Anatomy of a treasure legend

[Phil]

Excellent research Crow!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Crow]

Excellent research Crow!

Gidday Phil thanks for the thumbs up. If you look at the map below you can see circled Agency. So we know for sure that the agency was near the Mission railway station in 1914 land map and in 1895 newspaper story.

But it seems a simple solution? Sadly there is fly in ointment. Outside the above map to the east towards the Kirkpatrick about 1.5 miles from agency which is little further south east than the train station is another property just outside the map above or north on the other side of the river that was leased by Kirkpatrick.

Crow

 

[Crow]

On the modern map google earth.

This area is a strong contender.

Crow

 

[lilorphanannie]

[FONT=&quot]Excellent tutorial on research technique. Thanks ,Sr. Cuervo...... A bottom plow, that is the largest plow,although they came in different sizes, is the one used to break raw virgin ground ,to turn over the topsoil ,kill weeds to prepare the land to run furrows ,then planting and a cultivating. as a rule ,at least in my experience ,the plow angle would be set to cut to a depth of about 9 inches.Maximum depth of broken soil maybe 12 inches. I know of no plow that would reach a depth of two feet, ,and it would take an immense amount of horsepower to pull through soil that deep. This is true for the sandy loam soil of my youth. If the two feet are measured from the top of the buried object I think it would not be detected. If measured from the bottom of the hole, depending on the height of the container ,it could possibly have been.[/FONT]

 

[Phil]

Crow, I think you nailed it!

The lease next to the river is the most probable location because she would have located her teepee near a water source.

Anyone new to treasure hunting needs to read this thread and learn from you. Excellent work!

 

[galenrog]

This thread has been an excellent example of “Follow the Evidence”. Well done, Crow. You and other contributors to this thread have shown how it should be done.

Sadly, many people who seek after treasure stories follow emotions, not evidence.

 

[releventchair]

[FONT="]Excellent tutorial on research technique. Thanks ,Sr. Cuervo...... A bottom plow, that is the largest plow,although they came in different sizes, is the one used to break raw virgin ground ,to turn over the topsoil ,kill weeds to prepare the land to run furrows ,then planting and a cultivating. as a rule ,at least in my experience ,the plow angle would be set to cut to a depth of about 9 inches.Maximum depth of broken soil maybe 12 inches. I know of no plow that would reach a depth of two feet, ,and it would take an immense amount of horsepower to pull through soil that deep. This is true for the sandy loam soil of my youth. If the two feet are measured from the top of the buried object I think it would not be detected. If measured from the bottom of the hole, depending on the height of the container ,it could possibly have been.[/FONT]

A miss is as good as a mile sometimes....

 

[Phil]

This thread has been an excellent example of “Follow the Evidence”. Well done, Crow. You and other contributors to this thread have shown how it should be done.

Sadly, many people who seek after treasure stories follow emotions, not evidence.

Or sometimes, people do what I did..............I seen the picture posted by Kanacki and ASSUMED it was the correct site. And although I am highly confident I located the spot where the picture was taken, it is miles from the Kirkpatrick lease. Thus, it is imperative to develop a theory then work as hard as possible to debunk it.

 

[galenrog]

Not quite. When a piece of evidence, such as a photograph, is shown to be in error, it is discarded and you move back a step or two. Like any tale, any two people will tell it four different ways.

Time for more coffee.

 

[Crow]

Gidday amigos

Thanks for the thumbs up by alas that last location I posted is indeed with 1,5 mile range of the Agency and was leased by E F Kirkpatrick. And a logical site to camp near the river having access to water. Its easy to fall into assumption without confirming with secondary sources. Everyone does this even me when I should know better.

Is not the location it just one of numerous blocks of land Kirkpatrick leased for farming.

I will reveal more later.

Crow

 

[Crow]

Gidday amigos

Just recapping the dissection this treasure legend. What we know as facts the 3 key players in this treasure legend exists.

Fact 1 R F Kirckpatrick existed.

Fact 2 John Mitchell existed

Fact 3 Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash existed. But it should be noted her name was spelt different.

Fact 4 R F Kirckpatrick was a farmer.

Fact 5 R F Kirckpatrick leased land off Indian owners.

Fact 6 John Mitchell was the son of Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash

Fact 7 Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash did own property.

