has montezumas tomb been found ...?

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

The possibility of someone finding it is probably higher than the possibility of someone reporting having found it, if they had. They'd be out there dodging behind trees and into holes every time an aircraft flew over unless it was located conveniently enough to have been found a couple of hundred years ago.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...? (LONG reply)

Cactusjumper wrote:

I am unsure how to answer your last post. When you say "possible".......anything is possible, but to understand the chances for Moctezuma's ashes being placed in a tomb you would need to delve deeper into the history than you are willing to do

I get the impression that you keep assuming that I have not read many history books over the years Joe. I have read enough to know that there are (rare) times when the history books are incorrect. I am not taking the position that history has it wrong where Montezuma is concerned however.

I actually own a fair library of books and have read every volume, and hope to dedicate a decent-sized room for them in my home. As it stands however I cannot even see the books, along with most of my belongings they are packed in a moving truck, unfortunately all the way to the front. If I had that to do over again, I think I would pack the books last, but the sheer weight of them suggested packing them more to the front rather than the back. In the meantime I have only our small selection of books (most obtained recently) and what our local library has, or the various material available on the internet, sometimes of very dubious reliability. I know that you have a pretty good personal library Joe, which is why I keep relying on your able memory and readily accessible resources. Do you know of some first-hand report source which states specifically what was done with the ashes of Montezuma after cremation? I sure don't. I believe the reason for this apparent omission in the record is that his ashes were not given any special treatment at all; so to search for his "tomb" is an exercise in imagination, rather than a search for something real. Your next statement is very much what I believe,

The rites would last around ten days. None of that seems to have taken place.

To my (admittedly dull) mind, the logical explanation is that no rites or special treatment is recorded because nothing like this occurred. I am wiling to grant that it is POSSIBLE that something was done, surreptitiously, but before I can believe anything like that actually happened, I need to see solid proof.

I am also in agreement with you Joe, that anything is possible but when we say "possible" it is one thing to say that the ashes of Montezuma were magically transported to a secret tomb, another to say is it possible that someone would have gone to the trouble of gathering his ashes and this act NOT get recorded? I have trouble with this idea, that someone or some group would have bothered to take his ashes and secretly move them to the Superstitions. I still have trouble with the idea of sifting out his ashes from those of the wood, and don't know if any of the bones would be intact - though modern cremations do usually have large bones remaining, we know that in cases of "spontaneous human combustion" that it is possible for even large bones to be reduced to ash. Would there be anything for some admirer(s) to be able to put in a tomb? I have doubts about this point. (I also have a personal experience in cremating an animal, [a pet that died] and only a single bone remained after burning overnight, even this bone was so fragile that it fell apart when I tried to move it.)

Cactusjumper also wrote:

I have no idea why anyone would try to follow bowman's reasoning, other than for a little idle amusement, but I wish you well on that convoluted journey. Not much mystery as to why he is on that trip himself. Not to worry, as he will be back shortly to give us more to ponder.

Well Joe I try to keep an open mind even to far-fetched theories, and consider you folks to be friends worth the small effort involved for me to try to understand the ideas. It has been quite a winding path and I must admit, I remain un-convinced of the various theories presented (running the gamut from the Lost Dutchman Mine to Montezuma's Tomb) but am willing to 'listen' (read) to any and all ideas that we are presented. Why not? I actually think that our amigo Blindbowman has in fact found something - something that he does not understand and has been trying out various ideas (some pretty wild) to see if they will fit. He has a little different way of saying things that comes across as very absolute, definitive - for example if I found some place that I thought to be the tomb of Montezuma, I would likely say that I believe it could be such, Blindbowman does not "qualify" his statements but will say that it IS the tomb of Montezuma, even if he is not fully convinced of it himself. At least that is my impression of his statements, and can be seen in a pattern over many posts and many theories. It is entertaining, if at times frustrating. Over the years I have listened to even more far-fetched ideas than Blindbowman has put forth, though I am not a believer in them either. I have a friend in the Flat Earth Society who sure presented some whoppers for instance, and another friend convinced of mind-control-implants placed in his head by the US military are another example. The fellow with the mind-control-implants was quite an accomplished finder of fossils, many of which are in some famous museums, as well as an expert in identifying fake ancient coins; my point is that a person can have some far-out ideas and still be an interesting and intelligent person. I have found that most people have at least some ideosycracies, myself included, just that many people prefer to hide these personal 'foibles' from the general public. For that matter I have some far-fetched theories of my own, that you might well find ridiculous or even comical, just that in the discussions we have had here, we are on quite a different subject or subjects.

