Legends, Maps, Coincidences, Logic, and Hunches.

[EE THr]

Sounds like a perfect Storm-isim to me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Arrastras---

The question has come up as to whether there are, or were, arrastras in the Supers.


Apparently somebody thought there was, or wanted to pretend there was. The first map looks like it is dated 1846, and has the name Manuel Peralta on it.

The John Mitchell Timeline says---
"[Origin date] 1844, [Published date] 1846; MX-Peralta-Apache Minos (Fish) Manuel A."




The next map looks like a copy of the above. It's missing some of the stuff that appears on the above, but has added the river name. Also, specific location marks (X's) for the mines above the arrastra. Or is it trying to show multiple arrastras, as the X's are not marked "Mine" like the other X's are, at the other locations on this map.

The John Mitchell Timeline says---
"[Origin date] 1844, [Published date] 1846; MX-Peralta-Apache Minos (Fish) Frank Fish."




The next one seems to be from a different source. It shows a different layout, for multiple arrastras, a major camp, some ruins, and the classic "Pit-Tunnel-Cave House" configuration.



There is a digit missing in the date on this one.
The John Mitchell Timeline says---
"[Origin date] 1844, [Published date] 1846; MX-Peralta Minos Del Oro Map (1st trip=4mines) Manuel A."
It also says, further down---
"[Origin date] 1844, [Event date] 1912; Erwin Ruth gets Gonzales/Manuel Peralta map trip #1-4mines."

The top two maps indicate the NE quadrant. The bottom one indicates lots of stuff going on in the NE quadrant, and it may be out of proportion with the placement of the "Pit-Tunnel-Cave House" location. I think the whole map, except for the needle, is probably in the NE quadrant, and the needle is depicted for directional reference only, rather than scale.

The manner in which the "Black Mesa" is drawn, on this one, reminds me of that same shape and shading, in some of the other maps. But this is not the shape of what is currently called Black Mesa. Or am I thinking of Black Top Mesa? (Anybody know where there is a map with all these names on it?)

At any rate, it sure looks like this feature, except it's flipped over in the map drawing, probably to show the cliffs and accent the "notch." Notice the orientation to North, by the river on the map, and the compass on the Google Earth shot---

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THr wrote

The first map looks like it is dated 1646

Not that it is a terribly important point, but when you look closely at that date the first "6" looks to me as if it is more likely an "8" making a date of 1846 rather than 1646. Just an opinion, as for what the creator of the map meant to put there quien sabe?

Please do continue, just a comment from your local 'peanut gallery'.
Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

Not only does it look more like an 8, but when I was checking the original download (I re-sized most of these) to get another look, I found that I had cut off the bottom of the middle map, which had a date and more, on the portion I accidentally clipped.

So now it looks like the top was 1846 and the middle was 1848, which makes sense.

Oops!

Thanks for catching that.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Have to agree. When you blow it up, it seems to be 1846.

Take care,

Joe

 

[EE THr]

Oro & CJ---

Thanks to you both, for the help.

I made additional edits, also. I changed my mind about the bottom and top maps, during those edits, in regards to the better matches I found in the referenced timeline. And I added the Google Earth screen shot to illustrate my comments about that feature in the map.

Whew!

8)

 

[EE THr]

Since I mentioned the "Pit-Tunnel-Cave House" configuration in the last map post, I'll put up the maps that show this.

I'll list them from best, to worst, in detail and information contained in them.










For these, there is only one entry in The John Mitchell Timeline, and that only says---
"[Origin] 1846, [Published] 1946; MX-Perfil Map (Red mt?) Manuel A.?"

The third map down, also says, "Don P." That name matches the Don Pedro Peralta who is listed in the John Mitchell Timeline, above, but it says he was appointed Governer of Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1608. It also lists a Don Pedro Peralta expedition in 1847, so it seems the map would be from a later Don P., if the notation is accurate.


These are maps which show the pit, tunnel, and cave house configuration directly. A few other maps contain one or two of these, plus some of the other landmarks in these four maps. I will probably post these other ones that show at least two out of three of the configuration.

And there are landmarks in these four, which show up in several other maps. Being that these maps are all of "someplace" in the Supers, maps showing the same landmarks don't seem to be unusual, but it looks like some of the map sources favored certain landmarks to show major points, while other sources seemed to favor alltogether different landmarks.

Using different landmarks doesn't necessarily mean that they considered those to be the most obviously seen, but could mean that those are the ones known by whoever the map was for. So, some landmarks might actually be used specifically because they were not-so-obvious. The same would go for the names of landmarks. After all, the treasures or mines are supposed to be a secret, right?

This may lead to the conclusion that anything too obvious is suspect. If any of these maps were perfect, then "it" would certainly have been found by now, wouldn't it?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening EE, you posted -->If any of these maps were perfect, then "it" would certainly have been found by now, wouldn't it?
*****************
No, the map to Tayopa is almost 90% correct, yet it remained hidden in spite of hundreds of searchers, many of whom may have used versions of the map.

In fact I never gave it serious consideration until after I had located Tayopa, since I assumed that if it had any value, it would never have been published in a popular book, also, many of the hundreds that looked for Tayopa would probably have used it, and since they didn't find Tayopa, ---..
The same can easily be applied to any Superstition maps.

