JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[deducer]

Jesuit knowledge of and association with quicksilver goes as far back as Kino's time, probably even further.

From Jesuit Missions of Northern Mexico by Charles Polzer:

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[gold tramp]

Then why was he carrying around a flask of quicksilver if he did not "value" it?

One does not carry around a poisonous and expensive flask of quicksilver just for the fun of it.

Most likely it was used for amalgamation as it was much easier to carry around there gold this way as amalgam, less likely to have an accident with it, the flour gold could be lost in the winds, I think this way they stored and transported just used a simple leather bag to carry the amalgam paste.

Other reason most likley being that mercurys ability to hold so much gold using so little of it for the process, a flask of mercury was worth it weight in gold, because it made it possible for these cats to recover flour gold and there was much more of it, and almost always was a by product from other metals, transporting to the smelter was much easier in paste form ?

Most old timers from the 1800s used this method and more so in the desert, with the lack of water for concentration they would just use the mercury in a dry pan.

Im no expert on the Spanish I would imagine they did the same as the 1800s guys after all they learned somewhere, just my thoughts might help youall a little.
GT........

 

[sailaway]

The Mojave-Sonora Megashear Hypothesis: Development, Assessment, and Alternatives edited by Thomas Howard Anderson
http://books.google.com/books?id=gu...gK#v=onepage&q=las todo santos sonora&f=false

In this book it explains the tectonics of Sonora and Todos Santos. This is the best information I have found on the area.

It is incredible, says Gallez, how some men of science can be consumed by passion, even where there is no question of material benefit. All that is at stake is the scientific prestige of those who refuse to swallow ridiculous ideas against those who have freed themselves from the paltriness and the traditions of obscurantism. Fortunately for us, he goes on to say, modern science is much more free to suggest heterodox, original answers.
Yet again, Gallez reminds us, the experts seem determined to defend a pre-established theory rather than to seek a scientific truth, for fear that this might endanger the ideas they have been expounding for years. Resistance to change is one of the main brakes to scientific progress. We obtain more information about the stone anchors found in Californian waters from Dr. Gustavo Vargas (Fusang – Chinos en America antes de Colón, México, Edición Trillas 1980, pages 42-44). He says that, in 1976, professor James R. Moriarty from the University of San Diego announced that two stone cylindrical objects and another rectangular one had been discovered. They had been pulled up out of the deep water off the headland of Palos Verdes, California.
From a historical perspective, it is alarming to discover that the western world has long ignored the fact that China was an important maritime power over a considerable period of time. Looking at things from the point of view of naval engineering, Chinese ships from as early as the third century BC were reaching the American coast (Gustavo Vargas Martínez, Fusang – Chinos en América antes de Colón, Trillas, México, 1990, pp. 34 onwards). The most reliable proof, says Vargas, is the discovery, as recently as 1974, of shipbuilding yards in Canton. The largest bay that has been excavated to date measures 18 meters in width in the center and 29 meters in length. It has been calculated that in this size bay, they could have built ships of between 6 and 8 metres in breadth, 30 metres in length and 50-60 tonnes in displacement. We must remember that these yards date back to 221-206 BC.
Yü Chi Fu's 1137 Chinese map
http://www.cristobalcolondeibiza.com/2eng/2eng15.htm
If mercury was so scarce then why was there many Spanish Ships that came to grief on the Silver Banks? The banks were named that because of the silver color of the bottom, which was mercury that had spread out on the banks bottom after the ships went down. The area is now under the care of Jacques Cousteau's son. http://www.cousteau.org/
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/31497/0000419.pdf?sequence=1

 

[cactusjumper]

According to the NPS, the slag pits at Tumacacori were big; are you trying to say that all of them were the byproduct of processing iron ore? I have a difficult time believing that.

Also it doesn't make sense, considering the sophistication of the Jesuit trade system, for them to engage in mass extraction of and refining of iron when they could simply trade for tools they needed, or for iron they could simply forge into what they needed.