(I have even run across a fellow who claimed to be Jesus Christ; now when we see or hear such claims, some people then will dismiss that person and everything about them which is not necessarily justified. This first fellow I met who claimed to be Christ, once we got past his identity claims, turned out to be a very talented artist and quite intelligent, just that he had an identity delusion. His habit of introducing himself as Christ put off many people, when really it was a relatively harmless delusion on his part. He eventually recovered from his personal delusions, a long story but just an example.)

Joe I am also in agreement with you on where Montezuma's gold went too - into the canals along the line of retreat of Cortez during La Noche Triste. If I were going to try to find any of it, that is where I would start.

Good luck and good hunting Joe, (and everyone reading here) I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Roy,

The one thing I know for sure, is that you are a man with wide ranging historical knowledge. Since you are not making claims of being thousands of years old, I assume that a good deal of that knowledge was gleaned from books.

My comment was in reply to this:

"my interest is not quite that deep"

In reading the history, related to Father's Duran and Sahagun by the Aztecs, I learned that people who were even suspected of trying to get into the palace to see Moctezuma were killed by the enraged Aztecs. That alone indicates how Moctezuma's body might have been treated after his death.

I don't disagree that history can be distorted, and there is no doubt that is the case with this period in time. Should you decide to read "The War Of Conquest", it will give you some confidence that Father Sahagun's writings are as good as it gets.......assuming he did not put it all together out of whole cloth. There is nothing positive to be gained in believing that, because you will be left with very little of the Aztec side of the story.

No disrespect was intended.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Roy,

"Joe I am also in agreement with you on where Montezuma's gold went too - into the canals along the line of retreat of Cortez during La Noche Triste. If I were going to try to find any of it, that is where I would start."

It is clearly stated in all of the historical accounts I have read, that the Aztecs, on the morning after the "night of sorrows" cleaned everything out of the canals. That, of course, included any gold the Spaniards had been carrying with them.

Most of the gold seems to have been recovered by the Spaniards.

"Do you know of some first-hand report source which states specifically what was done with the ashes of Montezuma after cremation? I sure don't. I believe the reason for this apparent omission in the record is that his ashes were not given any special treatment at all; so to search for his "tomb" is an exercise in imagination, rather than a search for something real."

I have never read an account, concerning the body of Moctezuma, that mentions anything beyond the cremation of his body. That does not mean that such a story does not exist, but it would have to originate with an Aztec. Since my memory is not so good anymore, it's possible I have read something about the ashes, in the past, but that seems unlikely.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Greetings Cactusjumper and everyone,

Joe I mis-read your comment (as usual) and thought I should explain why I keep asking you (and others) for references; I will request a copy of your suggested book through interlibrary loan too. That is what I meant by "not quite that deep" - our local library, while well stocked as small-town public libraries go, has very little in southwestern history and most things have to be requested via interlibrary loan. Besides, I am not SO well-read so as to be able to claim to have read every source, and there is always much more to learn. (for me) I think you have probably researched this part of history far more than I have, Joe.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

You're on your own track and even if you were inclined to bow to the opinions of others about what might have happened how and where you'd merely be doing it based on a series of assertions and probabilities. The words of only one man describing the circumstances of the death of Montezuma have survived. He described the scene on the wall, saw the angry Aztecs below, heard and saw the angry demonstration conducted in a tongue that wasn't Spanish. Bernal Diaz then saw Montezuma killed by someone in the mob.

