Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
Post Reply
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

Hey,

I'm not even saying that he didn't make an attempt to sell the stones. What I am saying is the very same thing I have ALWAYS SAID: There is no documented evidence to support the claim that Travis ever tried to sell the stones or get investment capital from people for the purpose of treasure hunting.

Not in any of the Peck Investigations nor in the 46 years since then has anybody (not one single person) come forward and said "Travis tried to sell me the stone maps" or "Oh yeah, Travis came to me in 1953, showed me the stones, and asked me to sponsor some trips into the Supers." NEVER HAPPENED! Love and Brower interviewed several people that knew the Tumlinsons well, and if, as Joe believes Bob T to have meant, Travis would have been "crazy to sell the stones" (as in wanting badly to sell them), I am sure that he would have either said something to at least one of them or offered them the stones. AT LEAST ONE!

Because Bob T lied about so many things to Peck's Investigators, I don't know how much weight I would put in anything he said. There is even some evidence to suggest that in the mid 1950s, when Travis first became sick that Bob T may have actually stolen the stones from him, and Travis had to recover them at gunpoint. However he got them, we know he had them for a while and they eventually went back to Travis.

I am reviewing some new books about the Victorio Peak Treasure for the author, and every time I meant to type Travis I typed "Doc" instead. I just had to go back through the whole post and make corrections. HAHAHA Not to get off subject, but these books are set to come out in about three weeks or so. All in hardcover and they are amazing. The culmination of six years of work by the author and contributions of the entire Noss/Delonas Family and people associated with the story since the 1940s and 1950s. I will post a piece about it later. And NO, I am not getting any money or benefits from the book sales. LOL

Mike
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Ozarker »

Hello All:

I just wanted to clarify something concerning the "investigators" talking to Robert Tumlinson, in case somebody hasn't had the chance to review the documentation that Garry provided.

Mel Brower and Elbert Love, who conducted the "interviews" being discussed, were MOEL officers/employees/investors (Mel Brower was the MOEL vice president at the time of the interviews with Bob Tumlinson), and they were acting solely in the interests of MOEL when they conducted the interviews. Specifically, they were acting under the Peck-MOEL contract agreed to in March 1965, drawn up by Peck, which gave them 30 days to conduct the investigation and submit a report back to Peck on what they had found concerning the location of the additional stone(s), otherwise Peck would declare MOEL in default, and MOEL would be cut out of anything Peck eventually found through use of the stone maps. They were then required to submit reports to Peck every 30 days thereafter, documenting their efforts and showing progress towards finding the additional stone(s).

Love and Brower were left holding part of the MOEL bag, so to speak, and between the two of them held 70,000 shares of MOEL stock when the SEC investigation and order to cease and desist in the selling of stock came down. The only people that held more MOEL stock than Love and Brower were the Mitchells and Elgin Kriewald, and the Mitchells were already gone.

Other than having title to the known stone maps, Peck was about the only thing that MOEL had going for them. If they lost Peck (which they would less than a year later), they were left with four interesting carved rocks and not much else.

Between Brower and Love, Brower appears to have been the more level-headed of the two and was going out of his way to smooth things over with Peck whenever difficulties arose. (This is just my opinion based on the limited correspondence available).

Robert Tumlinson died on 20 April 1965, within days of Elbert Love's second interview. His age (81), combined with the news of Travis and Alleeen's deaths, combined with how Love came across in the "interview" was probably too much for him, so there was never another chance for someone more qualified (and neutral) to speak with him. [See Love's second letter to Peck, dated 16 April 1965, concerning the agitated state that Robert Tumlinson was in when Love finally left him - Love seemed to be relishing in the fact that he had really rattled Robert].

Love would soon become President of MOEL, Inc, and of course it was him that eventually notified Peck that he was in default as of March 1966, after Peck did not give notice of his intent to exercise his next one-year option with MOEL.

Just some more food for thought when considering the Robert Tumlinson angle.