I don't think I am the one who is biased here. Seems to me that you are the one ignoring the questions put forth to you, not me (e.g., the bronze bell sprue, or the fact that there were no known lead mines in Az before the arrival of Americans).

Mike also did not say "slag pits" in general, he said slag pits indicative of silver/gold refining. I am not knowledgeable about things mining, but I am pretty sure it is fairly easy to identify slag that is the byproduct of processing silver/gold ore as opposed to iron ore?

Also I understand Fr. Och's statement in the context that he knew how to use quicksilver to amalgamate, so it's pretty obvious what he was looking for, or what he valued.



There is no "other side" for me. Evidence that the Jesuits engaged in mining and refining in the New World is pretty overwhelming, from admissions made by the Jesuit fathers themselves, to historical documents, research, and analysis, to archaeological excavations. Results and conclusions from all three disciplines point to it as a fact, pure and simple.

deducer,

Is this the report you are talking about?

[SIZE=+1]Tumacacori National Monument[/SIZE]

---

By
Frank Pinkley
Superintendent Southwestern National Monuments

---

​

CEMETERY AND MORTUARY CHAMBER​

The cemetery lies just back of the church and is about 176 feet long and 61 feet wide. It was surrounded on the west, north, and part of the east sides by a wall 2 feet thick and about 8 feet high. Part of the east and the greater part of the south sides were taken up by buildings, the latter being the rear of the church.
The original cemetery wall is in a fair state of preservation except at stretch of about 50 feet on the west side and 30 feet on the east side which had fallen and which we have now rebuilt. The wall was made of unburned adobe bricks, capped with burned bricks and covered inside and out with two coats of lime plaster. The outside of the wall was decorated with fragments of slag and brick in the same manner as the lower wall of the church. The inside was finished with a smooth coat of lime plaster. Large niches occur at regular intervals on the inner side of the wall, probably the 14 Stations of the Cross.
There are a number of graves in the cemetery, but only one of them seems to be of any great age. The local population still considers the ground especially sacred and have made numerous burials there in the last few generations.

The main feature of the cemetery is the mortuary chamber. This building was circular form, measures about 16 feet in diameter inside and had a single doorway opening to the west. The evident intention was to roof it with a dome, but the work was never completed. The first coat of plaster was put on the inside of the wall, but no traces of the second, or the finishing coat, show and it was probably never applied. A single coat of plaster has been applied to the outside and fragments of crushed brick are bedded in it. It is a question wether this was for the purpose of binding the finishing coat to the first coat, or whether it was a decorative scheme, and, making a success of it here, they went further in the church wall, adding the black slag and putting the decoration on in lines.
The cemetery was entered opposite the mortuary chamber by means of a gateway in the west wall. Traces of this gateway were discovered in some excavations and it is now restored.

OUTLYING BUILDINGS​

There are numerous other buildings around the Tumacacori Mission, but the walls being thinner and probably not so well plastered as the church, they have suffered more from erosion and are now, for the greater part, down in mounds.
A two story dormitory building lies just east of the cemetery, the west wall of the building acting for its length as the east wall of the cemetery. There is quite an angle between the axes of the two structures and the explanation probably is that the dormitory was built first, and when the cemetery was laid out behind it, its wall was used for a closing wall regardless of its being slightly out of line. The walls of the dormitory stand nearly the two full stories high, but the roof and floors are gone. There were two large rooms on the ground floor and a rather pretentious flight of steps led up from a large door in the middle of the east wall to the floor above.
Running east from the north end of the dormitory, which dates as a later addition to them, is a row of rooms, now down in a long, low mound. They are presumed to have been living rooms when they were first built, but upon the erection of the dormitory, the rooms may have been used as shops, storage rooms, etc.
Another row of rooms runs east from the tower of the church. These rooms form the south, the church the west, the row of rooms east from the dormitory, the north, and a low mound of earth indicates a wall on the east side of a quadrangle. This quadrangle forms the "Residences of the priests, containing spacious and airy rooms, with every evidence of comfort and refinement," mentioned by Prof. Wrightson, though some doubt may reasonably be felt about the evidences of comfort and refinement which would be visible in rooms raided and destroyed by Apache Indians, and then exposed to 30 odd years of vandalism and erosion before he saw them.