Someone told Diaz the meaning of the shouting exchange, or he surmised it. We don't know and can't know whether his description of what was shouted carries any truth. We can't even be sure Montezuma didn't ask to be killed to relieve his people of the burden imposed on them by his captivity. We have nothing but our own opinions and imaginations as a foundation for assertions about attitudes the Aztecs had toward him and his corpse.

I don't happen to believe during those times when warriors were throwing themselves in waves against the Spaniards and their allies that they'd have spared anyone to carry his body any distance. At that point they still thought they'd win this war. If they wanted to entomb the corpse I'd be inclined to think they did it nearby.

But my opinion and the opinion of everyone else who has one rests completely on weighing probabilities founded on shaky chains of evidence. If you someday find a tomb you can prove contains the remains of Montezuma we'll all forget our doubts soon enough. Meanwhile, it seems to give you a way to spend your time you find satisfying.

I salute your quest without the need to believe it.

Good luck finding something of value to you.

J

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

You're on your own track and even if you were inclined to bow to the opinions of others about what might have happened how and where you'd merely be doing it based on a series of assertions and probabilities. The words of only one man describing the circumstances of the death of Montezuma have survived. He described the scene on the wall, saw the angry Aztecs below, heard and saw the angry demonstration conducted in a tongue that wasn't Spanish. Bernal Diaz then saw Montezuma killed by someone in the mob.

Someone told Diaz the meaning of the shouting exchange, or he surmised it. We don't know and can't know whether his description of what was shouted carries any truth. We can't even be sure Montezuma didn't ask to be killed to relieve his people of the burden imposed on them by his captivity. We have nothing but our own opinions and imaginations as a foundation for assertions about attitudes the Aztecs had toward him and his corpse.

I don't happen to believe during those times when warriors were throwing themselves in waves against the Spaniards and their allies that they'd have spared anyone to carry his body any distance. At that point they still thought they'd win this war. If they wanted to entomb the corpse I'd be inclined to think they did it nearby.

But my opinion and the opinion of everyone else who has one rests completely on weighing probabilities founded on shaky chains of evidence. If you someday find a tomb you can prove contains the remains of Montezuma we'll all forget our doubts soon enough. Meanwhile, it seems to give you a way to spend your time you find satisfying.

I salute your quest without the need to believe it.

Good luck finding something of value to you.

J

Very eloquently spoken! Your observation sounds like it would fit fairly well as a general comment on searching for lost treasures as a whole.

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Roy,

A few more things about Aztec treasure:

From "The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico", starting on page sixty-six, you can read this:

"When the Spaniards were installed in the palace, they asked Motecuhzoma about the city's resources and reserves and about the warriors' ensigns and shields. They questioned him closely and then demanded gold.
Motecuhzoma guided them to it. They surrounded him and crowded close with their weapons. He walked in the center, while they formed a circle around him.
When they arrived at the treasure house called Teucalco, the riches of gold and feathers were brought out to them: ornaments made of quetzal feathers, richly worked shields, disks of gold, the necklaces of the idols, gold nose plugs, gold greaves and bracelets and crowns.
The Spaniards immediately stripped the feathers from the gold shields and ensigns. They gathered all the gold into a great mound and set fire to everything else, regardless of its value. then they melted down the gold into ingots. As for the precious green stones, they took only the best of them; the rest were snatched up by the Tlaxcaltecas. The Spaniards searched through the whole treasure house, questioning and quarreling, and seized every object they thought was beautiful."

