In my last post, I included a scan of the earliest known image of a cave entrance in Mauritius: but I wasn’t really satisfied by its quality. And so I decided to track down the original source (and why not?): it turned out to be one of a long series of drawings made by the French painter Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887), who travelled on board the corvette l’Astrolabe on its journey around the world in 1826-129 as the voyage’s official painter.

The resulting images – which included splendid depictions of body art observed on numerous Pacific islands – are well worth a look, and were printed in two volumes as:

Voyage de la corvette l’Astrolabe : exécuté par ordre du Roi pendant les années 1826-1827-1828-1829, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d’Urville,… publié par ordonnance de Sa Majesté : Histoire du voyage / rédigé par M. Dumont-d’Urville.

The Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse has copies of both of these (shelfmark A 55(1) and A 55 (2) respectively): from its website, you can download PDFs of Volume 1 and Volume 2 for yourself, highly recommended!

Here are scans of the engravings of the drawings de Sainson specifically made on Mauritius, all taken from Volume 2:

Une Grotte au Quartier de la Grande Riviere

Une Grotte au Quartier de la Grande Riviere Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887)

Vue des Pamplemousses

Vue des Pamplemousses Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887)

Vue de la Montagne de Pieter Bot

Vue de la Montagne de Pieter Bot Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887)

Vue Prise sur la Route de Port-Louis

Vue Prise sur la Route de Port-Louis Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887)

Chute de la Grande Rivière

Chute de la Grande Rivière Louis Auguste de Sainson (1801-1887)

Geologically speaking, volcanic activity rocks the house: land appears almost ex nihilo from volcanoes, spewed out as lava at (geologically) great speed, and occasionally explosively so. A fair few places on Earth (such as Mauritius) can only properly be grasped in terms of multiple lava onslaughts: studying these layers is arguably closer to codicology than to geography, if you like.

There are also many different types of lava: if you are an avid Scrabble-ist, you probably can at least spell aa (rough, rubbly lava), though you perhaps would be forgiven for not having used the eight-letter word pahoehoe (smooth lava, that can sometimes end up looking like coiled ropes as it cools). [Vulcanologists have countless technical terms for lava and lava-related features, *sigh*.]

However, what is far less well known is that as (typically pahoehoe) lava moves and cools, it often leaves behindvoids inside the lava flow: these can be long and thin (e.g. “lava tubes”), or small and round (“lava blisters”), or many other shapes. Hence the rocky basaltic landscape left behind by lava is defined not just by the overall topology of the rock itself as it moves and cools, but also by the eerie topology of the spaces left inside it.

For speleologists, these volcanic voids are wonderful and sublime: exploring and mapping the sinewy curve of a completely new lava tube is arguably just about as good as their hobby / profession gets. Lava caves are inhabited by bats, swiftlets, and all manner of curiously adapted species (including a number of Mauritian black magic altars). Yet it turns out that other, very different groups of people are also hugely interested in lava tubes…

As Below, So Above

Wonderfully, lava tubes and lava blisters are far from being a solely terrestrial phenomenon. Around 2009, a ‘skylight’ (a hole to the sky opening up at the top of a lava void) was discovered on the Moon, offering the theoretical possibility of ready-made shelter from radiation for future lunar astronauts, should (say) any future US President have broadly the same kind of scientific vision as John F. Kennedy once had (not that this seems particularly likely at the moment, admittedly). (Image from this AtlasObscura page):

lunar-lava-tube-skylight

And the same astro-vulcanological principles would seem to hold true for Martian geology as well. Future Martian astronauts not blessed with Matt Damon-ic fortitude may well end up sheltering inside the Red Planet’s lava tubes, wandering in awe through all the weird terraforming technology left there by ancient alien civilizations (hohum). 🙂 [“You are what you do“, indeed.] Here’s a picture courtesy of the European Space Agency, where the large dips would seem to be rilles (collapsed lava voids) and the black feature in the middle a skylight down to an intact lava tube.

Arsia-Mons-lava-tube-on-Mars

Incidentally, there’s a GPR (ground-penetrating radar) rover called RIMFAX going to Mars soon, specific to look for voids: given that we have lava tubes on Earth that run for miles and miles, who knows what this robot will find there?

Looking For Lava Tubes…

Back on Earth, recent research suggests that there are many more lava tubes here than previously thought. Even though many groups of researchers want to know more about them, the practical problem is that that we typically only find these voids accidentally – one lava blister in the west of Mauritius was only discovered when a bulldozer driver bumped into it, knocking open the end of the blister.

And so I was pleased to find a paper where a large group of scientists developed a GPR system specifically for finding lava tubes and lava blisters non-invasively (and without the need for careless bulldozer driving). “Mapping the structure and depth of lava tubes using ground penetrating radar” (2005) by Miyamoto et al appeared in Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 32, L21316, doi:10.1029/2005GL024159).

Having said that, Gaffney and Gater’s (2003) “Revealing the Hidden Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists” (which I finished reading this morning) shows a nice example of a void being found with normal GPR at 250MHz (p.173, of a railway tunnel), and also points (p.178) to Lorenzo et. al.’s (2002) paper “Selected Radar Images of Man-Made Underground Galleries” (Archaeological Prospection, 9(1), pp.1-8) as an exemplary study of looking for (admittedly) man-made tunnels and basements down to a depth of 7 metres. They conclude that GPR with a 100MHz centre frequency might well be the lower limit to use if you want avoid missing underground details.

But Why Lava Tubes, Nick?

If you’re wondering why I’m suddenly interested in lava tubes, the answer is actually painfully simple.

The most interesting section of Loys Masson’s copy of Le Butin’s papers that I blogged about recently runs as follows (my translation):

At the place indicated by my will, climb the river, and then climb the cliff eastward: twenty-five or thirty steps along according to the documents you will find corsair indicator marks to establish a circle of which the river is a few feet from the center. To the north and then four feet south you will find exactly the entrance to a cave once formed by an arm of the river passing beneath the cliff and blocked up by privateers to put their treasure in and this is the vault described by my will…

Prompted by insightful comments from Byron Deveson, it doesn’t take a huge leap of the geological imagination to see that what the writer was describing here was less likely to be an underground “river passing beneath a cliff” than a lava cave, lava tube or lava blister. And so for my proposed crowdfunding documentary, my plan is now to hire a suitable GPR rig, get myself trained up and go a-hunting on camera for any of these splendid lava void structures.

But how do I know there are any lava tubes on Mauritius at all? Well, that would be down almost entirely to the work of one determined individual… Greg Middleton. I’ll come back to his work in my next post, but to whet your appetite, here’s the earliest known drawing of a cave on Mauritius by the painter de Sainson (in D’Urville, 1830):

une-grotte-au-quartier-de-la-grande-riviere-ile-maurice

The matter of Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang (“Le Butin”)’s papers and his (allegedly) buried treasure cache has exercised my mind greatly over the last few years, though not so much in the traditional “how can I get my eager hands upon his pirate loot?” way as a “what the heck is going on there?” way.

howard-pyle-treasure-chest

The problem is simple: even though thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Mauritians have gone a-hunting for his treasure based on the description given in his papers, nobody has yet dug up so much as a brass earring, let alone (archivally) any scrap of evidence that proves that Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang ever lived.

All of which has greatly encouraged those who like to conclude that such cipher mysteries are necessarily fakes or hoaxes. In this instance, however, the correct answer is that the case is “Not Proven”, neither for nor against. It would be nice if we could tell either way but (for now)… we simply can’t.

The Sea Fog Starts to Recede…

More recently, though, things have started to make a little more sense (well, to me, at least). It now seems highly probable that of the three “Le Butin” papers, Nageon de l’Estang himself only wrote the first two (BN1 and BN2, a Will and a letter): it appears that the three documents that the writer of the third paper (BN3) mentions having been given (by a dying sea captain, somewhat melodramatically) were in fact BN1 and BN2, along with a (now probably lost) third document.

