tapoutking
Sr. Member
That last picture of the indians method of getting gold from the stream is very interesting.....
Location of Aztec Gold
- Thread starter Salvor6
- Start date
I forget which source it was in, nor am I going to bother to look it up. The ideas here have lives of their own, so nothing changes folks opinion, though those opinions are usually based on: nothing but hopes.
But it has been recorded in the history that in the Mixteca region, the region south of Izucar de Matamoros comes to my memory, there was indeed soil of a certain color with gold grains in it, and there was a lot of work done to separate it out. So, there were sources of gold in Mexico in the days of the Aztecs.
I don't really mind what anyone thinks. My friends here have some really good laughs at the ideas many have. The funniest is the Aztecs when fighting for their lives stopped and sent large quantities of jewels and gold hundreds and hundreds of miles into the USA region, while ignoring zillions of good hiding places within a two day walk for strong slaves.
The other belief that Aztecs were from Israel, has been disproven by y-marker DNA testing. Cross it off your wish list.
But it has been recorded in the history that in the Mixteca region, the region south of Izucar de Matamoros comes to my memory, there was indeed soil of a certain color with gold grains in it, and there was a lot of work done to separate it out. So, there were sources of gold in Mexico in the days of the Aztecs.
I don't really mind what anyone thinks. My friends here have some really good laughs at the ideas many have. The funniest is the Aztecs when fighting for their lives stopped and sent large quantities of jewels and gold hundreds and hundreds of miles into the USA region, while ignoring zillions of good hiding places within a two day walk for strong slaves.
The other belief that Aztecs were from Israel, has been disproven by y-marker DNA testing. Cross it off your wish list.
RELICDUDE07
Bronze Member
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,850
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Interesting discussion. 
I don't propose that Montezuma's treasure is hidden in Arizona or Texas, however I do think there is something at the root of the legends that claim a great Aztec treasure was concealed in what is now the American southwest. Most legends have some basis in fact. The amount of gold and silver seen by the Spanish conquistadors on their first visit to Tenochtitlan was considerably more than they obtained later on the conquest of same. The city was sealed off in the siege which would have precluded any attempt to evacuate such treasure after the moment all routes were closed, but for some time the city was not under siege while Cortez was rebuilding his army and a special flotilla of gunboats to use on the lake. A fair amount of treasure was lost in the canals during the retreat from the city by Cortez too.
Transport of a large amount of treasure would have been only one problem, and as has been pointed out there are numerous good places for concealment within Aztec territory, without any need to trek 1000 miles north into the territory of non-Aztecs. I don't think the stories we have of Aztec treasures in the US southwest really relate to Montezuma and the fall of the Aztec empire.
That said, there were two rich and powerful civilizations in the US southwest, namely the Hohokam and Anasazi, both of which survived almost into post-Columbian times. Local Indian legends suggest a connection with the Aztecs. Where did the legends of Aztec treasures in the southwest originate? Are they simply cooked up complete fantasy, or could it be that they are based on some kind of real events, which may have had no association with the Aztecs or Mexicas, this ID being a result of Euro tacking that on? There are quite a few landmarks, ruins etc that today have names related to Montezuma and the Aztecs, when in fact they have nothing to do with them, just that early explorers were familiar with the Aztecs and simply put those quite erroneous names onto the landmarks. I think it is quite possible that there is some kind of truth behind the legends of Aztec/Montezuma treasure hidden in the southwest USA, which in reality has nothing or very little to do with anything Aztec, just that the familiarity of all things Aztec led to those names being wrongly associated.
It is also possible that the name Montezuma may be correct in association, and still have little or nothing to do with Aztecs; the name is not that rare, and it is easy to see how an early explorer or treasure hunter, hearing the story told and a name they recognize or is very similar to Montezuma, then proceed to make Aztec affiliations which were not present in the original story. There are some parallels with other famous names, like Alexander the great for instance has a great many legends attached to his name in central Asia, and some of these legends can be identified with other, later Greek conquerors and generals but over time the more famous name replaced the original.