A short passage with the title of " The Seizure of Motecuhzoma's Treasures" follows the above account:

"Next they (the Spaniards) went to Motecuhzoma's storehouse, in the place called Totocalco [Place of the Palace of the Birds], where his personal treasures were kept. The Spaniards grinned like little beasts and patted each other with delight.
when the entered the hall of treasures, it was as if they had arrived in Paradise. They searched everywhere and coveted everything; they were slaves to their own greed. All of Motecuhzoma's possessions were brought out: fine bracelets, necklaces with large stones, ankle rings with little gold bells, the royal crowns and all the royal finery-everything that belonged to the king and was reserved to him only. They seized these treasures as if they were their own, as if this plunder were merely a stroke of good luck. And when they had taken all the gold, they heaped up everything else in the middle of the patio."

I believe this pretty well covers Motecuhzoma's treasures and what became of them. Everything else is, likely, fiction made up to sell books.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Highmountain,

"You're on your own track and even if you were inclined to bow to the opinions of others about what might have happened how and where you'd merely be doing it based on a series of assertions and probabilities. The words of only one man describing the circumstances of the death of Montezuma have survived. He described the scene on the wall, saw the angry Aztecs below, heard and saw the angry demonstration conducted in a tongue that wasn't Spanish. Bernal Diaz then saw Montezuma killed by someone in the mob.

Someone told Diaz the meaning of the shouting exchange, or he surmised it. We don't know and can't know whether his description of what was shouted carries any truth. We can't even be sure Montezuma didn't ask to be killed to relieve his people of the burden imposed on them by his captivity. We have nothing but our own opinions and imaginations as a foundation for assertions about attitudes the Aztecs had toward him and his corpse."

You are mistaken here. The Aztec's own story is well documented by a number historians......of the time. Not the least of which, were the Aztecs themselves.

Neither side can be completely believed, but it's all we have. One side is no better or worse when it comes to the true facts of the events. In all cases, I choose to take the historical accounts over the treasure hunters.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

HOLA mi amigos,

Joe I edited my last post, had a bit more I wanted to add and by the time I got it posted we have new posts. Just wanted to explain a bit more for my taking advantage of your memory and personal reference library. Thank you for that extra bit from The Broken Spears too - one item listed in the booty actually catches my eye too as something rather odd - the gold greaves. For anyone reading this, if you never heard of greaves don't feel too ill-informed, they are a type of metal body armor that is worn on the lower part of the leg, below the knee, that extends to the ankle. Now I wish those Spanish had not melted down those particular items...

Cubfan I have to "ditto" your remarks on Highmountain's post too. We should not rely only on the record of events as told only by one side (the Spanish) when we have the Aztec version available as well to compare it to.

Cactusjumper wrote:

In all cases, I choose to take the historical accounts over the treasure hunters.

WHAT?!! Do you mean to say that our treasure hunters might have "fluxed" the facts to suit a pet idea? Heck don't they say in Texas, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"?

Oroblanco

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

"You are mistaken here. The Aztec's own story is well documented by a number historians......of the time. Not the least of which, were the Aztecs themselves.

"Neither side can be completely believed, but it's all we have. One side is no better or worse when it comes to the true facts of the events. In all cases, I choose to take the historical accounts over the treasure hunters."

Joe: I'll concede I might be mistaken with the same enthusiasm I'll concede you might. No historians were present in that compound, on that wall. None were present during the bloodbaths afterward. We have the word of Spaniards, whom we know to have had interests of their own in their [later] descriptions. As Bernal Diaz comments parenthetically and sneeringly referring to the contemporary History by Francisco Lopez de Gomera and his descriptions of the conquest and the deeds performed, "with always an eye on the live relations".

The historians of the time were Catholic priests, some of whom sometimes can be believed. Correspondence by participants can also sometimes be believed when self-interest isn't better served by obfuscations. This includes Spaniard accounts of Aztec accounts of the events. [And the Aztecs weren't doing a lot of history writing at the time.

But it isn't necessary you and I agree. My post referred to and was addressed to blindbowman and his project. If I could offer him some potentially helpful information I'd do it. But there's nothing to suggest he's looking for negative conjectures from anyone. They won't deter him from the task he's given himself and they won't help him along it.