If this is correct, it is really helpful, because it helps us know how the three papers are (and are not) connected to each other: to be precise, the (unnamed and as yet unknown) corsair who wrote the third paper seems to have known no more about the contents of the other papers than we do. So the fact that Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang’s name does not appear on the crew lists of the Apollon (as apparently referred to in BN3) would make sense: it is the “missing corsair” (the author of BN3) who was on the Apollon, not Nageon de l’Estang.

It also now seems quite clear that “Le Butin”‘s papers have absolutely nothing to do with the treasure tradition associated with Olivier Levasseur (AKA “La Buse”, ‘The Buzzard’). This, too, helps keep our eyes focused on what we need to be looking at, and not distracted by other stuff.

Moreover, the version of the papers owned by Loys Masson (and described in print by him in 1935) turned out to be substantially different to the version given by Robert Charroux in 1962. Furthermore, it would not surprise me if the version described by long-time Mauritian treasure hunter Philippe Cherveau de Montléhu were to prove to be different from both. And again, it would not surprise me if the version described in Paul Fleuriau-Chateau’s book (which I’m hoping to see at the British Library this week, at long last) will turn out to have subtle differences from the others.

So… the first thing that would be good to see would be a set of transcriptions of the various copies of the papers.

Cladistics, Perhaps?

For those who study medieval manuscripts, the term ‘cladistics’ is sometimes used to denote the study of different versions of the same document, with the idea of trying to discover their relationships with each other: which is the original, which is the copy, which is the copy of the copy, or indeed might we reasonably hypothesize the existence of a missing original from which different copies were made?

Perhaps one next big step forward will involve collecting together the various versions of the “Butin” papers and applying this kind of analysis to them as a group. Can we do this to reconstruct what the original documents looked like? Or perhaps we would be able to identify one particular set as being most likely to be the original?

From what (little) I’ve seen so far, my prediction would be that Loys Masson’s copy of the papers are closer to the original set than Charroux’s copy: but this is still a very long way from certain.

Finally, it might be extraordinarily revealing to see the various copies of the letters (people must have photos of them, right?), because their internal evidence implies that we should expect BN1/BN2 and BN3 not to have all been written by the same hand. So if we find a set written by at least two hands, it is far more likely to be the original set than a (single-handed) set (i.e. probably copied by a later owner). Something to think about, anyway.

So… the second thing that would be good to see would be a set of photos of the various copies of the papers.

An Underground Riverbed…?

As far as the treasure expeditions go, Klondyke Company-style treasure hunting groups seem to have excavated in countless places along Mauritius’s West coast, as well as in numerous places along the island’s South and East coasts, though apparently without success. Phillipe Cherveau de Montléhu‘s fruitless 20-year hunt would seem to be entirely typical in this respect.

But given that the letters say (quite unambiguously, it has to be said) that the treasure was sealed in an underground river (between a river and a cliff, and apparently not too far from Vacoas), the right tool for searching would be not a huge team of guys with pickaxes and hungry eyes, but ground penetrating radar. If GPR can’t find something resembling an underground river void, you’d best leave your spades and trowels in the shed.

So… the third thing that would be good to see would be GPR scans of any areas in Eastern Mauritius between a river and a cliff.

And So… A “Le Butin” Documentary?

Even though I’ve been pursuing this whole story for some years, I suspect there’s little else out there that will be publicly available. I keep plodding away behind the scenes, sure: but the Law of Dimishing Returns seems to have firmly set in.

So I now suspect that the best way to try to bring new stuff into the open would be to take a bold step sideways, by crowdfunding a “Le Butin” documentary.

As part of the film, I’d like:
* to go through various Mauritian archives (e.g. in Curepipe etc) for documents and old photos
* to look for archival traces of the Klondike Company and other treasure hunting groups
* to interview Phillipe Cherveau de Montléhu (if he’s still alive?) and any other “Le Butin” treasure hunters out there
* to interview Mauritian historians who have taken an interest in this over the years (some must have seen copies of the papers, surely?)
* (of course) to carry out a GPR scan (to look for any sign of an old underground river between a cliff and a river in the Black River District)

Does this sound sensible? Is there anything missing from the list that you think would be interesting to see in a documentary? Can anyone advise about the most appropriate GPR setup to use (e.g. what frequency would be best for searching for underground river beds in a basaltic area)?

Once upon a time, Cipher Mysteries commenter Christopher Maggi posted a link (very kindly) to a page with some vintage photos of Mauritius, including the following image of a treasure hunt in the Baie de Corsaire (Klondike) in 1908:

Flic-en-Flac-Treasure-Hunt-1908

However, the profusely-illustrated “Pirates & Privateers in Mauritius” (2014) by Denis Piat lists (p.71) a long sequence of excavations made on Mauritius in search of pirate treasure (though not including 1908):

* 1860 – east coast, near the “Grande Retraite dwelling house”
* 1902 and 1912 – Klondike [as per the Klondyke Company I blogged about here]
* 1925 – Walhalla
* 1926 – Grand Port area, Pointe Vacoas
* 1927 – Belmont, close to Poudre d’Or
* 1932 – Petit-Sable, Pointe Vacoas
* 1940 – Klondike
* 1950 – Tamarin
* 1960 – Pointe aux Roches [this “was explored by a diviner”]

Piat also shows part of a (somewhat fake-looking?) map courtesy of Patrick Ferrat, that he says “belonged to Philippe Chevreau de Montléhu, a Mauritian treasure hunter who searched and excavated the Barachois de Belmont for 20 years without success”. (p.59)

plan-du-tresor-de-saint-antoine

Sounds like an interesting character, but… Montlé-who, you may quite reasonably ask?

Philippe Chevreau de Montléhu

There seems to be almost nothing written about him. However, I did find an article in German by Sonia Shinde or Richard Dobson (it wasn’t clear to me who wrote it), from the online magazine Merian: it included a nice picture of Philippe Chevreau de Montléhu on a Mauritian beach:

schatz-korsaren-mauritius

Just to be kind, I translated the section of it (fairly freely, admittedly, but I don’t think it’s much the worse for the encounter) that related to him for you all. Enjoy!

It must be somewhere on the island. Somewhere along the Rivière Noire in the West, perhaps, or at least at Souillac in the south? Or maybe just behind the airport in the middle of the tomato and sugar cane fields? Philippe Chevreau de Montléhu is on the trail of the treasure of the pirate Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang.

The pirate buried three iron barrels filled with doubloons and ingots, as well as a copper casket overflowing with flawless diamonds from the Indian mines of Vizapoure and Golconda, the places where such legendary stones as the Koh-i-noor and the Hope Diamond were found. Half a dozen slaves helped him, their skeletons now guarding the treasure. The hoard will be worth nine million euros, if not more, and Chevreau feels he is extremely close. A sixth share will go to the five to seven financiers who helped him, and another share to the owners of the lands. “For me, then there is still more than enough. I will keep one to two million, the rest I will donate”, he promises.

Philippe Chevreau de Montléhu, an elderly man from a wealthy French-Mauritian family, seems to have spent his share of the booty before the treasure is found. Always elegantly dressed and with an air of serenity and composure, he has researched pirate treasure for over 20 years. Though his riches will probably die with him, according to the island gossip, he speaks of a good 6000 euros which he has already invested. He has – alas – found nothing yet: but success is surely only a matter of time. Ultimately, the directions to the treasure are precise: “Follow the course of the river, cross the gorge and take the road to the east until you see the signs of the corsairs.”

[Folge dem Lauf des Flusses, durchquere die Schlucht und nimm den Weg nach Osten, bis du die Zeichen der Korsaren siehst.]