The oblong room on the east side of this quadrangle, mentioned by Mr. Wrightson as the building where metallurgical operations were carried on, has not yet been identified. The mound of debris does not indicate more than a wall on this side of the quadrangle although excavation might possibly develop rooms.
The plaza mentioned as being south of the church is well marked on its west side by a mound of debris formed by the fallen walls of a row of rooms which joined the church at the southwest corner and ran southward. The south and east sides of this plaza are not so well marked, but may have been made up of houses of a more temporary character which have not left much evidence.
West of the church are a number of small heaps of debris, probably the remains of small, one room houses erected by the neophytes forming a clustered village like that which still nestles around the foot of the San Xavier Mission to the north.

OUTLYING STRUCTURES​

A pit, possibly used for the burning of lime or charcoal, has been found about 100 yards north of the church. It was a cylindrical pit some 7 or 8 feet in diameter and about 8 feet deep, lined with adobe bricks which have been burned quite hard. Excavations disclosed charcoal at the bottom of the pit with partially burned limestone above and quite a lot of rejected material lying about the pit.
Another large pit occurs inside the cemetery wall toward the north end of the cemetery. It is possible that this is another lime pit used before the site of the cemetery was chosen and abandoned when it was decided to enclose this ground with the cemetery wall, or it might have been used as a bell pit in casting the mission bells.
A low mound occurs about 200 yards south of the church and was thought, from its size, amount of material, etc., to be the site of the old church. Excavation however proved it to be the kiln where the bricks for the present church were burned. During the past year, further efforts were made to locate the older church, but all efforts so far have been unavailing.
The walls surrounding the orchard, garden and field can still be readily traced; stretches of them still stand and their location is shown at other places by the line of boulders which formed their foundations.

[SIZE=-1]East side of nave after excavation showing bases of altars.[/SIZE]

RESTORATION​

Such was the condition of the Tumacacori when it came into the hands of the United States government as a National Monument in 1908. Since then, the National Park Service has carried on restoration work from year to year as funds became available. To summarize briefly, the grounds have been cleaned and fenced and some trees planted; the roof has been restored to its original state as nearly as might be, and a protective roof placed above it; the interior of the church has been cleaned out and the doors, steps and pulpit steps restored; the cemetery walls have been rebuilt in the ruined places; the pilars located and restored. Many and interesting were the problems involved in this restoration and great was the labor in carrying it out. The work is not yet completed, but much more is planned until the point is reached when restoration becomes re-building.

__________________________________________________________________________

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

One question before I answer your questions. Where can I find the information that the slag found at Tumacacori was "Silver slag"?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Mike,

One question before I answer your questions. Where can I find the information that the slag found at Tumacacori was "Silver slag"?

Thanks,

Joe

Never said the slag found at Tumacacori was silver slag. That was at Guevavi. I know for a fact because my buddy that lives in Tumacacori has some specimens he got from Guevavi. I believe it is also mentioned in a report on the excavation of that mission (but I can't remember exactly where). Guevavi was in the center of all the silver mining in the area. The famous Planchas de Plata were just a few miles to the South, while very rich galena/silver mines were located in the Santa Ritas and San Cayetano Mines.

Also, you might want to read this bulletin of 1916-1917 regarding Jesuit Mining:

http://repository.azgs.az.gov/sites...d1151/b-29_resources_of_santa_cruz_county.pdf

Mike

 

[deducer]

Mike,

One question before I answer your questions. Where can I find the information that the slag found at Tumacacori was "Silver slag"?