Larry
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

Beth,

You are correct for the most part. In Bob Tumlinson's case, there was absolutely no possibility of there being a tie in between the two stories he told. One had him involved and one was Travis by himself. I firmly believe that Bob told the story involving himself in the find just to add some credibility and authority to his story.

In Janie's case, there is a possibility that she could have been telling both Garry and myself the truth (or she could have been lying to both of us).

It is very frustrating for me (I guess everybody else too). I wish she had just told me the same thing she told Garry. I would then have given up the ghost (so to speak), and believed that the stones were a hoax. I can only go by what was told to me. Since I also have not been in contact with any of Janie's relatives, I don't have the luxury of a second or third opinion on the matter.

I believe she told Garry what he reported. I know what she told me. I also know that there is no way she would have any first hand knowledge regarding the stones as she wasn't born in 1949 (I think she was born in 1954). That would make her seven when he dad died and eight for her mom. Alleen took her to Belaire, Texas in 1962 or 1961 to live with Lois Feltner (her aunt). I think that is where all her information came from.

Mike
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

One last thing regarding Bob T's statement:

Ask yourselves seriously, if Travis would have been "crazy to sell the stones" (meaning wanting badly to sell them), do you honestly think he would have had any problem doing so? It would have taken him maybe five minutes to find a buyer in AJ. All he had to do if he had wanted to sell them would have been to contact his good friend Charlie Miller, who would have spread the word through the Dutch Hunting Community. He would have had fifty offers within about ten seconds.


Mike
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Were there not claims that Travis himself purchased the stones?
Seems unlikely for such a do-it-your-selfer.

btw: nice post Larry
Even the honesty,or at least the integrity of Elbert Love becomes questionable when,in his report to Richard Peck,he reveals a deal made with Carl Burgoyne ,who was at that time the President of the Oregon Archaeological Society,to obtain/purchase any additional stone maps and offer these for sale at a profit.They agreed to offer as much as $2500.00.
Were antiquity laws not applicable as well to black market shopping by Archaeological Societies?


Regards:SH.
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

There were at least three people that I know of that claimed they made the stones and sold them to Travis, they found the stones and sold them to Travis, or that one of their workers found the stones and he sold them to Travis. Not one of those stories was ever proven.

Wayne,

Honesty nor Integrity has anything to do with it. The money was a finder's fee for Love's Son-in-law (I think) who was doing all the work to find similar carved stones. They were going to tell Peck that the price they were going to offer for the stones was $2500. They would offer to buy the stones for less than that and use the rest for a finder's fee. Nothing immoral there.

Mike
User avatar
Oroblanco
Part Timer
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Black Hills SD
Contact:

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Oroblanco »

Joe, yes still at it on the Custer deal; and yes there are literally hundreds and hundreds of books, articles etc. Had to make a decision to stick to older, closer to source type materials rather early on, with few exceptions or there would be no hope of ever getting something done. As for a personal favorite, I no longer have one - used to think "Son of the Morning Star" was pretty good but on re-reading it, find it a wandering, disjointed and somewhat inaccurate account. This was the main source material for at least one Hollywood version, coincidentally with the same title.

On TT vs BT, the logical answer is that BT never knew the origins of the stones and TT never bothered to inform him, if Travis actually carved them which appears to be the case. If we ignore all verbal source info and simply compare the "new" carvings with the old, there are clear resemblances. I am no expert in stone carvings but that 1535-galleon stone is a good example for the comparison. Will we stand on the idea that Travis found the Peralta stones, and just coincidentally had a habit of carving Spanish treasure oriented type stones? This will not go down well with some folks. So not to dismiss a debate on who is being truthful or not, but those stones are rather dammin' so to speak.