Please do continue, very interesting so far.
Oroblanco
I don't propose that Montezuma's treasure is hidden in Arizona or Texas, however I do think there is something at the root of the legends that claim a great Aztec treasure was concealed in what is now the American southwest. Most legends have some basis in fact. The amount of gold and silver seen by the Spanish conquistadors on their first visit to Tenochtitlan was considerably more than they obtained later on the conquest of same. The city was sealed off in the siege which would have precluded any attempt to evacuate such treasure after the moment all routes were closed, but for some time the city was not under siege while Cortez was rebuilding his army and a special flotilla of gunboats to use on the lake. A fair amount of treasure was lost in the canals during the retreat from the city by Cortez too.
Transport of a large amount of treasure would have been only one problem, and as has been pointed out there are numerous good places for concealment within Aztec territory, without any need to trek 1000 miles north into the territory of non-Aztecs. I don't think the stories we have of Aztec treasures in the US southwest really relate to Montezuma and the fall of the Aztec empire.
That said, there were two rich and powerful civilizations in the US southwest, namely the Hohokam and Anasazi, both of which survived almost into post-Columbian times. Local Indian legends suggest a connection with the Aztecs. Where did the legends of Aztec treasures in the southwest originate? Are they simply cooked up complete fantasy, or could it be that they are based on some kind of real events, which may have had no association with the Aztecs or Mexicas, this ID being a result of Euro tacking that on? There are quite a few landmarks, ruins etc that today have names related to Montezuma and the Aztecs, when in fact they have nothing to do with them, just that early explorers were familiar with the Aztecs and simply put those quite erroneous names onto the landmarks. I think it is quite possible that there is some kind of truth behind the legends of Aztec/Montezuma treasure hidden in the southwest USA, which in reality has nothing or very little to do with anything Aztec, just that the familiarity of all things Aztec led to those names being wrongly associated.
It is also possible that the name Montezuma may be correct in association, and still have little or nothing to do with Aztecs; the name is not that rare, and it is easy to see how an early explorer or treasure hunter, hearing the story told and a name they recognize or is very similar to Montezuma, then proceed to make Aztec affiliations which were not present in the original story. There are some parallels with other famous names, like Alexander the great for instance has a great many legends attached to his name in central Asia, and some of these legends can be identified with other, later Greek conquerors and generals but over time the more famous name replaced the original.
Please do continue, very interesting so far.
Oroblanco
Good posting, Oroblanco, and makes so much more sense than the beleaguered Aztecs sending a major expedition more than a thousand miles at that time. Good job.
A reminder, though, that the name Montezuma is totally American. The Emperors, who were of the surname Moctezuma, did not use Montezuma. The current Mexican spelling is Moctezuma, and before that, they used something like Mocteuczoma, and before that, well, I can't remember, I think it even had an 'h' in it. But, it was never anything like Montezuma.
So, the name Montezuma would never have been used in the ancient days of the Aztecs in any case. This is one of those oxymoron thingies.
Just in our local church records, the name was totally different in the early days. Our church records start around 1609, though there were only a handful. In 1620, the records, such as marriage; baptism; and deaths were entered in large quantities.
By 1660, the priests started forcing people to take Spanish surnames. The Moctezumas were one exception, because they were very powerful people, even the branch living out here. No one screwed with their family name.
A reminder, though, that the name Montezuma is totally American. The Emperors, who were of the surname Moctezuma, did not use Montezuma. The current Mexican spelling is Moctezuma, and before that, they used something like Mocteuczoma, and before that, well, I can't remember, I think it even had an 'h' in it. But, it was never anything like Montezuma.
So, the name Montezuma would never have been used in the ancient days of the Aztecs in any case. This is one of those oxymoron thingies.
Just in our local church records, the name was totally different in the early days. Our church records start around 1609, though there were only a handful. In 1620, the records, such as marriage; baptism; and deaths were entered in large quantities.
By 1660, the priests started forcing people to take Spanish surnames. The Moctezumas were one exception, because they were very powerful people, even the branch living out here. No one screwed with their family name.