Thanks,

Joe

From the USC issue #4648:

 

[Oroblanco]

Joe, perhaps are you leading to this?

[h=3]Preservation Mishaps: Area 37a[/h] In Area 37a., archeologist Paul Beaubien uncovered evidence for on-site production of the church bells in the form of two heating features he called the furnace and retort. A plaster mould resembling a bell was discovered near the heating features. Beaubien also found pieces of copper everywhere. In 1934, the floor of the circular furnace retort was “covered with a thin layer of copper which had solidified in place.”[SUP]28[/SUP] Fifty pounds of copper were collected, tested at the University of Arizona, and found to contain no silver.

Plaster mould found by Beaubien in 1934. The mould was found twelve feet east of the retort. Beaubien and George Boundey believed it could be a bell mould, suggesting that the bells were made at Tumacacori.

According to Beaubien, the features in Area 37a are the remains of a metal foundry; however, he was unsure that the plaster mould was for a bell. The idea that the mould was for a bell came from George Boundey who told Beaubien that he had found a plaster “core mould” of a bell that looked similar to the piece Beaubien found. Unfortunately, “while he [Boundey] was conducting some visitors through the mission, another party arrived and dropped a heavy rock on the object”.[SUP]29[/SUP]
During re-excavation of the retort in 1970 a piece of burned adobe with impressions of ridges similar to those found on bells was found. Directly outside the retort was “a fragment of cast copper which looks like a bell fragment.”[SUP]30[/SUP] In 1971 a cache of copper and slag shelved in the storage room at Tumacácori labeled “Caywood’s bell moulds” was found. There were some copper fragments similar to those exhibited in the museum as bell fragments that were “found in a cave near Tumacácori.” Presumably, Caywood’s “bell moulds” came from Area 37a, near the heating feature Beaubien called the foundry.[SUP]31[/SUP]

<from NPS Archeology Program: Research in the Parks >

This is pretty solid evidence of copper casting for bells, and NO silver was found in the copper. This can only mean that smelting had to be done which removed the silver and gold, which almost always occur with copper in nature.

If you are looking for absolute proof that the slag removed from Tumacacori was silver slag - good luck; as I recall the only explanation for the disappearance we have is a story that local prospectors picked it up and hauled it away to be re-processed as the slag was quite rich in silver.

A last point here but one expert stated that finding significant silver in ancient slag, as in 100 ppm or more, is indicative of silver smelting. (see that Wiki article posted above). If the story is true, and I see no reason to doubt it for the slag heaps have been removed for some purpose and no other explanation has surfaced, then the slag having enough silver in it to make it worth re-processing would be indicative of silver smelting. Copper slag forms neat and pretty copper minerals BTW, I have some here somewhere but may take some time to find it.

Please do continue, did not mean to derail the discussion;
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Almost forgot to add this but slag is also built right into the mission church at Tumacacori too!

On the east of the altar room there is a sanctuary chamber, 16 by 20 feet, 20 feet high, covered with a circular roof built of burned brick, supported in the center by an arch. This is the only part of the mission which is now roofed over. In the south end of the church there was an arched partition which formed a vestibule. This partition has been removed. The outside wall of the north end of the church building is decorated with white plaster studded at regular intervals with clusters made of fragments of broken slag and broken brick.

<GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE NATIONAL MONUMENTS SET ASIDE UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE 8, 1906, https://ia600508.us.archive.org/7/items/regardingnational00congrich/regardingnational00congrich.pdf >

So the slag was not used in building the churches only at San Xavier del Bac.

Please do continue, had found this earlier and forgot to post it.
Roy ~ Oroblanco

PS in reply to Joe' question, see Tumacacori's Yesterdays, pp 92 <I think you have this book?>

He says the slag contained about 8 per cent lead, 3 per cent copper, about 8 ounces in silver, and about 1/6 ounce of gold, per ton"

 

[Springfield]

... Almost forgot to add this but slag is also built right into the mission church at Tumacacori too! ...