I look forward to seeing you Joe and Carolyn at the rendezvous, and don't blame you for the motel option. I doubt you got much sleep staying in the camper. We are both looking forward to seeing many friends there. Take it easy and don't work too hard, it makes the rest of us look bad!
Roy
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Mike McChesney wrote:There were at least three people that I know of that claimed they made the stones and sold them to Travis, they found the stones and sold them to Travis, or that one of their workers found the stones and he sold them to Travis. Not one of those stories was ever proven.

Wayne,

Honesty nor Integrity has anything to do with it. The money was a finder's fee for Love's Son-in-law (I think) who was doing all the work to find similar carved stones. They were going to tell Peck that the price they were going to offer for the stones was $2500. They would offer to buy the stones for less than that and use the rest for a finder's fee. Nothing immoral there.

Mike
Hi Mike:
According to the Apr 12/65 letter from Love to Peck,it was Love himself who visited Carl Burgoyne.Val Grover,Love's son in law,had contacted a rock-hounding group at Love's request.The "finder's fee" discussed was to go to Carl Burgoyne,not to Grover.
That is what I found questionable.
It does seem that Peck had authorized the expenditure of up to $2500 for the purchase of the particular stone that they (Peck's group) were looking for (Latin Heart?) which Peck had been given a drawing of,possibly by Hidden.They were also apparently interested in any other similar stone carvings that may have been found in Arizona,but the second heart seems to have been a focal point at this time.

Regards:Wayne
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Ozarker »

Wayne, you are correct and it was indeed Carl Burgoyne, President of the Oregon Archeological Society, that Love approached asking help in locating the additional stone, and that MOEL would pay up to $2500 to purchase such stone if it could be found. They mutually agreed that they would offer anyone who had the stone much less than $2500, leaving room for Burgoyne to add in his profit for locating it.

My read is that the $2500 figure was a contractual requirement on MOEL, imposed by Peck. If the additional stone was found and the asking price was $2500 or less, MOEL was obligated to buy it and make it available for Peck's use.

If the price was above $2500 and MOEL decided that they were unwilling to pay that price, then Peck would have the option to buy it (or them, if there was more than one) as his sole and separate property.

My understanding of the contract is that MOEL would not be entitled to any profits on discoveries realized by Peck through the use of his sole and separate property or knowledge, so it seems it would have been in MOEL's interest to pay whatever price was asked for any additional (genuine) stones, within reason. I imagine they would have needed stockholder approval to go above the $2500 limit though.

Also as you said, Love did seek help from his son-in-law, Val Grover, but the son-in-law apparently struck out with the locals and didn't learn anything. Love did not indicate in his report to Peck whether he made the same monetary offer to his son-in-law that he had with Burgoyne.

I'm not up to speed on the antiquity laws as they relate to black market trading, so don't know how to answer your question there. I imagine the penalties could have been severe though, and certainly something that an archeological society president should have been aware of. Whether Love would have known any better is up for grabs.

Larry
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Larry:
I agree with your view of the events as you describe them.
Peck also seems to have been the only one capable of putting money into the search by this time and,as we all know,when it comes to who runs the show....money talks.
I would surmise that any illegal under the table trade in antiquities would bring severe penalties,especially interstate trade.Non of this would apply,of course,to any home made stone carvings or replicas.

Regards:Wayne
User avatar
Oroblanco
Part Timer
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Black Hills SD
Contact:

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Oroblanco »

Actually that brings up yet a third possibility for the intended meaning of BT - "crazy to sell" may have meant as in crazy to sell them, exposing Travis to possible prosecution for fraud or antiquities violations. Just an observation.
Oroblanco
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Roy:
When Robert Tumlinson made the "crazy" statement to Bert Love,during the interview of 12/04/65,Robert had yet to learn of Travis' change of occupation or death.He did know however,that a business group now had the stones and was seeking to find the treasure.
He had indicated to Love his opinion of Travis as being a "lazy,stupid fellow who was crazy to sell the maps".He also "swore that Travis would never see a penny of anything he found".
In context,the meaning is obvious.That Bob believed Travis had sold the maps to MOEL.