The pirate Nageon himself wrote this down as a legacy for his nephew Justin: but unfortunately the nephew found nothing. When he finally stopped in the dark of night with his uncle’s testament in his hands, destiny hit him with the force of a axe-blow on the beach in Mauritius… his body was never found. But the story of the fabled treasure has haunted the island for more than 200 years.

No one knows how many treasure hunters there are in Mauritius today. A good handful is rumored to have devoted their life and career to the search for Lost Treasure, though many others armed with metal detectors wander at random through the basalt caves and on the beaches. And when their search has eaten up all their capital, they go to the beaches and tourist spots instead, and hunt there for lost watches, bracelets, rings and rupees. It’s not big money, sure, but it can be enough to keep their dream alive.

The other treasures – the proper ones – were left behind from busy times: the British and French fought bitterly in the 19th century to gain control of the Ile de France, nowadays called Mauritius. Privateers, legitimized by the letters of marque they carried, plundered and sunk everything flying the wrong flag. Robert Surcouf, the King of Corsairs, made life difficult for the English – making himself and his crew rich in the process.

This proverbial buck must finally have stopped somewhere. For what did not disappear on card tables, in taverns or onto the necklines of the harbor whores ended up hidden, buried in caves or buried in the sand, and marked with secret signs. For example, the outlines of boots or anchors were often found carved into the rock, as pirate symbols of money, as indeed were strangely shaped stones.

Chevreau has found just such a stone: it looks like a boot and now sits in his garden. For inexperienced visitors, this would seem to be no more than a freak of nature: but for him it is a clue, a fateful sign. The sugar barons, he says, flattened and bulldozed everything, even the signs left behind by the Corsairs. The river whose course he is trying to follow is no longer there, but you can still see the bright stripes of limestone which run through the dark rocks. Might this be a trail for treasure hunters to follow – or merely traces of the sedimented fertilizer the plantation owners used to treat their fields with?

Chevreau keeps his most precious treasures in a red tin with a rusted lid: stones and a few coins, which (I’m sorry to say) are too young to have come from the Golden Age of Pirates at the end of the 18th century.

Back in February 2016, I posted about a possible “block paradigm” match for the Voynich zodiac section – using a separate text uncovered by secondary research as a close match to the plaintext, and trying to work forward to the ciphertext, rather than blindly backwards from the ciphertext (as normal).

The match I proposed was with Andalò di Negro’s “introductorium ad iudicia astrologie”, a little-known fourteenth century text mentioned by Thorndike that covered per-degree judicial astrology. I tried hard to find a match between the tables in Andalò’s work and the poses of the nymphs in the Voynich zodiac section: but ultimately wasn’t able to. It might be there, it might not: I don’t know either way.

It was a disappointment: but not the end of the road by a long way…

The Paris 7272 Cipher

One of the two extant manuscripts of Andalò di Negro’s Introductorium is BNF Cod. Fonds Latin 7272: interestingly, as I noted back in 2009 when I saw its zodiac images in the Warburg’s photographic archive, this has some shorthand-like marginalia that had never been decrypted.

When I finally managed to get good images of these marginalia and posted about them, it didn’t take long before Marco Ponzi cleverly managed to crack the core of the cipher.

Once decrypted, these marginalia revealed the – apparently top secret – names of the spirits governing each zodiac sign, e.g.:

Aries: NOMEN ARIETIS SOLICET ANGELUS EIUS (EST) “SORON”
Taurus: NOMEN ANGELUS TAURA (EST) “TOION”
Gemini: NOMEN ANGELUS JEMINORUM (EST) “SAISIACIN” “GADLIO[N]I”
Cancer: NOMEN ANGELUS CANCRI (EST) “BARAM”
Leo: NOMEN ANGELUS LEONIS (EST) “COLIN”

The complete set of spirit names for the twelve signs is then revealed to be:

– IN?TIUS
– SORON TOION
– GADLION SAISIACIN
– BARAM COLIN
– MIMIN SUDRAM
– TEDUO GORO(?)
– UDABUL DOLI?IT

What I didn’t point out at the time is that because “GADLION SAISIACIN” would appears to be a single spirit name (that for Gemini), then “IN?TIUS” would appear to be the spirit name for Pisces. Hence Pisces would seem to be the first in the list.

And – I almost need not say, but I’m contractually obliged to – the Voynich Manuscript’s list of zodiac signs begins (slightly unusually) with Pisces. Which gives a small amount of support to the idea that these two documents may both be drawing in some way from the same well. It’s not a big thing, but I thought I ought to mention it regardless. 🙂

Voynich Pisces

Aside from the looking for a block match with the thirty posed per-degree nymphs corresponding to each sign, there’s another possible block match on the same page: with the text on each circular ring.

This doesn’t amount to a great deal of additional text for each sign: but given that something is definitely there, a similarly-sized piece of text associated with the original per-degree table for that sign might conceivably get us close to the original (unenciphered) plaintext for those rings.

In the case of the Voynich Pisces page (f70v2), the three rings of text (in EVA) are as follows:

(R3) Outer ring, clockwise from 11:30 (as per the interlinear transcription) [~43 words]:
okcheo.dar.otey.ykeey.tchy.otsheo.oteotey.shey.sheckh.opcheoldair.dateey.sal.ody.choteey.chocthedy.oteoteotsho.yteos.alain.sheodaly.ckho.aiin.cholkal.chotear.oteody.cholaiin.oteeey.al.ol.sheeor.okey.choldy.otees.chor.ol.ar.otoaiin.oteeody.sor.todaiin.chokain.otalal.otcham.

(R2) Middle ring, clockwise from 11:15 [~32 words]:
chedaiin.oteey.dair.shchey.daiin.chalaly.oteody.chotol.chedy.oteotey.oteeeor.ar.alody.daiir.oteedar.otchy.teey.dalal.cheoltey.oteedy.sheeteey.*.ykeeol.ykeeor.shey.ykear.araralor.daimamdy.otar.am.aral.otar*

(R1) Inner ring, clockwise from 09:00 [~20 words]:
otaldaly.oteoal.dalaildy.otaiin.ar.oteey.shal.o.qoteeal.ar.al.otaiin.al.teodaiin.oteey.cthey.oteeor.oteor.aiin.daim.

Note that this is my own reading of these lines, which is slightly different to other researchers’ readings. But that’s fairly immaterial here, because we’re looking for word-level matches with a parallel text: and remember that we have no evidence of any encipherer systematically hiding word divisions in a ciphertext until the early sixteenth century, some decades after the Voynich Manuscript was made.

The question now becomes: is there a similar-sized block of text for Pisces in Andalò di Negro’s “introductorium ad iudicia astrologie”? And if so, what happens if we try to make a block paradigm-style “block match” between it and the text in the Voynich Manuscript’s Pisces rings?

Zodiac Texts

It just so happens that there is such a text. In fact, I posted the complete set from the two extant Introductorium manuscripts on the Cipher Foundation website earlier in the year.

In the London manuscript, the Pisces text block looks like this:

andalo-pisces-text

In the Paris manuscript, the Pisces text block looks like this (with one extra sentence):

paris-pisces

This is roughly half the number of words of the Voynich Pisces ring texts: but once again, there’s a further short piece of useful text attached to the tables that (I expect) would also need to be carried across:

7272-pisces-table

Most of the text in the table is formulaic (i.e. common to all twelve zodiac tables), but some lines (specifically the top three lines of text) seem to be largely specific to Pisces.

I suspect that if you add these two half-blocks together, you would get close to the same number of words that the Pisces rings contain. Might there be a match of some sort in there? Very possibly, I’d say. So perhaps this may yet prove to be a practical start towards a decryption of this page, let’s keep our fingers crossed, eh?

And My Conclusion?

