguese Man of War, of 60 Guns, which about three months ago was sent upon an Expedition to the Cape Verde Islands, returned to this port. The Expedition the said ship was sent upon was this, The British Vice Consul of Vigo, having been assured by a Mulatto, a Native of St. Antonio one of the Cape de Verde Islands, that he knew of a considerable treasure which had been buried in that island by a Crew of Pyrates, being what they had taken on Board a Spanish Packet Boat; the said Vice Consul with 13 English Mariners and the Mulatto, went in June last in a sloop from Vigo to that Island, upon this Discovery. This Court receiving intelligence that they were gone with this design, dispatched the Man of War abovementioned, with Order to seize that Treasure for the King of Portugal. The Victory arriving at that Island found the said Vice Consul and Mariners, whose sloop had been driven on shore there by a French Pyrate of 12 guns. The Captain of the Man of War soon after his arrival at the said Island, examined the Mulatto, who persisted in the same Account, till being required to shew where the Riches were, he at length affirmed the whole to have been an Invention of his own, in order to procure the Means of returning to St. Antonio his Native Country. For this Procedure he was immediately put in irons and brought on Board the Man of War hither, in order to be tryed. The British subjects were likewise ordered on Board, and upon their Arrival here were imprisoned. The British Consul has mad a Representation in their behalf to the King of Portugal, and a favourable answer is expected.

Lisbon, Oct 4. N.S. The Vice Consul of Vigo and the 13 English Mariners, which were brought hither Prisoners from the Island of St. Antonio, were set at liberty on the 2d instant: but the Mulatto, who was the Occasion of their taking that Voyage, has received Sentence of Death.'

From The London Gazette October 22, 1723.

[Guest]

In Love Stories of Some Famous Pirates by A Hayatt Verrill, in the chapter on Red Legs and Mercedes, he says that Red Legs after falling in love with Mercedes, but loosing her, burried all of her jewels... he gave them back when she married his best friend... and... OH wait...

This is TWILL....

oops....

never mind....Love Stories of Some Famous Pirates isn't very good documintation, is it?

[Mission]

I was told elsewhere that there isn't much proof that "Red Legs" even existed.

[oderlesseye]

Here is another example of possible buried treasure here.

http://www.pbs.org/w...nd/legends.html & http://www.sailoroff...cocosisland.htm

I talked with a Fella yesterday who handed me a portfolio for investors to finance an on going expedition to Cocos Island. While Eye luv a good treasure hunting story, I am a skeptic about this.

His Story relates to a viceroy (I believe to be José de la Serna e Hinojosa)

( WikiPedia mentions nothing of the story http://en.wikipedia....erna_e_Hinojosa )

ordered "The Loot of Lima" be buried in 1821 while the encroaching overthrow of Spanish rule was too close for comfort in Lima, Peru thru fighting with Chili. It was supposed to have been buried by By Capt. Thompson and James Alexander Forbes after a mutiny aboard the ship Mary Dear.

Edited February 28, 2010 by oderlesseye