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,850
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
That is interesting (the tunnels) and who can say for sure where there may be un-discovered tunnels? Remember for many years, the academics insisted there could not be any passages inside of any American pyramids, and now several have been found. Who knows what will be discovered tomorrow?
As to the spelling of Montezuma, the early Nahuatl spelling seems to have been
Motecuhzoma
Cortez spelled it
Muteczuma
<from his second letter to the king of Spain, in which he first provided the name of the Aztec sovereign>
This is fairly different from the common spelling found in Mexico today Moctezuma in which the T and C have swapped ordinal positions in the name so is about as erroneous as Montezuma, however I will cite as my authority Bernal de Castillo, of our primary sources for the history of the conquest of Mexico, who spelled it
Montezuma
<available online at http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/bernal/36.html
and in deference to the legends of "Montezumas treasures" as well as the Marine Corps song "Halls of Montezuma" I will stick to the common usage spelling for most Americans and I am comfortable with the habit. No offense to our neighbors to the south intended. We don't have any legends titled "Moctezumas treasure" at least not that I have seen yet. Just think of me as another silly fuddy-duddy type of American resistant to learning new ways.
I do think that if anyone has (or had) direct knowledge of any treasure(s) which Motecuhzoma may have still possessed at his death, it would be his family relatives. I would like to see some research into a possible different origin to the Montezuma legends we see associated with Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Texas though; could there have been such an incident in which a powerful Amerindian ruler of a relatively advanced (compared to the near stone-age technology of many non-agrarian tribes) state, have marched into any (or all) of these areas to conceal a tomb of a king or a treasure, perhaps to keep it out of the hands of advancing Aztec or Olmec or Toltec conquerors rather than Spanish? Or a state verging on collapse due to severe droughts, epidemics, or attacks of barbarian neighbors, etc? Several such possibilities are available, if we don't start from the assumption that the legend MUST relate to Moctezuma of the Aztecs which the evidence and logic won't support.
Please do continue, didn't mean to derail the topic.
Oroblanco
As to the spelling of Montezuma, the early Nahuatl spelling seems to have been
Motecuhzoma
Cortez spelled it
Muteczuma
<from his second letter to the king of Spain, in which he first provided the name of the Aztec sovereign>
This is fairly different from the common spelling found in Mexico today Moctezuma in which the T and C have swapped ordinal positions in the name so is about as erroneous as Montezuma, however I will cite as my authority Bernal de Castillo, of our primary sources for the history of the conquest of Mexico, who spelled it
Montezuma
<available online at http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/bernal/36.html
and in deference to the legends of "Montezumas treasures" as well as the Marine Corps song "Halls of Montezuma" I will stick to the common usage spelling for most Americans and I am comfortable with the habit. No offense to our neighbors to the south intended. We don't have any legends titled "Moctezumas treasure" at least not that I have seen yet. Just think of me as another silly fuddy-duddy type of American resistant to learning new ways.
I do think that if anyone has (or had) direct knowledge of any treasure(s) which Motecuhzoma may have still possessed at his death, it would be his family relatives. I would like to see some research into a possible different origin to the Montezuma legends we see associated with Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Texas though; could there have been such an incident in which a powerful Amerindian ruler of a relatively advanced (compared to the near stone-age technology of many non-agrarian tribes) state, have marched into any (or all) of these areas to conceal a tomb of a king or a treasure, perhaps to keep it out of the hands of advancing Aztec or Olmec or Toltec conquerors rather than Spanish? Or a state verging on collapse due to severe droughts, epidemics, or attacks of barbarian neighbors, etc? Several such possibilities are available, if we don't start from the assumption that the legend MUST relate to Moctezuma of the Aztecs which the evidence and logic won't support.
Please do continue, didn't mean to derail the topic.
Oroblanco
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,431
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
The earliest spelling which I have encountered as well is "Motecuhzoma",which also can be found in the book authored by Miguel León-Portilla,"The Broken Spears".