Fact 8 R F Kirckpatrick leased land off Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash

Fact 9 Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash did get paid rent for her land. A income.

Fact 10 in 1895 there was unrest at reservation which troop was called in. A reason for a Indian women afraid of being robbed to bury money or gold.

Fact 11 In 1895 Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash was still living a traditional way of life living off the land. So no real need to spend money so a large proportion of rent was saved over many years. Making the amount of alleged amount of money buried plausible.

Fact 12 The Indian agency in 1915 was near the Mission railway station.

Fact 13 Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash land was roughly 1.5 mile from the agency.

So in essence most of the newspaper claims are turning out to be true?

This does not however mean treasure was ever buried there other than the claims of a dying Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash? However it does tells many things in regards to the people connected to this story is true and much more than just a legend.

Crow.

 

[Crow]

Gidday once again amigos in the following map. dated 1914 land ownership map you see the the Indian Agency just south east of Mission station and to the south east again the land owned by Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash

This was the land rented by RF Kirkpatrick which belonged Ko-Ko-Dye-Lash but spelled different Ko-Ko -Yea-Las. ( one has understand when some one verbally told a name especially an uncommon one it can be spelled differently. Especially to a newspaper reporter. It is approximately 1.29 mile from the Indian agency south east. It is on higher ground above the agency.

You can see the google earth image below.

Ironic it is nearly 1.5 miles from Mission railway Station

Crow

 

[Crow]

Gidday Amigos

While it is interesting to dissect such stories as many lessons can be learned from them regardless of legend.In fact the same method can work on any treasure legend. The trick is to be clinical and go where the evidence take you. And always be your own most critical inquirer. The lessor the assumptions you make and more facts you gather from independent sources will increase the odds in your favor.

A little digging with constructive research following the....

(Who),(What),(Why),(Where ) Principle ya never know where it takes you.

What we have established here is identified the key people as being real.(Who)

Established that the Indian women had income in the form of rent money or gold from land being leased to R F Kirkpatrick. (What )

The unrest 1895 gave motive to hide money or gold. (Why)

And importantly narrowed down a location where this alleged events happened. (Where )

Strange enough I found an interesting site on the property that might be worth searching. but out of respect of the landowner I cannot post in a public forum those details as the location is private property and discourage anyone from trespassing onto the property in question.

Relventchair, lilorphanannie are indeed most likely correct that the all farms of plowing or tilling would no go that deep. Also 2 ft depth is out of range for most detectors. Phil statements about the Indian camp would of been close to water makes sense also.

Crow

 

[releventchair]

They plowed all around the site of her old teepee. Then used scrapers.
Depth could be overcome by duplicity.
Scrape after plowing. Then repeat plowing followed by scraping again.
Did they?

A distance the lady estimated the cache from her lodge would help a lot. We have not received such. Her son maybe?
And would he have divulged such? He did have reason to explain his recovered gold. Possession warrants such , still today...But who did he trust to have looking for his mothers gold , with assurance he'd be the one to end up with it?
And still , as if he didn't have enough , here's a guy after with more (lots of) gold . Besides native relationships with others potential for concern. (?)

The string had rotted away? String. Cordage . Indicator line.
Precise marker.
Dig here.

Multiple ways to pinpoint a cache/spot of earth small area when burying something and then blending the surface so not to contrast with what is around it , including soil color. If moister below then it takes more effort and sometimes time to dry evenly on top , but a string....

Traffic areas , paths , places eyes fall regular would have a string noticed. Kids find everything...
So maybe not in a spot eyes fall often? But while a cache can have a marker , it's location often relates to points. But was the string not just a helpful final mark , but the only line of reference in a bland featureless area? It's kind of hinted the string missing was why it was not recovered.
Little matter today...But how did the lady locate where to spot the string originally?

They plowed and scraped the area around her old teepee site.
Perhaps they did not work the right location of soil that way.
They had 2 feet as a given depth of cache. My mistake in not crediting the scraping to follows potential , by further scraping.
Plowing was all I had caught in my head.....
I'll retract my doubt of thier not getting deep enough. But still question if they covered where the cache actually was .

 

[releventchair]

If I could have asked Kirkpatrick a question after his recovery efforts , (it would have been from a safe distance) : Did the native you leased land from have a sense of humor?

Her son was key to the recovery made.
And likely key to if she wanted a cache spot known prior to her end time for insurance of recovery. Prior to such a point she couldn't divulge.
Barring trust issues with him.
She knew others too.

Would not be the only case where a cache was kept secret though.
I was told of my fathers , one of particular in advance of his passing , that was recovered easy enough when it was time. Though would have been missed by me had I not been told of it's precise location.
The others were another story.
I had no idea what he'd been squirreling. Let alone the where's and how's. Wasn't my business to know , but his...For his reasons.

 

[Garry]

East Oregonian : E.O., March 03, 1909, EVENING EDITION, Image 1

I have no idea how this might fit into the story but it could raise several questions about the reliability of John's story. Maybe I'm missing something but from the newspaper articles it sounds to me that the provenance of the story of buried treasure originates solely with John Mitchell

 

[Ol' Kentuck]

East Oregonian : E.O., March 03, 1909, EVENING EDITION, Image 1

I have no idea how this might fit into the story but it could raise several questions about the reliability of John's story. Maybe I'm missing something but from the newspaper articles it sounds to me that the provenance of the story of buried treasure originates solely with John Mitchell

Excellent point, I agree, Garry. It all originates with John Mitchell.

A tale as old as time. Old indian woman with nothing but the land she was granted on the reservation, allegedly makes deathbed claim to son of buried treasure on the land. Son "verifies" old woman's claim by "finding" part of the treasure - then takes claim directly to someone with a previous interest in said land (leased by rancher) to enlist their help to find the "rest". Boom. Rancher buys up all old woman's reservation land grant and anyone else's that is nearby. The Search is On!

Son disappears off the map to parts unknown.

Was it a True Treasure? Or maybe, as Garry has suggested, the simple truth is it was all just a tale told by a drunken indian who beats his mother, sells the land, and hightails it with his ill gotten gains.

IMHO, the latter is most likely the true scenario in this legend.


Crow has provided some excellent tips for researching a treasure legend, and demonstrated excellent research on this thread. Kudos on that research, btw. However, it's all based on the assumption there is plausibility for an actual treasure to begin with. Plausibility is only possibility, but probability is a different critter altogether. In this case probability is with the drunken indian tale. (Though in the past I've been told "Anything's possible". )


However, in upholding the spirit of treasure legends, here's something totally unrelated that occurred to me as I was perusing this thread.......

The name "John Mitchell", as an original treasure claimant, appears in other treasure tales as well.

In fact, there was an Author of Treasure Tales by the same name who was quite prolific. Author John D. Mitchell published several collections of these yarns starting with ?Lost Mines of the Great Southwest? in 1933. Beginning in 1940, Desert Magazine began reprinting Mitchell?s ?lost mine? stories every few months well into the 1950s. His books "Lost Mines of the Great Southwest, c.1933" and "Lost Mines and Buried Treasure Along the Old Frontier, c.1953" are still collected by many treasure hunters today. Strangely, he seems to have even been involved in treasure related matters with the Secret Service during the same time period.

Is there a relation here? Or just a funny coincidence? Where did the son John Mitchell go when he dropped off the map? It might be interesting to investigate the background of this Author. Perhaps there may be a wily old indian woman in his family tree?

Of course, I could just be starting another Treasure Legend Conspiracy Theory.

Or am I?


Have a Good'un.

 

[Garry]

There are several articles regarding this incident but I'll only post one more and it has more meat that the first one.

East Oregonian (Pendelton, Oregon), May 13, 1909, Page 3

 

[Crow]

East Oregonian : E.O., March 03, 1909, EVENING EDITION, Image 1

I have no idea how this might fit into the story but it could raise several questions about the reliability of John's story. Maybe I'm missing something but from the newspaper articles it sounds to me that the provenance of the story of buried treasure originates solely with John Mitchell

Gidday Gary

Well Done!

Fantastic find. It gives us great insight into the problems at the time 1909. Alcoholism with in the reservation and domestic violence. The 1895 Article I posted alluded to alcoholism violence back then also.

And it does raise many questions......

Indeed in regards the Provence of the story as John Mitchell being the source? How I understand it in the 1915 newspaper story they took the dying Indian women to point out the location of this alleged money or gold. The following claim was from the old Indian women her self. Mentioned below.

Another point is Why would R F Kirkpatrick even bother to search for this alleged treasure if he didn't think there was any truth in it? As we know from the 1909 newspaper states Indian women entrusted Kirkpatrick to hold onto her check because of her fear of he son wanting money.

While indeed the 1909 newspaper is an important find as it gives an insight into John Michell being a violent drunk who beat his mother for money. But it also reflects the trust the Indian women had in Robert Kirkpatrick. Enough to entrust her money with him at least? But also the love for her son regardless the pain he inflicts on her.

Further more that paper states below that she was taken out in a car to the site? This clearly states she was still alive when these claims was made. And a drunken Indian most likely could never afford a car in 1915. The only one that possible have an automobile was the successful farmer E F Kirkpatrick.

Regardless if the old Indian women's story was true or not it seemed John Michell a drunken bum was never worthy of it. So for me in regards to some of 1915 statements the source of the story was more through R F Kirkpatrick than John Mitchell himself.

Of course the old Indian after many years of domestic abuse could of invented the story for her son to stew over out of spite? But given the fact she protected him in 1909 its not likely but not impossible she had enough 6 years later?

But if it was her way of getting back on her son. Why drag in E F Kirkpatrick whom she trusted with her money in 1909 and when beaten by john Mitchell drag herself towards E F Kirkpatrick place for help as per 1909 newspaper.
story? Who got a doctor to tend to her?

E F Kirkpatrick was a wealthy and successful farmer clearly a smart man. I do not think he would of wasted time, manpower and resources on just any claims of John Mitchell? You can see he pioneer farm machinery business as well as farming in the county.

Crow

 

[releventchair]

Gidday Gary

Well Done!

Fantastic find. It gives us great insight into the problems at the time 1909. Alcoholism with in reservation and domestic violence. The Article I posted 1995 alluded to alcoholism domestic back then also.

And it does raise many questions......

Indeed in regards the Provence as I understand it 1915 newspaper story they took the dying Indian women to point out the location of this alleged money or gold. The following claim was from the old Indian women her self

Another point is Why would R F Kirkpatrick even bother to search for this alleged treasure if he didn't think there was any truth in it? As we know from the 1909 newspaper states Indian women entrusted Kirkpatrick to hold onto her check because of her fear of he son wanting money.

While indeed the 1909 newspaper is an important find as it gives an insight into John Michell being a violent drunk who beat his mum for money. But it also reflects the trust the Indian women had in Robert Fitzpatrick.Enough to entrust her money with him at least? But also the love for her son regardless the pain he inflicts on her.

Further more that paper states below that she was taken out in a car to the site? This clearly states she was still alive when these claims was made. And a drunken Indian most likely could never afford a car in 1915. The only one that possible have an automobile was the successful farmer E F Kirkpatrick.

Regardless if the old Indian women's story was true or not it seemed John Michell a drunken bum was never worthy of it. So for me in regards to some of 1915 statements the source of the story was more through R F Kirkpatrick than John Mitchell himself.

Of course the old Indian after many years of domestic abuse could of invented the story for her son to stew over out of spite? But given the fact she protected him in 1909 its not likely but not impossible she had enough 6 years later?

But if it was her way of getting back on her son. Why drag in E F Kirkpatrick whom she trusted with her money in 1909 and when beaten by john Mitchell drag herself towards E F Kirkpatrick place for help as per 1909 newspaper.
story? Who got a doctor to tend to her?

E F Kirkpatrick was a wealthy and successful farmer clearly a smart man I do not he would of wasted time, manpower and resources on any claims of John Mitchell. You can see he pioneer farm machinery business as well as farming in the county.

Crow

Ahh , the abusive son throws a wrench in the works....

Might Kirkpatrick have made a show of looking for gold her son expected to exist , that Kirkpatrick knew existed , but existing somewhere other than where it was searched for?
Yes , he would have had to spend time ,labor, livestock, and equipment wear, probably a hired hand or two to make a search as described.

I didn't study dates to guess seasonal goings on of seed to harvest timeframe /activities.
Off season/winter /post harvest , or lull in activities before a harvest kind of timeframe ups the odds of spending a few ambitious "looking" hours?

Given what Kirkpatrick knew , would he have obliged the sons interests in the woman's gold had he actually turned it up in the soil? Out of charity to the son?
In a way , the funds paid for rent returning to the hands of the renter , vs an abusive landlords son/heir would probably not bother the renter. It wouldn't me!
More so if I knew the gal and her endured abuse.