... So the slag was not used in building the churches only at San Xavier del Bac...

He says the slag contained about 8 per cent lead, 3 per cent copper, about 8 ounces in silver, and about 1/6 ounce of gold, per ton"

If this assay is true and representative of a large volume of slag heaps, I would say it's clearly a smoking gun for significant mining/smelting activities. At first glance, it certainly indicates at least some smelting of metals ore was done.

However, before we can declare that the Jesuits were running a 'major precious metals operation', we'd need more information. Was the above referenced assay from a cherry-picked grab sample from a church structure? Were the alleged slag heaps at these mission sites documented and sampled? Do we have reliable data as to their sizes? What happened to them? If we could get a handle on the volume and content of the remnant slag heaps after 1767, we might be able to estimate the amount of ore concentrates that were smelted to produce them - and a more definitive picture of the extent of mining needed to provide the ore concentrates.

The copper content in the slag sample was high, suggesting the possibility that this particular smelter was primarily used for copper recovery. Is it possible that the primary purpose of the smelters was to recover copper used to produce bells and other copper or bronze alloyed castings? And, by extension, could the additional recovery of silver been strictly to manufacture church adornments?

 

[deducer]

However, before we can declare that the Jesuits were running a 'major precious metals operation', we'd need more information. Was the above referenced assay from a cherry-picked grab sample from a church structure? Were the alleged slag heaps at these mission sites documented and sampled? Do we have reliable data as to their sizes? What happened to them? If we could get a handle on the volume and content of the remnant slag heaps after 1767, we might be able to estimate the amount of ore concentrates that were smelted to produce them - and a more definitive picture of the extent of mining needed to provide the ore concentrates.

The problem with that is that the mission at Tumacacori only became a national park in 1908, so up at least until around that time, you could probably walk in and carry off any slag you thought worth reprocessing, or anything else that fancied your attention. During the 141 years that elapsed before then, I'm sure quite a bit was taken away, looted, or otherwise removed, before the site was properly documented and analyzed.

I think that based on the UA bureau of mines report, and the Congressional report I posted, we are way past "determining" if the Jesuits did any such thing at Tumacacori or Guevavi.

 

[releventchair]

Too more site or connected sites investigation should reveal fuel source for furnace(s) and discarded sand molds if employed. Was plaster found a pattern used to create a sand mold? While it,(plaster) and even cuttle fish(I know,few around in desert) could be used for casting one time the shape would be misshapen for next pour, a wood or plaster or both combined pattern can be reused using sand as mold and keeping pattern intact for consistent reuse.(Wood has been laminated to attain required mass to create a pattern before styrofoam became commonly used,any wood objects found hidden in a dry place that have caused questions of their use?)Just need a binding agent equivalent to today's acid and resin blends to hold sand firm.It was common casting brass for cannon and gun parts. Adding plaster to pattern could be done to change it of course, to modify shape.

 

[cactusjumper]

From the USC issue #4648:

View attachment 994852

deducer,

I don't find the above snippet that convincing of Jesuit mining. It does not give the date of the report, nor provide proof the it was the Jesuit's did the work at the smelter.

Treasure hunters are convinced with the smallest amount of "evidence" and "documentation". Anything that gives even the slightest hint to further their beliefs is always blown out of all proportion.
good luck,

Joe

 

[gollum]

I guess since nobody likes to examine links, here are the first few pages of the Official Reports of the University of Arizona Bureau of Mines (1916-1917):

I posted the entire pages so nobody can say that anything was taken out of context.






So Joe, please remember that this is not Mitchell or Storm writing this. This was the official ASU Bureau of Mines Bulletin. It is just so funny that what was common knowledge a hundred years ago, has been rewritten to exclude so much actual history. The NPS says that no actual mining (other than some surface prospects) were done in the Santa Cruz River Valley. They even say the Planchas de Plata was only a surface anomaly. Say that to Capt Anza who stated in a letter that the entire mountain seemed to be made of solid silver.