This spelling dates back to the conquest...or at least 1521.
Likely the spelling...with an "h"... of which you speak,piegrande.
Regards:SH.
This spelling dates back to the conquest...or at least 1521.
Likely the spelling...with an "h"... of which you speak,piegrande.
Regards:SH.
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Hio: it was posted --> The other belief that Aztecs were from Israel, has been disproven by y-marker DNA testing. Cross it off your wish list
*******************
Never , never, hehehehhe
Don Jose de La Mancha
*******************
Never , never, hehehehhe
Don Jose de La Mancha
mrs.oroblanco
Silver Member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 4,356
- 427
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
You'd think that Castillo would know, considering he traveled with him.
Beth
cactusjumper
Gold Member
Roy,
I would go with Diaz as well, but as has been mentioned, Cortez also spelled it Montezuma in his letters to the King.
"The Broken Spears" is also a favorite of mine, and Miguel Leon-Portilla spells it "Motecuhzoma" for both I & II. My
guess would be that the Spaniards spelled the name phonetically.
That would seem to give the edge to the speakers of the Nahuatl language. The name used in "Cave, City and Eagle's
Nest", is "Motecuhzoma". When you read the credentials of the many people involved in that research, it lends some
credence to the use of that name.
In "The Discovery And Conquest Of Mexico....", there is: "note on Spelling, etc." which states: "In the Translation a purely
arbitrary course has been adopted, but it is one which will probably prove more acceptable to the general reader. Such words
as Montezuma (Motecuhzoma) and Huichilobos (Huitzilopoctli) are spelt as Bernal Diaz usually spells them.......". It would seem
the names have been corrected in parenthesis.
Don't see how it matters much for people looking for the alleged lost treasure.
Take care,
Joe
I would go with Diaz as well, but as has been mentioned, Cortez also spelled it Montezuma in his letters to the King.
"The Broken Spears" is also a favorite of mine, and Miguel Leon-Portilla spells it "Motecuhzoma" for both I & II. My
guess would be that the Spaniards spelled the name phonetically.
That would seem to give the edge to the speakers of the Nahuatl language. The name used in "Cave, City and Eagle's
Nest", is "Motecuhzoma". When you read the credentials of the many people involved in that research, it lends some
credence to the use of that name.
In "The Discovery And Conquest Of Mexico....", there is: "note on Spelling, etc." which states: "In the Translation a purely
arbitrary course has been adopted, but it is one which will probably prove more acceptable to the general reader. Such words
as Montezuma (Motecuhzoma) and Huichilobos (Huitzilopoctli) are spelt as Bernal Diaz usually spells them.......". It would seem
the names have been corrected in parenthesis.
Don't see how it matters much for people looking for the alleged lost treasure.
Take care,
Joe
Springfield
Silver Member
Oroblanco said:
Ha ha. You've got lots of company standing in line.
Oroblanco said:
The Taos legends, in particular, but also the Zunis, Acomas, and others who have lived in New Mexico for millenia, continue to revere the godlike Montezuma from their past. Interestingly, some of their traditions claim Montezuma himself was descended from white people. I was told this by the governor of the Acoma pueblo back ca 1980. Of course, the pointy-heads such as Bandelier claim these legends were all made up. I guess he knew better than the elders. I would be interested in what the Hopi say - anyone ever turn up a Hopi-Montezuma legend?
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,850
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Cactusjumper wrote
I think it is actually a mistake to limit your research to a single form of spelling when investigating any treasure legend, for very often numerous different variants are encountered. I don't know why so much issue has been raised, perhaps in order to correct me? Perhaps it would be of some benefit to re-read what I posted, to see if there is any thing which to take issue with? I will re-phrase what was posted, in an attempt to put it more clearly.
1. - the early Nahuatl spelling appears to have been Motecuhzoma
Even this spelling which some may see as authoritative, should be taken in the view of a people speaking Nahuatl, attempting to put a native word into a foreign alphabet and spelling. On this basis, it is questionable whether this would be a correct spelling in Spanish, much less English.