As for the Jesuits, remember they were famous for using upside down, mirror images. While they probably were not involved, this trick may have been adopted by another.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

Good points, thanks.

I assumed that if it had any value, it would never have been published in a popular book

 

[Blindbowman]

Evening EE, you posted -->If any of these maps were perfect, then "it" would certainly have been found by now, wouldn't it?
*****************
No, the map to Tayopa is almost 90% correct, yet it remained hidden in spite of hundreds of searchers, many of whom may have used versions of the map.

In fact I never gave it serious consideration until after I had located Tayopa, since I assumed that if it had any value, it would never have been published in a popular book, also, many of the hundreds that looked for Tayopa would probably have used it, and since they didn't find Tayopa, ---..
The same can easily be applied to any Superstition maps.

As for the Jesuits, remember they were famous for using upside down, mirror images. While they probably were not involved, this trick may have been adopted by another.

Don Jose de La Mancha

LOL



what is the oldest record of the tayopa mines ...LOL

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

1603

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Blindbowman]

the site will not let me go back and correct my last reply .. so .. i wont make a nother reply .. figer it out ...

it should have said "the 1603 date is fake ..."

 

[Blindbowman]

i guess that proves my piont .. if you dont email me i will not talk about this on any web site ...

good luck RD ....

 

[Oroblanco]

Blindbowman wrote

it should have said "the 1603 date is fake ..."

May I ask why you are saying the 1603 date is fake? There are sources which state this is the date when the mines of Tayopa were first exploited, but at least one claim the mine complex was actually discovered the year previous (1602) during the expedition of Captain Hurdaide. I would appreciate it if you would care to expound on your statement, thank you in advance,

Apologies to the thread owner for the off-topic post.
Oroblanco

 

[Blindbowman]

Blindbowman wrote

it should have said "the 1603 date is fake ..."

May I ask why you are saying the 1603 date is fake? There are sources which state this is the date when the mines of Tayopa were first exploited, but at least one claim the mine complex was actually discovered the year previous (1602) during the expedition of Captain Hurdaide. I would appreciate it if you would care to expound on your statement, thank you in advance,

Apologies to the thread owner for the off-topic post.
Oroblanco

my reply would be the same to you Oro i can not talk about this here on the web site .. email me if you wish to know more ...

 

[Oroblanco]

Blindbowman wrote

my reply would be the same to you Oro i can not talk about this here on the web site .. email me if you wish to know more ...

Done, thank you again.
Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

My first thought about the four maps in post #46, is, were they made by four different people? If so, then they would corroborate each other.

They certainly appear to be drawn by four people, but the next question is, are some of them merely copies of the others, or even all of them copies of just one of the others?

These four maps are significantly different than all the other maps in the "library links," in post #22, in that they show a very specific final location rather than merely a general area. Also, they show many of the features, which are said to be local to the mine, in the "LDM Clues List." A big question, then, would be, are the more distant landmarks in these maps, accurate?

Obviously, if these maps are corroborative, and they show local features, and they include distant landmarks, then these maps alone could lead directly to the legendary Lost Dutchman.

They would only be corroborative if they were not only drawn by different people, but were, instead of copies, actually from different original sources.

Is there anything within the maps themselves which would give some odds as to whether they were from different original sources? And do any of the other library maps corroborate these four, and the reverse?

Another thought comes to mind concerning these four and the others. Were any of the very different maps in the library drawn by the same person? Several of the library maps, even though very different, have similarities in "artistic style." It seems that if a single person drew more than one "view" or "layout style," then, if the maps were accurate, that one person would have had, not only a very good idea of where the location of the LDM was, he would also have had an opportunity to alter those maps in the same way, so as to mislead others who might try to combine the map information for the purpose of zeroing-in on the location. All this must take in the consideration that some or all of these "same artist" maps were merely contrived entirely, or were all from accurate originals, or somewhere in between. Just as all the maps might be.

It seems that if any one location is indicated by all this study of these maps, then being the result of studying legends, and legendary maps, the end result would only be a "legendary place." But still very interesting.

 

[EE THr]

In the maps in post #46, there does seem to be some landmarks intended to indicate the general area being portrayed.

In particular, the possibility that the line-up of "the needle" with the Four Peaks seen as one," in the legends. These four maps all contain elements which could refer to this alignment, as follows.






The legend does say that the LDM is in a North-South running canyon. So, if that is true, and if these maps are of the LDM site, it would be a 50-50 chance that they are facing North. This would then indicate that the rear peak is the four mountain tops lining up, and the needle is the legendary one seen from "the hill above my mine," as the Dutchman was supposed to have stated.

So these two features could be in agreement with written stories.




P.S. A Spanish to English translator says that "cima" means "top."

 

[BenThereDoneThat]

Soon as the weather clears (real dusty and hazy last two days) and the photo isnt clear from 1.5 miles away, I will be out and take another photo a little farther east from this point of view to show how 4 peaks can be seen in this shot........

Tim

 

[EE THr]

BTDT---

That would be great!