Please read the entire bulletin I posted the link to above.

Best - Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

I was looking at that site this morning.

Anza may have been mistaken in his comment. What do you think, since you have used his statement to bolster your argument?

Also....Can you show me where Father Ortega states the early Jesuits were mining, instead of just establishing missions?

Mr. Bird seems to show some bias against the Jesuits, in general in the body of the the bulletin. It could be that bias colors his comments.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos - this is another long-winded one, so I must ask your indulgence, thank you in advance;

Springfield wrote

If this assay is true and representative of a large volume of slag heaps, I would say it's clearly a smoking gun for significant mining/smelting activities. At first glance, it certainly indicates at least some smelting of metals ore was done.

It is the written word of someone who allegedly knew the content, and that from his memory, not an assay sheet. This is all we have on what exactly was in the slag which was removed for the silver content. Sorry if this is not solid enough information for you, but as was pointed out, prior to becoming a national monument site, it was perfectly legal to simply pack up and haul away anything you might fancy. Also, perhaps the mounds of slag would only be an indication of "modest" operations in your view, not necessarily a "large" volume. We end up in debates over what makes a 'large' volume so just want to be on the same page for that point.

Springfield also wrote

However, before we can declare that the Jesuits were running a 'major precious metals operation', we'd need more information.

Unless someone knows one of the persons whom removed and sold the slag, and that person saved the assay reports and they are willing to share them, we are not going to see more information about the slag. More on this in a moment.

Springfield also wrote

Was the above referenced assay from a cherry-picked grab sample from a church structure? Were the alleged slag heaps at these mission sites documented and sampled? Do we have reliable data as to their sizes? What happened to them? If we could get a handle on the volume and content of the remnant slag heaps after 1767, we might be able to estimate the amount of ore concentrates that were smelted to produce them - and a more definitive picture of the extent of mining needed to provide the ore concentrates.

You are demanding here information which can not be obtained at this point in history. Those "alleged" heaps were removed and sold for the silver content, but were seen by numerous visitors to the mission prior to that. That is all the info we have. Perhaps the National Park Service would allow someone to chip out some of the slag built into the mission itself, and have it tested? I don't think we will see that happen either.

Springfield also wrote

The copper content in the slag sample was high, suggesting the possibility that this particular smelter was primarily used for copper recovery. Is it possible that the primary purpose of the smelters was to recover copper used to produce bells and other copper or bronze alloyed castings? And, by extension, could the additional recovery of silver been strictly to manufacture church adornments?

I must beg to differ here, quote

For slag rich in lead and sometimes tin with over 100ppm of silver, it might be considered as the waste of silver production (Craddock 1989).

<From the Wiki article linked above, citing Craddock, P., 1989, The Scientific Investigation of Early Mining and Smelting, In Henderson, J.(ed), Scientific Analysis in Archaeology, Oxford : Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology ; Los Angeles, Calif. : UCLA Institute of Archaeology ; Oxford : distributed by Oxbow Books, 178-212>

As to your postulation of the purpose of the smelting activity, we might also point out that copper pieces and copper slag remain at the site, while the "alleged" silver slag has been largely removed. I do not know of anyone whom has ever bothered to gather up and re-smelt copper slag, but for silver or gold yes, so if the slag were from copper smelting alone, it does not make sense that anyone would bother to try to sell it.
Casting of bells BTW would be an excellent 'cover' for illicit production of precious metals to any visiting authorities whom might raise objections. A further point we could raise is that all of the old mines found by early American prospectors were either silver or gold mines, not copper mines. If the only activity were to obtain copper for casting bells, where are those copper mines? And we would be left with a whole string of old silver mines (and a few gold) that the Indians informed the early Anglos had been worked by the padres, like the Salero - do we explain this as confusion on the part of either the Indians or the Anglos, and the mystery copper mines remain to be found?