2. Cortez spelled it Muteczuma in his second letter to his king, which is the first instance where he mentions the name of the Aztec emperor at all. Thank you Nat for providing a link, more on this in a moment.
3. The modern Spanish or Mexican spelling held to be correct, has in fact reversed the ordinal positions of T and C, and dropped a vowel, which in effect has also lost a syllable. Hence it is about as inaccurate as the English spelling.
4. The Montezuma spelling has been in common usage since Bernal Diaz del Castillo, a man who was among the fellow conquistadors of Cortez and actually met the Aztec emperor. We may well be utterly incorrect in using that spelling, but it appears that the Aztec pronunciation of the emperor's name sounded like Montezuma to Castillo, which will suffice for me. As English speakers we do not always adopt the 'correct' spelling of names in every case, for who among us refers to Japan as Nippon, which is their own name for their country? No English map or geography I am aware of uses the correct name for Japan. Of course I refuse to conform to many of the modern revisionist attempts to change spellings, as with Ceylon, will forever be Ceylon to me, and not Sri Lanka which is quite alien to an American English native speaker.
The native languages sounded odd to Spanish explorers, with unusual combinations of consonants and unusual sounds; <example, "ATL" and the "NG" consonant sound> - in attempting to record these rather alien sounding names and terms, they simply spelled them phonetically as close to a Spanish spelling as they felt was possible.
In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested;
http://books.google.com/books?d=koA...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
In this work, a footnote explains the justification for using the Montezuma version of spelling the name, quote
the volume covering the remaining three letters is also online at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4I...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
These letters and Bernal Diaz del Castillo's account ought to be considered basic source materials for any search for lost Aztec gold. Not to cast aspersions on the works of later authors, some of which are excellent, but IMHO it is always best to go to the closest source for any treasure research. Even the best works done later are prone to errors creeping in, through no fault of the authors.
I think it is notable that the name Montezuma was in use among several tribes living in the American southwest, in some cases in association with legends, which may well have had nothing at all to do with the Aztecs or their famous emperor; the early explorers hearing this familiar name and seeing impressive ruins, could very well have made the Aztec connections which were not truly warranted. In some cases a presumption was made that the "primitive" peoples found living in the area could not have been responsible for the impressive ruins, hence leading to the Aztec theory.
Sorry for heading off into such a tangent, just found myself baffled at the replies taking issue with my earlier post, in which I fail to see anything at variance with what was corrected. Please do continue, as my posts only seem to provoke controversy I won't post any more replies in this thread, but will read the very interesting discussion. Good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco
I think it is actually a mistake to limit your research to a single form of spelling when investigating any treasure legend, for very often numerous different variants are encountered. I don't know why so much issue has been raised, perhaps in order to correct me? Perhaps it would be of some benefit to re-read what I posted, to see if there is any thing which to take issue with? I will re-phrase what was posted, in an attempt to put it more clearly.
1. - the early Nahuatl spelling appears to have been Motecuhzoma
Even this spelling which some may see as authoritative, should be taken in the view of a people speaking Nahuatl, attempting to put a native word into a foreign alphabet and spelling. On this basis, it is questionable whether this would be a correct spelling in Spanish, much less English.
2. Cortez spelled it Muteczuma in his second letter to his king, which is the first instance where he mentions the name of the Aztec emperor at all. Thank you Nat for providing a link, more on this in a moment.
3. The modern Spanish or Mexican spelling held to be correct, has in fact reversed the ordinal positions of T and C, and dropped a vowel, which in effect has also lost a syllable. Hence it is about as inaccurate as the English spelling.
4. The Montezuma spelling has been in common usage since Bernal Diaz del Castillo, a man who was among the fellow conquistadors of Cortez and actually met the Aztec emperor. We may well be utterly incorrect in using that spelling, but it appears that the Aztec pronunciation of the emperor's name sounded like Montezuma to Castillo, which will suffice for me. As English speakers we do not always adopt the 'correct' spelling of names in every case, for who among us refers to Japan as Nippon, which is their own name for their country? No English map or geography I am aware of uses the correct name for Japan. Of course I refuse to conform to many of the modern revisionist attempts to change spellings, as with Ceylon, will forever be Ceylon to me, and not Sri Lanka which is quite alien to an American English native speaker.