Regards:SH.
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

THANK YOU WAYNE!

FINALLY, someone who reads full context rather than parsing single words and phrases.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Mike
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Mike:
I am sure you have,as have I,found much within the documents that Garry has posted on his web site to support the premise that the original stones are indeed genuine.
Although I do have a horse in this race,I no longer wish to debate who manufactured the originals or for what purpose or even to where they might lead.To do so could,at a future date,provide evidence crucial to any adversary who might claim legal rights to anything found.Even this debate has it's pitfalls when it comes to stating one's beliefs.
I said some time ago I suspected that copies of the Stone Maps existed,that they may have been the stones physically examined by Desert Archaeology,rather than the originals.
If this was the case,it would explain why DA found marks indicating use of modern equipment which,in their report,seemed to be the most important factor leading to their conclusions.It's also possible that Father Polzer based his opinion on a viewing of one of Tumlinson's copies.
There can be little disagreement,given the evidence submitted by Garry, that Travis was quite capable of making good copies of any stone carving he may have found IMO.
There also appears to have been reason for him to do so.
These copies are mentioned in the McGee collection,as are other photos of both the originals(against a board background) and the copies.
If Travis developed an interest in,as well as the skills necessary for his efforts at an early age,this very well may have begun with a chore he was given to repair the mortar joints on that old chimney.He may have even been inspired by tales told by his father,or even his grandfather,of spanish treasure and maps carved on stone tablets.
He may even have seen such a stone,if Azmula's theory is correct,and heard of where others could be found.

Regards:Wayne
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

Wayne,

That is another possibility that I had not thought of:

Travis found the stones then made copies of them ALL. I don't know how far down that river I'm willing to sail, but admit that is is a possibility.

As far as the DA examination, I had the opportunity to examine the stone maps up close and personal, take photographs of them in regular light, then light them with black light and photograph them again. I found absolutely nothing that SCREAMED machine made. When I emailed DA and asked them to explain how a machine sanded surface would appear different than a hand sanded one, and how a dimple or hole drilled with a hand drill would appear different than one drilled with an electric drill, I got no answer at all. In that non-answer I understood everything I needed to: that a hand sanded surface would not appear any different than a machine sanded surface, and a hole drilled with a hand drill would look just like one made with an electric drill.

Mike
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by novice »

Before I move on to some other areas, I am going to go ahead and post the portion of the opposite side of the galleon stone that shows the treasure chest. (I still want to use some of the other words below the chest to do a letter by letter comparison with the stone maps lettering.) :)

Travis had moved on from his 2D drawings on the chimney to what an old engineer would call a 3D drawing in his depiction of the chest.

A lot of detail, lots of rivets, two handles, etc.

Maybe someone else can translate what Travis carved on the lid of the Chest. EL ????. Or maybe, like Larry, find something that isn't obvious. :)

Image

You already know the remaining words that Travis carved on this side of the stone.

Garry
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

Garry,

THAT stone gives me more reason to think it possible Travis carved the stone maps than anything else I have seen.

Look carefully at the crossbars of the "A"s in Madrid and Spain. Compare that to the "A"s on the Horse Priest Stone. While they are not ALL the same, SOME are EXACTLY like the "A"s in Madrid and Spain. By "exactly like" I mean that the crossbars are not straight across. They are angled up and to the right. I am at work right now and don't have access to a lot of my photos, I know from memory most all the details of the stones.

What this also does is lend a LOT of credence to the information Azmula has found out. I won't go into detail, but it puts another peg in his theory board for me.

Mike
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

The claim by Bair,about Travis having "added" the Zeros to the back of the Heart Stone in order to make them more confusing for anyone who had stolen them,seems a bit suspect now.Why bother,if you had carved the originals yourself,with or without "the help of some of my friends".Especially if you really knew where and what it was that they led to?