Well… sadly, I don’t have a conclusion yet. I’ve posted this as a set of work-in-progress notes for myself, and as a broad guide to the kind of approach I believe stands a good chance of cracking the Voynich Manuscript (in time) for others, rather than as a decryption as such.

But perhaps any passing Latinists will be so kind as to parse the handwriting and expand out the late medieval abbreviations, I’m sure that would be a very great help for anyone who would like to try to make a forward (block) match for this page. Thanks!

Over recent years, one topic on which I’ve expended much virtual ink (as well as actual book-buying budget) is that of Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang’s (AKA “Le Butin”, ‘Mr Booty’) letters. But one of the many questions that bother me is: where are these letters? Who owns them?

I don’t yet know the answer: but I believe I can name someone who did once own an actual copy of them…

Loys Masson

Back in April 2016, I mentioned in a post here that I had found an online reference to a 1935 article in the long-running French literary magazine “Revue des Deux Mondes” that seemed related. However, the specific issue wasn’t available online, so I (once again, are you seeing the pattern yet?) had to spend money on a copy. In fact, it proved cheaper to buy the entire set of magazines for 1935 than a single issue (don’t ask me why).

loys-masson

The author of the article was a young Mauritian poet called Loys Masson: when he (later) arrived in France just as the war properly kicked off, the focus of his work suddenly transformed from a rather elegiac love of Nature into the rather more conflicted (and interesting) topics of war, Resistance and loss.

But you should remember that Mauritius at that time was still a British possession, despite being predominantly French-speaking: which meant that he suddenly found himself (technically) a Briton in occupied France, which required plenty of flexibility to avoid problems. There’s much more about Masson to be found in the book “Loys Masson – Entre Nord et Sud : Les terres d’écriture“, a collection of pieces on him edited by Norbert Louis, who himself contributed a fifty-page summary of Masson’s life and works to it.

But in 1935, it was Masson’s article “La France A L’Ile Maurice” that proved to be his breakthrough piece: the goodwill and interest it raised opened many doors for him, to the point that he could genuinely consider moving from Mauritius to the French literary scene.

His Revue des Deux Mondes piece celebrates the bicentenary of the founding of Port Louis, the capital of the island. More directly relevant to Cipher Mysteries, though, is the fact that in it Masson describes owning a copy of Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang’s letters.

I mentioned this to Norbert Louis, who – though he had seen the 1935 article – was very surprised to find out that the letters to which Masson referred do genuinely exist (he suspected that they were merely Masson’s literary invention), and wasn’t aware of any article or book that discussed these further. So there would seem to be no literature relating to these letters in studies of Masson’s life or works, alas.

What follows is my free translation of what Masson wrote (and which I have transcribed separately and posted on a new Cipher Foundation page):

Masson’s Article

We now make a short stop at the mouth of a stream, a river full of great boulders, where you will have to suffer a nebulous history of treasures. Have they ever existed, these fabulous caches allegedly buried somewhere near the coast? Nobody knows at all. Whether legendary or true, however, there was a time in my family home when numerous Oedipuses found themselves passionately absorbed by these problems. Treasure research was fashionable. Several of my relations threw themselves headlong into it, losing themselves completely. As a child, I recall plans full of cabalistic symbols that one would study by a night lamp, their arrows and crosses traced in a faded ink. As a teenager, I had the good fortune one Sunday to accompany some romantic relatives on one of their treasure-hunting expeditions. Indeed, I saw on large flat stones some of the signs from the documents: here an anchor, there a turtle, and further on were the vestiges of a cryptographic alphabet. Despite our extensive searches, we found nothing. Yet treasure was there, I’m sure. For a long time, I have been in possession of letters from a Sieur Najeon de l’Etang, a veteran corsair, written to one of his nephews in the Seychelles. What remain of these, alas!, are but poor copies. I permit myself to extract some short passages from them for you.

The first is dated 20 floréal an III. “With help from our influential friends, get yourself to the Indian Ocean and the île de France. At the place indicated by my will, climb the river, and then climb the cliff eastward: twenty-five or thirty steps along according to the documents you will find corsair indicator marks to establish a circle of which the river is a few feet from the center. To the north and then four feet south you will find exactly the entrance to a cave once formed by an arm of the river passing beneath the cliff and blocked up by privateers to put their treasure in and this is the vault described by my will…”

The second, “I give to Jean-Marius Justin Najeon de l’Etang, my nephew, namely… treasures recovered from the Indus: I was wrecked in a cove near Vaquois and walked up a river and deposited in a cave the riches from the Indus and marked the place with B. N. my initials… ”

And a third, starting with this almost biblical quote: “Beloved Brother… There are three treasures. The one buried on my dear île de France is considerable. According to the documents, you will see: three iron barrels and jars full of minted doubloons and thirty million ingots and a copper box filled with diamonds from the mines of Visapur and Golkonda…”

What happened to this Croesian cache? Who will tell us? Have we taken completely the wrong route? Only one certainty remains: neither Jean-Marius Najeon nor his descendants solved the riddle. Nor did anyone since. The precious jars and boxes of diamonds, might they have been abducted by an affiliate of the adventurous band? Or do they slumber still in that same dark cave, guarded by a ghostly sentry? The diamond sphinx prefers not to say…

The Differences

What is intriguing is that although extracts from two of the three letters given by Masson are very close (though still not 100% identical) to what we have been working with, the other extract – though overlapping – can only be described as significantly different.

I’ll make the differences there clear, sentence by sentence, by comparing them with the better-known versions of the letters that appeared in “Trésors du monde” by Robert Charroux, Édition J’ai lu (1962):

[Charroux 1962] Par nos amis influents, fais-toi envoyer dans la mer des Indes et rends-toi à l’île de France à l’endroit indiqué par mon testament.
[Masson 1935] Par nos amis influents fais-toi envoyer dans la mer des Indes et rends-toi à l’Ile de France.

[Charroux 1962] Remonte la falaise allant vers l’est ; à vingt-cinq ou trente pas est, conformement aux documents, tu trouveras les marques indicatives des corsaires pour établir un cercle dont la rivière est à quelques pieds du centre.
[Masson 1935] Au lieu indiqué par mon testament, remonte la rivière, remonte la falaise allant vers l’est : à 25 ou 30 pas Est conformément aux documents tu trouveras les marques indicatrices des corsaires pour établir un cercle dont la rivière est à quelques pieds de centre.

[Charroux 1962] Là est le trésor.
[Masson 1935] Au nord donc et à quatre pieds du sud tu trouveras exactement l’entrée d’une caverne jadis formée par un bras de la rivière passant sous la falaise et bouchée par les corsaires pour y mettre leur trésor et qui est le caveau désigné par mon testament.

My Thoughts

Back in 1935, treasure hunting was hugely in vogue – not just in Mauritius, but all over the world. Yet might it have been the case that people were relying on the versions of the letters Charroux later printed in his book, rather than the versions Loys Masson had? Or on yet other copies of those letters?

We don’t know: I know of no retrospective literature on this, and treasure hunters rarely reveal their secrets, even when they – finally, having blown all their personal money and any syndicate money they raised – give up the chase.

More recently, I pointed out that there seems to be strong internal evidence that the final “Beloved Brother…” letter was written by what I called a “missing corsair“, who had inherited the first two documents. If this is correct, it helps give some clarity to what has long been a muddy picture.

Might it be that Loys Masson saw two types of handwriting in his documents, and inferred that they must be copies of older documents, when they could easily have been originals? Unless we ever get to see these (and who owns them now I have no idea, and Norbert Louis had no idea either), we’ll never know.

But perhaps modern investigators will be able to use up-to-the-minute techniques to follow the slightly more detailed instructions in Masson’s versions of the treasure documents: to travel up the river from Vacoas, eastwards along a cliff to some pirate marks, northwards then four feet back, before finding the underground cavern hidden by pirates all those centuries before. Might the cache still be where he left it?

Which River Vacoas?

Here’s the south-west corner of Mauritius (“Isle de France”) from a 1791 map:

Isle-de-France-1791-Vacoas

You can see clearly that there are only two inlets that are near Vacoas. The first (to the right of “Flic en Flac”) collects the Rivière du Tamarin, the Rivière des Vaguas, and an unnamed third smaller river; while the second has only the ominous-sounding Rivière Noire feeding into it.

It would seem logical that the writer of the first two documents believed that he had had been shipwrecked close to the mouth of the Rivière des Vaguas: yet the problem with that is that there are no cliffs whatsoever beside that river.

In fact, only the Rivière Noire runs past cliffs of any size (according to the topographical map I looked at):

topographic-map

Anyway, just so you know… if I was going to go on a treasure hunt here, I’d start by looking at all the early maps of the island I can find. Could it be that Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang confused two different inlets, and so was never able to recover his treasure?

I hear the distant sound of metal detectors being warmed up… who knows where this story may lead?

We start with some film footage of the Atlantis, taken by a doctor called Karl Höffkes who worked aboard the raider. I’m not sure, but the brief glimpse of vehicles that appears at 0:13 might well have been taken aboard the Tirranna:

According to Captain Gundersen (interviewed for the maritime hearings in Oslo in December 1940), “it turned out that” five people died in the 10th June 1940 attack by the Atlantis, as transcribed here.

– 4th engineer Einar Christensen,
– Electrician Otto Kristensen,
– Matros [?] Hilmar Engelsen,
– Machine Boy James Andersen,
– Passenger Charles Mikkelsen

On its own, this would be strong evidence that Mikkelsen died. However, we can further cross-reference this with a number of other accounts, and confirm that exactly five people died on the 10th June 1940…

Graeme Cubbin

John Richardson’s excellent ebook “Victims of Atlantis” includes many details taken from the diary of 16-year-old cadet Graeme Cubbin (who was on the SS Scientist, a ship captured by the Atlantis a few weeks before the Tirranna), including the following quotations:

When Captain Gundersen met up with Rogge he complained bitterly, saying that Norway had capitulated and made peace with Germany just a few hours earlier on that very day, and that he had quite unnecessarily killed five of his men and badly injured a dozen more. (p.51)

Also:

Quite a number of [the Norwegian crew of the Tirranna] were working their passage home from Australia. They did so in order to join up and help put a spoke in the wheel of the Nazi War machine; several had lost their families in the German bombing raids. Five of their comrades had been killed by the German gunners, another died later in the hospital of Atlantis and several lay wounded and helpless in the care of the German doctors. (pp.53-54)

Ulrich Mohr

According to Atlantis’ First Officer Ulrich Mohr (in his book “Ship 16: The Story of a German Surface Raider”):

When I climbed aboard [the Tirranna] I found her decks were literally covered in blood; it lay in pools wherever one trod. Five men were dead, but there were many wounded.

Kapitan Rogge – Atlantis Ship’s Log

Personally, I found reading Volume 1 of Captain Rogge’s Ship’s Log for the Atlantis (thankfully in English) to be shocking and humbling: it taught me more about the real nature of sea warfare than any other book I’ve read. The Kapitan’s behaviour was a model of precision, insight, care and yet cunning: he even used the Tirranna as a sighting target at night to see which one of the different sets of binoculars on board was most effective at picking out ships in the dark.

From Rogge’s log, it is amply clear that he was fully aware of the five deaths on 10th June 1940. Note that the next death wasn’t on the 11th (as reported by Captain Gundersen) – in fact, the Tirranna’s carpenter Johan Johansen had a leg amputated plus an emergency appendectomy (!) on the 11th, but died on the 15th. All in all, the Atlantis’s log seems to be an extremely reliable source document to be working with.

The account of the taking of the Tirranna starts on about page 93 and continues for many pages. After capturing the Tirranna, the Atlantis was in close contact with its prize ship for a good amount of time, so there are numerous mentions of the Tirranna throughout the log.

(p.97)
12:44 — Picket boat sent off with search party under the command of Lt.Cdr. Kamenz. They established the following:-
Motor ship “Tirranna” (built in 1938 by Schichau in Danzig) 7230 tons, carrying 3,000 tons of wheat, 72,000 sacks of flour for British Ministry of Food, 6,015 bales of wool for the British Government, 178 military vehicles and a cargo of canteen goods for the A.I.F. (Australian troops in Palestine) sailing
(p.98)
under orders from the Admiralty from Melbourne to Mombasa. The crew had not yet left the ship, as the boats were partly destroyed. The upper
deck of the ship showed signs of the long spell under fire. There was hardly a spot on the whole ship which had not been riddled with splinters. The upper bridge had been especially hard hit, likewise the boat deck, where the sandbagged radio cabin and the mess below it had been destroyed by a direct hit. Numerous casualties, dead and wounded, lay about the ship. She requested a doctor to look after the wounded and Surgeon Lt. (j.g.) Sprung went aboard shortly afterwards. He certified the death of 5 men and saw to the transport of 3 severe casualties. The crew were made to pack up their private gear and then took to the boats under the supervision of Lt. (j .£•) Breuers • To ease the boat traffic, the motor boat from the “Europa” was sent out and proved invaluable. I must say, however, that the crew has had to toil for weeks to get this boat, which came from one of Germany’s first passenger ships, fit for use at sea and in a decent condition. Boatswain’s mate Ross maneuvered very well with this rather unmanageable boat.

Under weather conditions to date the naval pinnace has proved itself invaluable for all tasks. The boat has been handled very carefully and with extremely fine seamanship by the regular steersman Boatswain’s Mate Stierle.

Surgeon Lt. Cdr. Reil and Surg. Lt. (j.g.) Sprung, the sick bay attendants and the stretcher bearers gave most excellent and devoted care to the severely wounded casualties. As the surgeon, Lt. (j.g.) Sprung had to perform difficult operations – an amputation and a brain operation. Lt . (s.g.) Strecker assisted at the operations. In all six severely wounded casualties had to receive treatment.
[…]
(p.99)
11 June — A statement made by the captain gave us the Tuesday following information:- “Tirranna” left Oslo on 18 Feb, 1940, proceeded through the North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Suez Canal to Ras Hafun, took in salt there, proceeded on 19 March to Miri (Borneo) where she took in oil (29 March) to Hakodate (Japan) on 6 April. There the ship heard news of the outbreak of war between Germany and Norway. On 17 April 1940 while he was in Hakodate the captain received orders from the Norwegian consul in Tokyo to proceed in ballast to Sydney and take in cargo there for British customers, and await further instructions. The ship stayed in Sydney from 1 till 14 May, 1940, in Melbourne from 16 to 29 May. During her stay in Melbourne the ship was fitted out with a 4.7 inch gun, (quick firer 4.7 inch, 45 cal. K.1917 Kure P.V.) (built in Japan under an English license no. 338 Sept. 1932) base, magazine, smoke floats, gun communication telephone, 1 machine gun and 3 rifles, together with ammunition, steel helmets, etc. all to the account D.E.M.S. No. 91 (Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships ).
(p.100)
According to the captain the “Tirranna” is the first armed Norwegian merchant ship to sail for the Department of Defense, Commonwealth of Australia.

He took on the main part of the cargo in Sydney, the remainder of the lorries in Melbourne. From there the ship was despatched on 30 May to Mombasa. The captain went on to state that he received his course instructions for Mombasa in Melbourne. He had destroyed them on meeting, the auxiliary cruiser i.e. he had torn them up and put the fragments in the waste paper basket. After the waste paper basket had been emptied carefully, we were able to piece the instructions perfectly together again (see appendix). Also the Naval Control Officer in Melbourne had
assured him he could go to sleep quite happily until he reached Mombasa, there were no German warships in the Indian Ocean, However, there were mines off Cape Agulhas, which had been laid by the “Graf Spee”.
[…]
(p.101)
The captain thought that he might be shot on board the auxiliary cruiser. He bitterly reproached himself for his conduct and its consequences – above all for the five dead.