The native languages sounded odd to Spanish explorers, with unusual combinations of consonants and unusual sounds; <example, "ATL" and the "NG" consonant sound> - in attempting to record these rather alien sounding names and terms, they simply spelled them phonetically as close to a Spanish spelling as they felt was possible.
In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested;
http://books.google.com/books?d=koA...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
In this work, a footnote explains the justification for using the Montezuma version of spelling the name, quote
<page 187, footnote on the spelling, in the chapter covering the second letter of Cortez>
the volume covering the remaining three letters is also online at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4I...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
These letters and Bernal Diaz del Castillo's account ought to be considered basic source materials for any search for lost Aztec gold. Not to cast aspersions on the works of later authors, some of which are excellent, but IMHO it is always best to go to the closest source for any treasure research. Even the best works done later are prone to errors creeping in, through no fault of the authors.
I think it is notable that the name Montezuma was in use among several tribes living in the American southwest, in some cases in association with legends, which may well have had nothing at all to do with the Aztecs or their famous emperor; the early explorers hearing this familiar name and seeing impressive ruins, could very well have made the Aztec connections which were not truly warranted. In some cases a presumption was made that the "primitive" peoples found living in the area could not have been responsible for the impressive ruins, hence leading to the Aztec theory.
Sorry for heading off into such a tangent, just found myself baffled at the replies taking issue with my earlier post, in which I fail to see anything at variance with what was corrected. Please do continue, as my posts only seem to provoke controversy I won't post any more replies in this thread, but will read the very interesting discussion. Good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco
mrs.oroblanco
Silver Member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 4,356
- 427
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I just have to say, it does seem that certain folks have a need to "chime in" only when Oroblanco tries to make a point.
I may just be jaded (as well I should), but, I have to say that Ancient History and studies is Roy's forte, and has been for many many years. He has colleges teaching his courses, and is a well-esteemed member of the Phoenician International Research Center.
So - I just had to say my peace about that.
Continue.
Beth
I may just be jaded (as well I should), but, I have to say that Ancient History and studies is Roy's forte, and has been for many many years. He has colleges teaching his courses, and is a well-esteemed member of the Phoenician International Research Center.
So - I just had to say my peace about that.
Continue.
Beth
cactusjumper
Gold Member
Roy,
I assume your last post was directed towards me.
"In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested..."
If so, I believe I was agreeing with you, rather than correcting you. I was only trying to add to the dialog. Sorry if I stepped on
your toes.....in some way.
Take care,
Joe
I assume your last post was directed towards me.
"In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested..."
If so, I believe I was agreeing with you, rather than correcting you. I was only trying to add to the dialog. Sorry if I stepped on
your toes.....in some way.
Take care,
Joe
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Sorry Beth, he is still just a sheep luvin bum, a looter of treasures, and further more, a lousy cowboy ! However, since the hounds of Baskervill like him, he must have "some" redeeming features 
Don Jose de La Mancha.
Don Jose de La Mancha.
So, a historian has a reason for his opinion. That is good, of course. In fact, I would certainly hope so.
I also have a reason for my opinion, which is also as it should be. My reasons include local church records going back to 1609, with the spellings used by the priests. Not that I take their spellings as written in granite, they did tend to spell at times phonetically, and no name used for that family ever had so much as one 'n' in it.
It also includes information, both from local historians with extensive backgrounds, and books written by both US historians, and Mexican historians, who have direct access to ancient archives in both Puebla and Mexico City.