I must also respectfully disagree that the silver production was for "church ornaments" only too - though it is in part true, like the impressive silver seen at San Xavier but missing today, the volume of materials processed was sizable enough to have produced a fairly large amount of "ornaments" which no one has ever seen or alleged. On the other hand, we do have stories of people whom saw cast bars of silver and gold, along with some few church ornaments. Which seems more likely to you, that the tons of silver was used for making a handful of crosses, cibora, cups, candlesticks, or that the reports of many silver bars along with a handful of ornaments makes more sense?

As has been pointed out too - we are relative latecomers to this; earlier treasure hunters were free (and legal) to simply remove any and all documents they might have found at the old missions. Some documents are today held by the park service, and none of them apply to the "temporal" activities of the missions, not even to the ranching or farming work. This seems to be pointed to as "proof" that no such mining/smelting/amassing of treasure ever existed, ignoring that we have several reports of early treasure hunters finding and removing the kinds of documents which would prove those activities. Heck the Franciscan padres in Arizona were literally selling off old mission documents for a dollar a sheet in the early days of the tourist trade - it is possible that some of those documents might have had the 'incriminating" evidence. It is not likely we will ever know.

Were we to have the types of documents sought to "settle" the case, I am fairly confident that those documents would be immediately assailed as fraudulent, fakes, created by the finders etc. Look at the discussion on the Molina documents - even the Park Service got into the act to attack them. Or the Tayopa inventory - all fakes, our skeptics will howl. In both cases, these documents were turned up by treasure hunters - Mitchell is usually pointed to for the first example, Lt Henry O Flipper for the Tayopa documents, so this by definition makes these documents "tainted". So our skeptics can insist and demand documentary proof, and when a treasure hunter has turned the documents up, then attack the documents as fakes and the finders as frauds. Convenient for skeptics, for sure, and perhaps a sign of a desire or wish for the treasure stories to be false? I submit that it is quite possible the documents mentioned are NOT fakes nor false, that they are the very kinds of documents sought to prove that the Jesuits were mining and accumulating treasures, but a skeptical bias against treasure hunters in general is the real problem with those documents.

A strange point is how this topic is being treated by the govt authorities; several of the studies that do mention the slag and signs of mining/smelting activities seem to be puzzled by them, and offer no explanation, or as in the case mentioned (posted) by our amigo Infosponge, thought the smelting must date to after the padres. The fact that slag was built right into the mission churches themselves proves that postulation erroneous; the slag had to be on the spot at the time when the Franciscan padres were building those churches, which implies that it came from their predecessors whom would be the Jesuits. I realize that most archaeologists and historians are simply not the least interested in mining history, period, so do not expend their efforts in examining it, which partially explains the situation, yet I have seen a single paragraph which referred to the slag piles and foundry which was in a published study, then later removed for the public version. Were we looking into the production of textiles in the colonial period, or of pottery, our professional archaeologists would veritably leap into the fray and examine the questions in detail, and publish their findings and conclusions. But mining, smelting, etc? If it gets mentioned at all, it is a puzzle and left that way, or assigned to later people (Americans or Mexicans) ignoring that the slag is built into the churches themselves. Perhaps there is some aversion to become involved in a controversy with the Church or the Jesuits?

To illustrate this strange point - we know that the missionaries were indeed smelting and casting copper bells at the least, that mounds of slag were found at Guevavi and Tumacacori, that slag is built into the missions at San Xavier and Tumacacori; yet if you visit these places there is NO MENTION of ANY of these activities, especially nothing about the slag built into the churches. Years ago, the Park service had a whole display about the padres mining activities, which was later removed. Why? The evidence had not changed, nor the stories.

Cactusjumper wrote

Treasure hunters are convinced with the smallest amount of "evidence" and "documentation". Anything that gives even the slightest hint to further their beliefs is always blown out of all proportion.

Well that statement is certainly denigrating of all treasure hunters as wishful dreamers, and as to "blown out of proportion" the fact that MINES have been found, just as those "legends" claim, is hardly a "slight hint" worthy of supporting a belief. Considering that you yourself are a treasure hunter, and you expend a fair amount of time and money (and effort) in research, do you include yourself as among those whom are convinced by the smallest amount of evidence and documentation? Your summation of what has been presented here over several years is bordering on insulting.

We have shown that the Jesuits in fact owned and operated mines, plural, in Mexico;

We have shown that smelting activities were carried on at several missions; <and likely predates the Franciscans BTW>

We have shown that some impressive treasures have been found;

We also found out that the Jesuits had their own ships, were in possession of a massive amount of treasures and properties when they were expelled and suppressed, that the Indians were not always happy about their situation in the Reduccions, and even some hints at a modern coverup. I would suggest a re-read of this entire thread, and perhaps the one on the Molina documents as well for we started this argument in that thread. Or do you contend that the Jesuits had no silver mines, that their production was quite small and for decorations and bells only? By the reports of those whom rediscovered some of the old Jesuit mines, like the Salero, the works had been quite extensive, meaning many tons of ore and rich ore at that - which would have produced tons of silver. This dismissive attitude of yours is rather puzzling to me. I must agree with Deducer, we are past the point of determining whether the padres were doing what the treasure hunter stories claim they did.

One other point, the question was raised about what fuel source was used for the smelting, the evidence points to charcoal. A number of charcoal pits were found at Tumacacori, and if memory serves several at the other missions as well. The archaeologists did not bother to examine why such large amounts of charcoal were needed, to explain what is clearly proof of a large scale production of charcoal, far beyond what is needed for cooking or heating purposes. Charcoal can be produced even from woody brush, it does not require logging and timber, is easy to make and low-tech, plus is the best fuel for smelting.

Sorry for the long winded post, I hope you all have a very pleasant day; will try to pop in later this evening.
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy, My Friend,

I don't believe any of the slag was removed for the silver content. To be a profitable project, I suspect you would need many hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of material. I doubt any prospector would do that......for practice?

I am hardly "dismissive", rather I think I am suspicious of many "facts". My past experiences with a "friend" have made me much worse I fear. It seems to me that the more I question such "facts" only makes for more research and a better argument all around.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Mike,

I was looking at that site this morning.

Anza may have been mistaken in his comment. What do you think, since you have used his statement to bolster your argument?

Also....Can you show me where Father Ortega states the early Jesuits were mining, instead of just establishing missions?

Mr. Bird seems to show some bias against the Jesuits, in general in the body of the the bulletin. It could be that bias colors his comments.

Take care,

Joe

Where do you see any bias against the Jesuits? Just because he says they mined, doesn't mean he has anything against them. When I say the Jesuits owned slaves, I am simply stating a fact. No bias. He is just stating facts as he knows them. He also (unlike myself) has a translated copy of "La Historia del Nayarit". HAHAHA It will take me a bit longer to get through it.

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

He didn't need a translation as he is very fluent in Spanish.

Take care,

Joe

 

[deducer]

deducer,

I don't find the above snippet that convincing of Jesuit mining. It does not give the date of the report, nor provide proof the it was the Jesuit's did the work at the smelter.

Treasure hunters are convinced with the smallest amount of "evidence" and "documentation". Anything that gives even the slightest hint to further their beliefs is always blown out of all proportion.

The relevant quote by Patrick Hamilton in his "Resources of Arizona" can be found in full here, which you won't read anyway:

Resources of Arizona

The report for which Patrick Hamilton was commissioned to produce, was for the legislature of Arizona and the creation of which, was paid out of the public treasury.

So Mr. Hamilton has absolutely no motivation to make anything up for, lie to, or otherwise mislead the legislature, or the public. Especially considering the penalty for doing so.

He made a statement which he clearly felt would hold up under congressional scrutiny, if it ever came to that.

He must have had good reasons for doing so.