So, All That Is Missing Is…

Naturally, there’s one last thing we don’t have, because the list of the names of the Tirranna’s crew and passengers is in an appendix in the original (German) Atlantis ship’s log, which (unfortunately for us) the American translators apparently thought not to include.

So… can anyone help find the original Kriegsmarine document (presumably Volume 2)? I couldn’t find any reference to it, but given that it was translated, it must be somewhere out there, surely?

Alternatively, the crew list and the list of the five dead might be included in Rogge’s own book (which went through at least ten editions in German, and was translated into English). The bibliographic reference given on the German Wikipedia page is:

Wolfgang Frank, Bernhard Rogge: “Schiff 16. Tatsachenbericht. Die Kaperfahrten des schweren Hilfskreuzers Atlantis auf den 7 Weltmeeren.” Genehmigte Taschenbuchausgabe. 10. Auflage. Heyne, München 1982, ISBN 3-453-00039-0, 251 S

Does anyone have a copy of this? Alternatively, the English translation was published as “Ship 16: The Story of a German Surface Raider” (which sadly doesn’t have as gloriously pedantic a title as the German original) [and yes, I’ve ordered myself a copy of this too, *sigh*].

Though Byron Deveson’s current working hypothesis (that Charles Mikkelsen was the Somerton Man) has many features to commend it (not least of which would seem to be that two completely separate people identified Mikkelsen as SM at the time), it does struggle with the very public report of Mikkelsen’s death aboard the M/V Tirranna on 10th June 1940, more than eight years before the Somerton Man’s death.

Now that we have (I believe) almost entirely ruled out the scenario where there were two people both called Charles Mikkelsen trying to emigrate to Australia at the same time, there would seem to be two remaining major alternative scenarios to consider:

#1: The Imposter Scenario

What if the person identifying himself as “Charles Mikkelsen” on the Tirranna was actually an imposter?

The two problems with this are (a) it’s extraordinarily unlikely, and (b) it’s extraordinarily hard to test. But I thought I’d mention it anyway.

#2: The Deserter Scenario

What if Charles Mikkelsen managed to get off the Tirranna before it was sank by the British submarine HMS Tuna, either in Sydney (from where it left on 15th May 1940) or in a midway stop en route to Mombasa?

The first good thing about this scenario is that, as we previously saw, Mikkelsen had previously deserted at least two three different ships (in *1924*, 1937 and 1940): so this is a scenario for which he arguably has ‘form’. The other ‘good’ thing supporting (or rather ‘not opposing’) this scenario is that any document on the Tirranna went to the bottom of the sea a little later in 1940, when it was sunk by HMS Tuna: so there remains a chance that his reported death on 10th June 1940 was somehow inferred rather than actually known.

However, the two main bad things about this scenario are (a) that we have documentary evidence that the Boarding Inspector confirmed that Mikkelsen was on board while the ship was in port in Sydney; and (b) we don’t have anything at all that stands against the report of his death.

What Can We Do?

To my mind, one good avenue of attack is social – that is, trying to find Mikkelsen’s New Zealander fiancée and seeing if we can trace his post-1940 history through her. Mikkelsen mentions her in a number of places, but she doesn’t appear in any family tree (so they probably were never married): and she may indeed never have travelled over to Australia. Sending him a “Dear John” copy of the Rubaiyat in the post may be as close as she got. 🙂

A second good avenue of attack is by trying to better understand the last few days of the M/V Tirranna. What archival evidence is out there? And how good is Google Translate with Norwegian? As a great philosopher balder than me likes to say, only one way to find out

The M/V Tirranna

Allen C. Green Series H91.109/469
(Image Source: Allen C. Green Series H91.109/469, State Library of Victoria)

The M/V Tirranna was built in 1938 in Danzig: here is its entry in the 1940 Lloyds Shipping Register (which I found scanned on the Tirranna wrecksite.eu page):

tirranna-lloyds-1940

The Tirranna left Melbourne on 30th May 1940, bound for the United Kingdom. It had a crew of 60 Norwegians and 12 passengers: according to this news article, “[w]hen the Tirranna left Melbourne she was carrying as passengers a number of Norwegians who were returning to Europe with the intention of joining the Norwegian forces to continue the fight for their country”.

According to this article, “most of those aboard joined the ship in Sydney. One was Mr. S. Rasmussen, who was with the Australian Motorists Petrol Co Ltd. He was on the Norwegian navy’s reserve list, with the rank of lieut-commander.” Another passenger on board the Tirranna was (according to this article) “Mr. Birger Bjornebye, who left in the Tirranna to join the fighting forces in Norway … [who was a] sales representative of Mr S. Lie’s firm.”

Another page notes that the Tirranna “…had a full general cargo and a large shipment of ambulances for the British forces”, which elsewhere is listed as “wheat, flour, wool, 178 military vehicles and general cargo”.

It seems that the idea was for the Tirranna to proceed to Mombasa, and then – when the coast was clear, so to speak 🙂 – proceed from there onwards to the Suez Canal, a vital asset which the British maintained control of throughout WW2.

The M/V Tirranna Timeline

Extremely helpfully, the National Archives of Norway have the following document, courtesy of this page:

tirranna-itinerary

From this and other details on this page, we can reconstruct the M/V Tirranna‘s timeline:

* 1st May 1940 – Arrived Sydney (from Kobe, Japan)
* 13th May 1940 – Departed Sydney
* 15th May 1940 – Arrived Melbourne
Note: while in Melbourne, weaponry was fitted to the Tirranna and five crew members were trained how to use it
* 30th May 1940 – Departed Melbourne
* 10th June 1940 – Encountered the German Raider Atlantis south-east of Mauritius

Perhaps The Pendulum Swings Once More?

As far as Charles Mikkelsen goes, understanding this timeline opens up the very direct possibility that the second (Deserter) scenario might easily be in play.

This is because even though we have archival confirmation that Mikkelsen was on board the Tirranna in Sydney, he could surely have jumped ship in Melbourne: the Tirranna was in port for a whole fortnight having the gun fitted. Perhaps nobody noticed Mikkelsen wasn’t on board until after the surrender when they compared the original passenger list with who was left?

So the next place to look is the maritime hearings that “were held in Oslo, Norway on Dec. 21-1940 with Captain Gundersen and 1st Mate Holst appearing”, part of which is transcribed here. According to Captain Gundersen’s (reconstructed) log, after he had surrendered the ship:

“It then turned out that following 5 men were killed:
– 4th engineer Einar Christensen,
– Electrician Otto Kristensen,
– Matros [?] Hilmar Engelsen,
– Machine Boy James Andersen,
– Passenger Charles Mikkelsen”

But once again, was Mikkelsen killed or merely missing? “It turned out” is such a vague turn of phrase, we simply can’t tell… yet. With a little luck, maybe we will, though.

In many ways, this hunt for Charles Mikkelsen is a perfect example of a cipher mystery, in that it has that characteristically fine balance between equivocal evidence (which seems to speak two opposing stories simultaneously) and the surprising difficulty of uncovering the tiniest of evidences that would collapse the two stories into the binary divide of true and merely hopeful. If you don’t see it as a pendulum, you’re probably not looking closely enough. 🙂

So… Where To Look Now?