I note with interest that these "experts," even professional historians, at times disagree. For example, some Mexican historians have written that the female member of the Moctezuma family who married a cacique in our part of Mexico, thus putting the Moctezuma name in our local history, and producing my wife's great-grandma by that name, was niece of Moctezuma 2. The retired former Secretary of Culture of the State of Puebla, says the evidence is she was daughter of Moctezuma 1, and the dates involved would indicate he is correct. I am praying he lives long enough to finish the book on the Moctezuma family in my part of the country. He is an authorized historian and has full access to the ancient documents in the restricted archives, which I do not. I don't know him personally, but my best friend is his friend.
Am I sure my opinion is correct? No, of course not. Opinions, whether member of family descended from the Moctezuma's themselves (the ruins of an ancient house of the Moctezuma family is about 100 yards from my house, and my wife lived in it as a little girl), or important historians, are in the end only opinions.
And, sharing those opinions is called debate.
I will tell you the fact a college professor or important historian enters a debate is no reason to stop it, but especially on a board like this. People who are spending large amounts of time looking for the treasure deserve to hear all the opinions, and the reasons for them. This board is no place for anyone to shove his credentials, or credentials of her husband, into the front to stifle open debate. In my case, though I find theories the treasure was taken hundreds of miles through enemy territory during a fight to the death more than preposterous (and so do many Mexican historians) I don't mind if someone continues to believe it. Until the treasure is found, assuming it still exists, all theories should be left on the table.
As far as Cortes spelling of the name, that is not relevant to whether the locals in Arizona would have heard the name pronounced that way during the Noche Triste period, when the alleged movement of the treasure to Arizona occurred. There is no evidence the name existed with that pronunciation in that time period, anywhere. In fact, the use of that name alleging it was used at that time is self-defeating.
Cortes was known as a much better warrior than speller, but especially in the Aztec names and places.
Also, there is something that I admit I know little about. My understanding was few original examples of Cortes' writing exist, most are copies, and it is admitted much of his writing is missing, including one or more letters to the king. If anyone here has full knowledge, verifiable, that the Cortes documents referenced, were bona fide originals in his handwriting, and not the ubiquitous hand copies common from that era, please say so. I have no reason to disagree, though I would check out your claims.
There was at least one historian from the late 16th century, whose writings and drawings in their original form, are allegedly in those ancient archives. But, it was not Cortes. There may, of course, be some court type documents still maintained.
I clearly did not intend to make a personal attack on anyone. Nor do I think I did. I did intend to disagree for very clearly stated reasons, and anyone who takes an honest disagreement as a personal attack probably should scurry back to his campus. I do try to check out opinions different from my own, but I do not feel precluded from expressing my opinions based on a person's credentials.
I also have a reason for my opinion, which is also as it should be. My reasons include local church records going back to 1609, with the spellings used by the priests. Not that I take their spellings as written in granite, they did tend to spell at times phonetically, and no name used for that family ever had so much as one 'n' in it.
It also includes information, both from local historians with extensive backgrounds, and books written by both US historians, and Mexican historians, who have direct access to ancient archives in both Puebla and Mexico City.
I note with interest that these "experts," even professional historians, at times disagree.
For example, some Mexican historians have written that the female member of the Moctezuma family who married a cacique in our part of Mexico, thus putting the Moctezuma name in our local history, and producing my wife's great-grandma by that name, was niece of Moctezuma 2. The retired former Secretary of Culture of the State of Puebla, says the evidence is she was daughter of Moctezuma 1, and the dates involved would indicate he is correct. I am praying he lives long enough to finish the book on the Moctezuma family in my part of the country. He is an authorized historian and has full access to the ancient documents in the restricted archives, which I do not. I don't know him personally, but my best friend is his friend.Am I sure my opinion is correct? No, of course not. Opinions, whether member of family descended from the Moctezuma's themselves (the ruins of an ancient house of the Moctezuma family is about 100 yards from my house, and my wife lived in it as a little girl), or important historians, are in the end only opinions.
And, sharing those opinions is called debate.
