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