I continue to be intrigued by the possibility that we might be able – by some means – to identify Mikkelsen’s fiancée in New Zealand. It may be that someone in his family may have the tiniest of clues as to her identity, that we may collectively be able to amplify up into an identification: in those days, letter-writing was just as pervasive as texting is now, so a mention in a letter may well be all we need. Though I doubt they married (and suspect that they may have split up by the time Mikkelsen got on the boat to go back to Norway, even if he did possibly change his mind), she might well have known if he had lived beyond 10th June 1940.

For those who read Norwegian, the 1943 book “Tusen norske skip” edited by female war reporter Lise Lindbæk (or her Wikipedia entry) may offer some clues: luckily, there’s an English translation (entitled “Norway’s New Saga of the Sea: The Story of Her Merchant Marine in World War II”). I should be no surprise that I’ve just ordered a copy and look forward to reading it.

Finally, I estimate that there’s a 80% or better chance that someone who was on board the Tirranna is still alive: of the (supposed) sixty crew and 12 passengers, only 48 are listed online, of whom 36 survived. Here’s the list (“[I]” means injured):

Captain – Edvard Hauff Gundersen
1st Mate – Thorolf Holst [I]
2nd Mate – Nils A. Nilsen
3rd Mate – Sven Bjørneby
Radio Operator – Johnny Haaland
Boatswain – Ole Paulsen [I]
Able Seaman – Kristian Christensen [I]
Able Seaman – Robert Fuglevik
Able Seaman – Floor Andersen
Ordinary Seaman – Alf Sverre Hansen
Deckboy – Einar Olsen [I]
Deckboy – Johan Jacobsen
1st Engineer – Johannes Knudsrød
3rd Engineer – Rolf Andersen
Mechanic – Erling Olsen
Mechanic – Leonard Hilland
Mechanic – Thomas Berg
Mechanic – Leif Henriksen
Mechanic – David Johansen
Mechanic – Kjell L. Gundersen
Oiler – Ragnar Andersen
Steward – Frithjof Gundersen
Cook – Olaf Eliassen
Galley Boy – Einar Jacobsen
Mess Boy – Haakon Sørensen
Saloon Boy – John Rønning
Saloon Girl – Jenny Jensen
Passenger – Odd Nyrud
Passenger – Peder Grodeland
Passenger – Karl Fause
Passenger – Sigurd Vaage Rasmussen
Passenger – Thor Haugen
Passenger – Leif Bartho
Passenger – Birger Bjørnsby [I]
Passenger – Trond Larsen
Passenger – Ole Herman Andersen

I doubt that anyone has yet tried to trace these Tirranna survivors specifically to ask about Charles Mikkelsen. So perhaps we should… 🙂

The primary set of documents covering Charles Mikkelsen’s life is in the NAA, with barcode 31817302. This is mainly comprised of single-page memos bouncing between various government departments during 1937 to 1940 as they processed his application for Australian citizenship. The NAA also has a two-page document from 1932 relating to Mikkelsen’s arrival on the Tancred (barcode 5511023).

Note that some online family trees (such as here) give his birthplace as “Vardø”, but I don’t know how to reconcile that with the “Bassjordan” (?) he gave on his passport.

I used the above sources (along with other archival sources where possible) to build up a timeline for what he was doing. Entries in the following that are only a page number refer to the NAA 31817302 (1937-1940) item.

Charles Mikkelsen Timeline

17th July 1902 – Born in “Bassjordan”, Norway. (1932 p.1)

Jan / Feb 1924 – Norwegian steamship Bessa – deserted at Port Adelaide. Went up country to Clare, returned to Adelaide some months later. (p.30) He worked “clearing of land in S. Aus.” (p.34)

“Late 1925” [Mikkelsen probably meant “Late 1924”] – American steamer Eastern Sea – signed on in Sydney.

13th Nov 1924 – American steamer Eastern Sea – Charles Mikkelsen arrived in New York from Sydney. He was 5’8″ tall (Ancestry.com).

12th May 1926 – Discharged from Eastern Sea (1932 p.2, pencil)

July 1930 – Norwegian oil tanker Turicum – signed on at Melbourne (1932 p.1)

12th July 1930 – Turicum – left Melbourne (1932 p.2) and returned to Norway (p.34)

9th January 1932 – Norwegian steamer Tancred – landed in Adelaide. Last address on passport: “Löberg – Villa, Solheim, Bergen” (1932 p.1)

11th January 1932 – Norwegian steamer Tancred – Signed off in Adelaide. Passport stamped by Customs in Port Adelaide. Valid for “Australia via Holland Belgium for emigration”. Valid until 11th December 1932. 170cm tall (i.e. 5’8″).

“March 1935” – employed for about a month as a painter in the renovation of Customs House in Newcastle NSW. (p.30)

10th April 1935 – Norwegian tanker Herborg – Charles Mikkelsen signed on as a seaman in Newcastle. (p.30)

15th March 1937 – steamer Herborg from Singapore – expected in Auckland. (New Zealand Herald).

17th March 1937 – steamer Herborg – Charles Mikkelsen deserted at Auckland. Ran away. Did “farm work in the Waikato” for some months. (New Zealand Herald)

22nd July 1937 – arrested at Frankton. Was to be held no more than six months while awaiting a suitable Norwegian ship to be deported on. (Same New Zealand Herald article as 17th March 1937 entry).

[7th August 1937 – Norwegian tanker SS Svenor – arrived in Auckland from Balikpapan at 12:50pm. (Sydney Morning Herald and Papers Past).]

14th August 1937 – Norwegian tanker SS Svenor – completed discharge of petrol from Balikpapan and departed for that port. (Auckland Star)

24th August 1937 – SS Svenor – Charles Mikkelsen put ashore on Thursday Island with suspected appendicitis, and immediately admitted to Torres Strait Hospital. (p.37)

10th September 1937 – Discharged from hospital. (p.37)

25th September 1937 – SS Taiping – Departed Thursday Island.

3rd October 1937 – SS Taiping – Arrived in Sydney, stayed in Sailor’s Home. (p.34)

(About three weeks later) – took a job at Dalcross Private Hospital in Killara (p.34, p.30)

“February 1938” – the date that Mikkelsen’s still-unnamed fiancée intended to come across from New Zealand to get married to him (p.35)

16th February 1938 – Charles Mikkelsen was granted leave to stay in Australia, contingent on paying a £1 Landing permit. (p.22)

[28th March 1939 – SS Anten – ship arrived in Melbourne from Vancouver. (Burnie Advocate)]

(Earlier in 1939?) – SS Anten – joined vessel in Australia. (p.7)

11th August 1939 – SS Anten – signed off vessel at Newcastle. (Note that the Anten then got caught up in a port dispute over war bonuses allowance: and was then captured by Germans in November 1939). (Adelaide Advertiser and Port Pirie Recorder)

5th December 1939 – Anglo Maersk – signed on to the vessel’s articles in Melbourne. (p.11)

20th March 1940 – Anglo Maersk – absent on departure for Balik Papan (p.10) [on the east coast of Borneo]

30th May 1940 – M/V Tirranna – departed for Mombasa. (p.2)

10th June 1940 – M/V Tirranna – attacked by German raider Atlantis. Charles Mikkelsen (passenger) and four crew-members killed in the attack.

My Revised Opinion

It now seems to me that even though Mikkelsen’s account is somewhat convoluted on the surface, it does check out OK. So, alas, I now don’t believe that there were two Charles Mikkelsens both trying to emigrate to Australia at the same time: in the end, my conclusion from the documents taken as a whole is that the historical record is clearly telling us a very linear story about a single Charles Mikkelsen.

Moreover: even though I could easily accept that Charles Mikkelsen was the man Keith Mangnoson had worked with in the second half of 1939, and that Charles Mikkelsen was also probably the man the “unnamed woman living in Cheltenham” had met in 1930, I struggle extremely hard to reconcile the possibility that he was the Somerton Man with his apparent death in 1940 at the hands of the raider Atlantis.

I can easily see how Byron Deveson considers him an excellent candidate: but all the same, dying twice is something I can’t believe of Mikkelsen. Even so, perhaps some other evidence will surface – and I admit that I’ll still be very interested if the identity of Mikkelsen’s fiancée in New Zealand turns up – and prove me wrong. We shall see…

Hardy researcher Byron Deveson has been prospecting in the Aussie archives for traces of a Norwegian by the name of Charles Mikkelsen, a name long linked (though so far not completely satisfactorily) to the Somerton Man.

As a result of Byron’s efforts, it now (I think) seems reasonably likely that Charles Mikkelsen was the Scandinavian ‘Carl Thompsen’ who Keith Mangnoson remembered working with in “Renmark” in “1939”, and who Mangnoson believed was the Somerton Man.

(Of course, whether or not Mikkelsen/Thompsen actually was the Somerton Man remains another question entirely).

But there is an elephant in the room. To be precise, a very large and very dead elephant.

A Fishy Story?

The sticking point is that Charles Mikkelsen died at sea in 1940 in an unfortunate but well-documented way, when the boat he was on (the SS Tirranna) was captured by the German raider Atlantis

raider_atlantis

According to this page (and indeed many others), Mikkelsen died on 10th June 1940, the day that the Atlantis shot at, chased and captured the Tirranna. Later that year, the Tirranna was sent back to Europe as a prize ship full of war prisoners, but was sunk by the British submarine HMS Tuna (N94) with a large loss of life.

HMS-Tuna-N94

(Picture source).

Hence what would seem to make the link to Charles Mikkelsen a fishy story is that our Scandinavian candidate appears to have died more than eight years too early to be the Somerton Man.

However, things are never quite that simple in the Tamam Shud research quagmire…

An Australian Paper Trail

What also piqued Byron Deveson’s interest was a claim of a direct link to Charles Mikkelsen that turned up some years later:

In 1953 an unnamed woman living in Cheltenham (a suburb of Adelaide) identified SM as Charles Mikkelsen whom she had known “about 21 years ago” (ie 1932) when he was employed at Jensen’s guest house at American River (Kangaroo Island). She stated that when she had last heard of Mikkelsen he was staying at a Somerton guest house. “Det.-Sgt. R. L. Leane and Det. L. Brown have been told Mikkelsen often quoted the last verse, which ended with the words “Tamam Shud,” from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.” (News, Adelaide, 23 April 1953 page 9). The un-named Cheltenham woman said that Mikkelsen spoke fluent English and she said Mikkelsen was aged about 30 (ie. 30 in 1932) when she met him at Kangaroo Island, and he spoke English fluently. Mikkelsen was later employed as gardener to Sir John Brookman and was last heard of while boarding at Somerton.”

As a result, Byron decided to look more closely at Charles Mikkelsen: and he recently struck on a glinty archival seam relating to his stay in Australia from 24th August 1937 (when the SS Svenor put Mikkelsen ashore on Thursday Island with appendicitis) to his departure from its shores on the 30th of May 1940 (aboard the SS Tirranna, where he died eleven days later).

In the last few days, Pete Bowes has published excerpts from many of the documents Byron dug up in a series of posts (here, here, here, here, and indeed here).

Mikkelsen claimed that he had previously stayed in Australia between 1924 and 1930 (having jumped ship in Port Adelaide from the Norwegian steamer Bessa), before travelling back to Norway for a little over a year, returning in early 1932: and then went off in a Norwegian tanker in April 1935, before returning in August 1937.

According to NAA Item barcode 5511023, Charles Mikkelsen was (when he passed through port clearance at Port Adelaide on 9th January 1932 on the Tancred) a seaman 5 feet 10 inches in height, fair hair and blue eyes, with no identifying marks. He gave his birthday as 17th July 1902 in Bassjordan, Norway: and was single.

Interestingly, the Tancred was due to arrive at Number 2 Quay at Port Pirie on 5th January 1932 “to load 2,000 tons of lead. At Port Adelaide the Tancred will discharge general cargo and timber, and will load 2,000 tons of barley before sailing for Continental ports.” So there’s also a link to lead you perhaps weren’t expecting. 🙂

(Incidentally, a Charles Mikkelsen arrived in New York from Sydney on the 13th Nov 1924 on the “Eastern Sea”: he was a 22 year old Norwegian, and was 5’8″ tall [according to Ancestry.com].)

I have to say that it’s a confused affair: there would seem to be at least three files for Charles Mikkelsen: C.38/468, C.40/2000, and C.40/2192. Though the authorities of the day eventually decided that these various Mikkelsens were one and the same person, it’s easy to see how they might possibly have been wrong.

A New Zealand Paper Trail

To extend the timeline a little further backwards, I decided to find out more about what connected Mikkelsen to New Zealand: and it didn’t take long to discover what had happened just before his arrival in Australia.

It all started with the M/T Herborg (a few more details here (or here if you prefer to read Norwegian).

herborg

(Picture source)

The Herborg had visited Auckland in May 1932, though sadly I found no passenger list for the Herborg in the NZ archives. Five years later, according to this page, the Herborg was expected from Singapore in March 1937, which is when Charles Mikkelsen got to Auckland.

Several months later, on the 31st July 1937, we catch our first archival glimpse:

NORWEGIAN DESERTER

Seaman to be deported accused intended to marry

“If you have nothing against the Scandinavian race, I would bo much obliged if you could allow me to stay in New Zealand, as I intend to get married shortly,” said Charles Mikkelsen, a Norwegian seaman, aged 34, when he appeared before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday, admitting charges of deserting from the steamer Herberg at Auckland on March 17 and landing as a prohibited immigrant. The Collector of Customs. Mr. J. Mcintosh, said accused was refused permission by the captain of the Herberg to sign off at Auckland, after which he made application to become a permanent citizen of New Zealand. He was told the formalities he would be required to comply with, but he took the law into his own hands, and left his ship. Nothing more was heard of him until he was arrested at Frankton on July 22, after having been engaged in farm work in the Waikato. A deportation order was made by the magistrate, under which accused might be held in custody for not more than six months, pending arrangements being made for him to be placed on board a suitable Norwegian ship. The magistrate told accused the only method to adopt to land in New Zealand would be to comply with the immigration regulations.

A quick trawl through Papers Past reveals plenty of references to Mikkelsens in Morrinsville (Eastern Waikato) playing golf etc , so it seems tolerably likely to me that Mikkelsen had some family out there farming. Perhaps Byron Deveson already knows this?

So… What’s Going On, Then?

If you’ve been paying a little bit of attention, you probably already know what I’m going to conclude.

In this case, I strongly suspect the authorities got it wrong: and that there were almost certainly two different people, both called Charles Mikkelsen.

The first Charles Mikkelsen had the reference “C.38/468”, because the “38” is very probably the last two digits of the year that he first applied for Australian citizenship: 1938. We can therefore probably identify this Charles Mikkelsen with the man who jumped ship in Auckland in March 1937, worked on a farm in Waikato (probably with family near Morrinsville), before being arrested in Frankton on 22nd July 1937, and being told he would be put on a ship bound for Norway within six months. My guess is that he then faked appendicitis to get set down on Thursday Island, thus starting his Australian odyssey.

The second Charles Mikkelsen had the references “C.40/2000” / “C.40/2192”, and it would seem that he was most likely the one who died on the Tirranna in 1940. But… it’s a mess, and that’s the truth.

As a result, it may very well be that one of these two Charles Mikkelsens was the Somerton Man: but it will take a fair bit more digging to properly disentangle the two men’s archival strands from the knot that they have ended up in before we are in a position to make a genuinely clear-headed assessment either way.

Luckily I have every faith that Byron Deveson is the best man for such a job. Good luck, Byron! 🙂