I will tell you the fact a college professor or important historian enters a debate is no reason to stop it, but especially on a board like this. People who are spending large amounts of time looking for the treasure deserve to hear all the opinions, and the reasons for them. This board is no place for anyone to shove his credentials, or credentials of her husband, into the front to stifle open debate. In my case, though I find theories the treasure was taken hundreds of miles through enemy territory during a fight to the death more than preposterous (and so do many Mexican historians) I don't mind if someone continues to believe it. Until the treasure is found, assuming it still exists, all theories should be left on the table.
As far as Cortes spelling of the name, that is not relevant to whether the locals in Arizona would have heard the name pronounced that way during the Noche Triste period, when the alleged movement of the treasure to Arizona occurred. There is no evidence the name existed with that pronunciation in that time period, anywhere. In fact, the use of that name alleging it was used at that time is self-defeating.
Cortes was known as a much better warrior than speller, but especially in the Aztec names and places.
Also, there is something that I admit I know little about. My understanding was few original examples of Cortes' writing exist, most are copies, and it is admitted much of his writing is missing, including one or more letters to the king. If anyone here has full knowledge, verifiable, that the Cortes documents referenced, were bona fide originals in his handwriting, and not the ubiquitous hand copies common from that era, please say so. I have no reason to disagree, though I would check out your claims.
There was at least one historian from the late 16th century, whose writings and drawings in their original form, are allegedly in those ancient archives. But, it was not Cortes. There may, of course, be some court type documents still maintained.
I clearly did not intend to make a personal attack on anyone. Nor do I think I did. I did intend to disagree for very clearly stated reasons, and anyone who takes an honest disagreement as a personal attack probably should scurry back to his campus. I do try to check out opinions different from my own, but I do not feel precluded from expressing my opinions based on a person's credentials.
kanabite
Hero Member
- May 27, 2006
- 549
- 368
- Detector(s) used
- wander aimlessly in circles with camera in hand
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
wowser , just so you know i happen to enjoy Oro's posts .
the idea is simple even if you find it preposterous , now i am going to paraphrase an Aztec legend for you because i am a little busy today . the mexica found their war god in a cave during the migration to the valley of Mexico .the place was called coihuacan i think .
also known as curl mountain . they carried it on their backs with them.
then comes the first "mo tec a zoma" . story of an attempt to find the homeland is here
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_2369.shtml
its kind of got a "spinach" influence to it cause they say the debil changed them into animals to go to the place .
the Spanish never found the statue or whatever it was or all that much of the treasure , so why do you not think it possible the Aztecs headed back to their homelands . the homeland is vast IMO. but curl mountain is in Arizona
Springfield
Silver Member
piegrande said:
Exactly on point, not only pertaining to this legend, but for all 'lost mines and hidden treasures'.
mrs.oroblanco
Silver Member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 4,356
- 427
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I was NOT trying to stifle open debate.
In fact - just the opposite. I was merely pointing out, to certain people, who seem to have made it a hobby to discredit anything he says, that, Oroblanco has spent years reading ALL different aspects of ancient history.
And, I'm getting tired of seeing certain folks enter "debates", not to debate the ideas, but only to "debate" (using that term loosely), Oroblanco, and, I see, quite often, the impression of trying specifically to discredit HIS statements, in particular.
I said my peace - like it or not. I'm tired of people "speaking down" to him, and, whether he is my hubby or just another forum member, I would say the same.
Beth
In fact - just the opposite. I was merely pointing out, to certain people, who seem to have made it a hobby to discredit anything he says, that, Oroblanco has spent years reading ALL different aspects of ancient history.
And, I'm getting tired of seeing certain folks enter "debates", not to debate the ideas, but only to "debate" (using that term loosely), Oroblanco, and, I see, quite often, the impression of trying specifically to discredit HIS statements, in particular.
I said my peace - like it or not. I'm tired of people "speaking down" to him, and, whether he is my hubby or just another forum member, I would say the same.
Beth
Top Member Reactions
-
3480 -
1986 -
1912 -
1160 -
1090 -
1010 -
889 -
864 -
860 -
795 -
759 -
676 -
659 -
567 -
508 -
453 -
447 -
410 -
401 -
E
398