Mike:......speaking of sails
Roy,on the other site,suggested that the "ship" stone could be examined by experts (no more likely to happen,IMO,that having the Heart Stone "GLUE" tested)and a determination made as to the veracity of the family's recent claims.I would hazard a guess that the first thing an expert would notice is that the ship's sails are carved in bas relief,a feature not evident on any of the Stones in question.

Regards:Wayne

Was just posting this when I saw the latest photo.
Looks like " EL L-SBC--" plus additional smaller letters at the lower right corner of the lid.
The "A" below,with the slanted crossbar,looks familiar though.
When was this stone carved by Tumlinson?

Havin fun?
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by novice »

Wayne,

I doubt that anyone knows when this stone was carved. Maybe as we review the timeline for Travis, someone might make a better guess but right now I think it would all be speculations. I think I suggested it was possibily done before the Stone Maps but for me, like most of us, speculation proves wrong much more oftern than it proves to be correct. :D

Garry
Somehiker
Part Timer
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Somehiker »

Gary:
The reason for my query is because of the mention in the Peck letters of Janie's relocation to Texas after the death of her mother.Other stone carvings,as well as the original manuscript went with her.How did the "ship/chest" stone wind up where you photographed it? It doesn't look as portable as the three main stone maps but it looks like it could easily fit the trunk of a car or even a small carreta.

Regards:SH.
User avatar
Mrs. Oroblanco
Greenhorn
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:46 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mrs. Oroblanco »

Mike,

I did not think to ask about the differences in sanding when I spoke with DA, but I did ask about the electric/modern day versus old type differences.

Here is the answer I got from Jenny Adams. (I'm assuming you have read all the other letters from DA that I have)

Beth:



My determination that the engravings were made by power tools was based mostly on the uniformity of the grooves and the single dimple at the beginning of the line. It is my understanding that hand drilling makes several drill holes and then knocks out the rock in between. Machining is not my area of expertise, but I know up close and personal how with hand work, no matter how carefully it is done, there are variations and imperfections.


Would you mind if I put you in contact with Mike McChesney? He is asking me the same questions.



Best – Jenny.



Beth
User avatar
Oroblanco
Part Timer
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Black Hills SD
Contact:

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Oroblanco »

Somehiker wrote
Mike:......speaking of sails
Roy,on the other site,suggested that the "ship" stone could be examined by experts (no more likely to happen,IMO,that having the Heart Stone "GLUE" tested)and a determination made as to the veracity of the family's recent claims.I would hazard a guess that the first thing an expert would notice is that the ship's sails are carved in bas relief,a feature not evident on any of the Stones in question.
I have doubts that the bas relief would be the conclusive evidence to show that Travis didn't do both carvings. The letters look pretty similar to my untrained eye. The type of stone dictates what you can or cannot carve, as mentioned on the other forum; if it is brittle, you cannot well do a bas relief for the stone will tend to flake and leave a mess. Also, whether to carve in outline or bas relief (or full relief) is a matter partly at the whim of the carver. I would like to see a handwriting expert opinion on a comparison of all these carvings. This might be easier to arrange than the glue test, which would have been interesting but would require direct contact and (tiny) destructive action to the stones, which is unlikely to be allowed.
Roy
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Mike McChesney »

Beth,

I have read that several times, and here is the problem:

If I had never seen the stone maps in person, nor ever handled them, I might be inclined to accept her answer. Unfortunately, Greg Davis and Phil Reinhardt graciously allowed me the opportunity to personally photograph the stones under different lighting and shadowing, as well as putting them under my digital microscope.

MY OBSERVATIONS:

There are tons of imperfections and irregularities in the engravings of the stones. Lines are not of uniform width or depth. She speaks of a dimple at the end of one of the lines. I saw no such dimple. I am completely at odds with the Desert Archaeology Inc examination, but since I am not a geologist or an epigrapher, my word will not be good enough for many (even thoughI used a microscope on the stones and DA did not). :wink:

Mike
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by Ozarker »

Garry asked for somebody to tackle the timeframe of the carved spanish galleon quite a few posts back (how authentic is the Galleon? Did Travis have to have had some knowledge of Spanish history? Maybe someone has actually seen this particular image of a Galleon in a book? How many masts? Gun Ports? etc.), and I don't want to distract from the new photo that was posted, but thought I'd pass along what I've found on this subject while it is fresh, and I'm not sure I can take it any further.