Academic arguments about what's valid and what isn't in history might make for a PHD thesis, but they don't turn the paths of those who've chosen a course for themselves and believe themselves to be right.

Jack

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Highmountain wrote:

there's nothing to suggest he's looking for negative conjectures from anyone. They won't deter him from the task he's given himself and they won't help him along it.

Well I am guilty of this, but in defense I don't wish to stop Blindbowman (or anyone else) from pursuing their own personal quests - I have been trying to either be convinced of his ideas, or failing that to open the door to other possibilities, some of which have not even been discussed. So often we treasure hunters seem to have "blinders" on when we get some idea or theory to pursue; we will see every possible clue that might support the idea and ignore everything that points in another direction. In doing so we can easily miss out on fantastic discoveries, sort of like the song "looking for gold in a silver mine".

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Jack,

"And the Aztecs weren't doing a lot of history writing at the time."

Actually the Aztecs never stopped writing their history, even after the conquest. I would suggest you read the Elegies written by the post-Conquest Aztec poets. They were done by people who had just lived the events. The Aztec written records were done in the form of song by 1524 and in written narrative by 1528.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

I have been trying to either be convinced of his ideas, or failing that to open the door to other possibilities, some of which have not even been discussed. So often we treasure hunters seem to have "blinders" on when we get some idea or theory to pursue; we will see every possible clue that might support the idea and ignore everything that points in another direction. In doing so we can easily miss out on fantastic discoveries, sort of like the song "looking for gold in a silver mine".

Oroblanco

I'd definitely be interested in reading about the ones not yet discussed.

I agree completely with you about the blinders and I tend to be among the most blinded when I'm following an idea I've locked my mind on. And I continually pay the price by having to eat my own words, if only in my own mind.

The reason I'm interested in the Aztec at the moment involves some dearly held notions I've savored for decades and am having to cultivate a taste for now.

I'll be eating my convictions of the past so long as I'm alive, I don't doubt, but I'd like to try to learn something occasionally don't have to eat later.

So fire away, amigo. Especially on matters involving Aztec not yet come forth.

Gracias,
J

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Jack,

"And the Aztecs weren't doing a lot of history writing at the time."

Actually the Aztecs never stopped writing their history, even after the conquest. I would suggest you read the Elegies written by the post-Conquest Aztec poets. They were done by people who had just lived the events. The Aztec written records were done in the form of song by 1524 and in written narrative by 1528.

Take care,

Joe

Thanks for the suggestion. The only ones I've read are those available free on guttenberg.org. I didn't find their authenticity convincing. I'll search around for others.

Thanks,
J

Edit: I'm surprised to discover the two of us arguing here. You seem to have a lot of the qualifications of a historian, whether or not you have the credentials. A historian of the sort to go to original sources and has a healthy disregard for the practices of the kind who merely shoot the works of one-another back and forth and call it history.

As such, I suppose I'd also expect you to be a bit skeptical of songs and traditions. I don't believe everything in the Song of Roland, everything in Homer, and I'd be surprised if you do. Are the Aztec somehow exempt from what we know of the rest of humanity?

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Jack,

Here's one that's easy to find:

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/slenchek/slaztec1.html

You can find more on the Internet, by typing in: aztec records of the conquest.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Jack,

Here's one that's easy to find:

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/slenchek/slaztec1.html

You can find more on the Internet, by typing in: aztec records of the conquest.

Take care,

Joe

Looks interesting. I'll study on it and sift through it. Doubtless then I'll believe it without my usual held-in-reserve skepticism.

Thanks
Jack

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Greetings Highmountain and everyone,

Highmountain wrote:

So fire away, amigo. Especially on matters involving Aztec not yet come forth.