While there are many different types of galleons, and even disputes about its origins, it was the Spanish captain and naval architect, Álvaro de Bazán, who is generally given credit for designing the definitive model of the galleon in the 1550s. Most of the information I'm including below is based upon his designs, although in general, nearly all galleons resembled each other, with minor differences that were the result of various countries' needs or applications.

Galleons were multi-decked sailing ships, mainly used by European powers from the mid 1500s through the 1800s. They evolved from the carrack, which were usually very large ships for their time (often over 1000 tons displacement), while galleons were mostly under 500 tons, although the Manila galleons (built by the Spanish for the trade route to the Phillipines - first voyage 1565) were to reach up to 2000 tons.

Galleons varied in length, but were usually between 100 to 140 feet long at the waterline. They were powered entirely by wind, using sails carried on three or four masts, with a lateen (triangular) sail used on the last (third and fourth) masts. They were used for both military service and commerce, most famously in the Spanish treasure fleet (1566-1790) and the Manila Galleons (1565-1815).

Large galleons could easily carry a crew of 100, plus 15 to 30 gunners and 50 to 100 passengers as well as provisions and cargo.

Mast arrangements, foreward to aft, included the foremast, mainmast, and mizzenmast. In larger galleons, a fourth mast was added, usually a lateen-rigged mizzen, called the bonaventure mizzen.

Distinguishing features of the galleon include the long beak, the lateen-rigged mizzenmasts, the square gallery at the stern off the captain's cabin, and the towering aft and forecastles (aft and foreward decks).

The number of guns varied widely on galleons, depending on whether the ship was intended for commerce or war.

The following link is the best I have found showing line drawings of various 16th century ships, and will hopefully give some idea what the galleons and other comparable vessels looked like:

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/meagher.htm


There are four main features on the galleon stone that stand out, and which I used to compare to all the various illustrations of Spanish galleons I've been able to find. Namely, these were the gun ports, the masts, the deck arrangement, and the sail configuration.

As it turned out, the gun ports were not very much help, as I have seen anywhere from 6 to 20 gunports per side depicted on various galleon illustrations, and as noted above the gun arrangements simply depended on whether a galleon was rigged for merchant duty or for war. In fact, it appears that individual galleons were often refitted for wartime or commerce, depending on the needs of its owner, several times during its lifespan. So, the gunports on Travis's ship do not really help to identify its era or when Travis might have carved it.

The mast configuration on the stone carving easily conforms to the typical galleon arrangement (three-masted, comprised of the foremast, mainmast, and mizzenmast) with a bowsprit mast angled low on the bow. (As noted above, there were also four-masted galleons later on as the ship class evolved, but Travis's stone is obviously a three-masted vessel, and the concerns about the sail configration listed below apply to four-masted galleons as well). So, Travis' ship did at least get the masts right for a galleon, if that is what he was trying to depict.

The deck arrangement on the carving is not representative of a typical galleon, or any other ship of that era (1500s). Specifically, the aft and forecastles of early galleons (the decks at the stern and bow) were built up to prevent easy boardings, giving galleon decks a tiered appearance both fore and aft, which does not compare favorably to the obviously flat deck across the length of the ship depicted on Travis' stone.

And finally, the sail configuration. This is where most of the detail on the carving took place, and is what gives the carving its semi-3D appearance. It is also, in my opinion, what gives us the best clue as to the type of ship Travis used as a model.

The mainmast and foremast sails on the carving are similar enough to 1500s-era galleons that no distinction can really be made from their shape (they are square sails typical of galleons for the 1500s). However, they appear to be arranged in a stack of three sails to each mast, while galleons typically only had two per mast.

(As a side note, it appears that there are also two pennants at the top of the mainmast, one of which (the topmost pennant) contains the date 1535, and the lower of which might show a skull or face?)

Additionally, on most galleons, the mizzenmast (the mast farthest aft) was rigged with with a lateen (triangular) sail, while the bowsprit (forward-most, angled mast at the bow) was rigged with a square sail. This is directly opposite of the way that Travis depicted his ship's sails.

So the main differences between true galleons and the ship depicted on the carving are the forward and aft sails, the number of sails per mast, and the deck layout.

Since I couldn't find any galleons that had a combination of a flat deck (bow to stern), combined with the sail configuration noted above, I expanded my search and started looking at other ships, and finally decided that the best match to Travis' carving was a clipper ship circa the 1800s. These ships were also typically three- or four-masted (like galleons), but more importantly they had a flat deck like the ship on Travis' stone, and also had triangular sails forward and square sails aft (again, like Travis').

And after looking at hundreds of pictures of ships over the last few days, I happened across the label for Cutty Sark scotch whiskey:

http://www.cutty-sark.com/shop/

The ship Cutty Sark was a clipper ship, built in 1869, and exists today on display after serving as a training ship through the mid 1950s.

Cutty Sark, the whiskey, is a range of blended Scotch whisky produced by Edrington plc of Glasgow. The whisky was first created in March 1923.

The drawing on the label is a work of the Swedish artist Carl Georg August Wallin (1893-1978). He was a noted as a master mariner, marine painter, and visual artist, and his painting of the Cutty Sark has been described as his most famous ship painting. This drawing has been on the whisky bottles since 1955, shortly after Wallin painted the original work.

Here is a bottle stopper depicting the ship that might be easier to compare:

Image

Wallin's work has more sails per mast, but the fullness and angle of the sails, the number of masts, the lateen sails up forward (represented as only one triangular sail by Travis), and the flatness of the deck all seem very close to the depiction in Travis' carving.

Since Travis included the 1535 date on the topmost pennant of the ship, there is little doubt he meant to convey that the ship was from that era. My guess is that he probably just used any picture of a ship he could find to serve as a model, not realizing (at least, initially) that it might tend to date the stone, or cause somebody to question its authenticity. I guess is also possible that he fully meant to show a clipper ship, and that is simply part of the story he was attempting to convey.

It is interesting to consider whether Travis modeled his ship after the Cutty Sark label, which is circa 1955, possibly giving us the earliest date for the carving, but I don't know that we could ever prove it. I was really hoping to find an illustration of a 16th century galleon from an old history book that Travis may have copied from, but it does not appear that he used that type of ship for a model after all.

Of course, the ship Cutty Sark has been around a long time. I found one painting of her that was done in 1872 (although it was angling starboard quarter from ahead, and not the broadside representation of the Cutty Sark on the whiskey label or bottle stopper, or as depicted on the stone carving), and I am sure there were many other depictions of the ship throughout many publications, due to her fame and fortune.

There are also a lot of illustrations of other clipper ships that can be found with an image search, some of which have only three sails per mast, just like Travis' carving. However, they probably didn't have the circulation or recognition that the Cutty Sark label has had.

Still, it was an interesting exercise, even if it didn't reach any conclusions. Perhaps it'll come in handy as we get further on.

Larry
alan m
Part Timer
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:43 pm

Re: Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

Post by alan m »

I

My determination that the engravings were made by power tools was based mostly on the uniformity of the grooves and the single dimple at the beginning of the line. It is my understanding that hand drilling makes several drill holes and then knocks out the rock in between. Machining is not my area of expertise, but I know up close and personal how with hand work, no matter how carefully it is done, there are variations and imperfections. [/color]

[


I am always amazed how some missconceptions never die
Post Reply