Well I am stepping out onto pretty thin ice here, but one possibility that has been 'danced all round' but not touched on is that a tomb of an Aztec emperor could be located in Arizona, and be named Montezuma (or whichever spelling is preferred) but not be the same Montezuma made famous by the Spanish conquest. IF (that most powerful word) the Aztecs are in fact originally from what is today the southwestern USA (and Arizona specifically) then it is possible that one of their early leaders could have had this famous name. Some historians have postulated this idea already, as an explanation for such landmarks etc that have the name Montezuma's castle, Montezuma's head, etc that these are not referring to the king who died in Tenochtitlan but to one that lived perhaps centuries earlier. This "theoretical" Montezuma might well have been treated with respect on his death and placed in a tomb, several hundred years before any Spanish arrived and before the Aztecs migrated into the central Mexico valley where they grew powerful. This is one of the reasons why I am willing to keep an open mind to our mutual friend's ideas, for he may have found something important and still be "correct" in his interpretation of whom is within, just possibly a different Montezuma.

The historians admit that Aztec traders were active over much of the southwest, but so far it appears they had no permanent settlements or outposts yet discovered. If their homeland is here however it is only a matter of time until we can discover and identify their old home, perhaps even the tombs of one or more of their leaders. What might be found in such a tomb is an intriguing question, as we know that many Mesoamerican cultures practiced cremation of the dead, but the Aztecs are not native to that region and might have picked up the practice from their neighbors. I would guess that a pre-Columbian Aztec tomb might have turquoise and jade, Quetzal feathers, corn, etc - perhaps not a huge pile of glittering gold like King Tut but a treasure by any definition of that term.

So now that I have stepped out onto the thin ice amigo, would you care to share your own personal "dearly held notions"? I promise not to toss any rocks!
Oroblanco

 

[Highmountain]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

I'll bite, but I'll keep it small at first and to subjects Aztec [peripherally] related.

I remember around 1950, '51 first learning about the Spanish incursions into the [now] southwestern US in search of what my teacher called 'the Seven Cities of Sighbola'.... I blushed a lot of years later when I discovered not everyone pronounced it so. From that day until recently I never had cause to question they were pure fantasy on the part of the Spaniards and merely were an illustration of greed, the lust for power, and the inevitable stupidity of our forebears.

During the past months I've been forced to reconsider that conviction and until I joined this forum I wouldn't have mentioned it to a soul, because I quite frankly figured I was the only person on the planet to think Cibola actually probably existed and the ruins remain.

How's that for a beginning?

Thanks for sharing the observations I've asked for. Maybe it would be a good time to start another thread so's we aren't pre-empting blindbowman with his if we proceed with this?

Jack

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Thank you Jack for sharing, and I don't find it amusing. I keep old Heinrich Schliemann in mind when we talk about "legends" as he was very much ridiculed for his search for Troy. By any chance have you read Coronados letter about having found Cibola? There is a fair amount of material online, here is a site with some eyewitness reports of the battle of Hawikuh:

http://www.psi.edu/coronado/battleofhawikuh.html

I agree with your belief, Cibola does exist and the ruins can be found. As for the reported gold of Cibola - well according to Coronado there was little to be found there, but it is also possible that the people of Cibola had heard of the Spanish craze for gold and had taken steps to conceal it from them before they ever arrived. In this case, a tremendous treasure could be still out there waiting to be dug up. The other "legend" pursued by Coronado - Quivira, I believe also existed but was likely passing away or had just recently died out by the time he was marching into Kansas. I think the Indio reports of Quivira were really talking about the so-called "Mound-builder" cultures of the Mississippi valley and extending over a vast area. The Mound-builders used copper for tools and weapons, and as most European explorers reported, most Amerindian cultures valued copper over gold - so would it be surprising for the people of the southwest to have heard of a vast culture that lived far to the northeast, a people who had large towns and even cities, and had supplies of copper?

If you start a new thread I will happily migrate there to continue this, so as not to "step" on our thread-creator's area, just let me know? I would appreciate it and probably Blindbowman would also.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco