Location of Aztec Gold

[Springfield]

Spring,

I have to disagree with your assertion that the Aztec didn't know when the Spanish would return. On the "Noche Triste" in 1520, Cortez and his men retreated to Tlascalla, which is only about 30-40 miles from Tenochtitlan (as the crow flies). They stayed there with their loyal allies (the Tlascallans), until they regrouped and went back after Cuautemoczin. The entire time they were there, they were watched by Aztecs and their allies. So, while the Spanish were blind as to the actions of the Aztecs, the Aztecs knew hour to hour what the Spanish were up to.

The more tribes that were treated cruelly by the Spanish, began believing less and less in the Godliness of Cortez. When they stopped believing that, they turned on the Spanish, kidnapped some of their men and horribly tortured and killed them...

Agreed. My point was only that the Mexica had no way to anticipate the timing of the Spaniards' future actions, and that if a treasure was moved and hidden, most likely it happened relatively quickly and was stashed closer rather than farther away.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Randy Bradford]

So, so, so much to reply to here. With several large replies I'm going to quote individuals one at a time and provide some of my insight and findings...

Great post Randy - well thought out arguments.

Like most of these lost treasure stories, there is a basis in fact. The Spaniards demanded, and collected, a vast booty (ransom) for holding Montezuma hostage, and when forced to flee Tenochtitlan, they attempted to carry away as much as they could, and lost most (almost all, but one account) in trying to cross the many bridges. However they had not been able to carry it all, and when the capital was re-conquered over a year later, the booty had vanished. The skeptics best explanation is that all of the treasure was thrown into the lake. As far as I know no one has ever found any of the treasure thus "thrown" or what was lost during the nochte del tristans retreat.

Agreed, there is no doubt that the treasure existed, and if it was ever recovered it was indeed a well kept secret. Given the enormous growth and industrialization of Mexico City, it seems to me if the treasure was held relatively close the the Aztec capital it would have been uncovered by now, minimally by some unsuspecting construction crew or road building endeavors. Too much was written about the Spaniards losing the treasure and next to nothing is recorded of them recovering it when they returned. The important thing to note here as well, is that much of what the Spaniards took they melted down into easily transported bards of metal. What they seized from the Aztecs, and what the Aztecs took back were vastly different in appearance. On the surface, it's possible a Spanish cache has been recovered and that it was unknown to have had Aztec origins. It's also important to note that in all likelihood the Aztecs hid many other things in their original Aztec form that the Spaniards had not found, so in theory the fabled hoard of Montezuma SHOULD be a mix of original Aztec items and Spanish made gold bars.

The legends of a vast treasure being spirited away, to various locations don't <doesn't?> seem to hold up to scrutiny. The trouble is, if this happened, the Spanish were not informed about it while it was happening so could not have documented it, and the Aztecs themselves did not either. However I suspect that there is something to the legend of Montezuma's Head, which of course could be a fairy tale, yet if it is based on a real event, it is a very good fit for the treasure of the Aztecs and a great hiding place. The trouble is that the early Spanish explorers into Arizona practically planted the ideas of Montezuma and Aztecs in the mouths of the local Indians, so raising doubts about the story. Hence there are quite a few places in Arizona named for Montezuma and the Aztecs, with little or no justification other than the ruins appear to have been the work of people far more civilized than the half-wild tribes contacted by the Spanish.

I think it's very possible that a crew of people, even a large one, could have left with no real CLEAR understanding of where they were going. that is to say, those that remained behind to face the Spaniards upon their eventual return may have known very, very little about where their treasure was going. It's pure speculation on my part, but I've always believed the people that left with the treasure also had no intention of returning, because doing so would put their work at risk.. the safest way to hide the treasure was to take it to some ambiguous "homeland" with no thought of returning. The people that stayed behind could no betray their position or geographic goal, and those that left would never be put in a position to reveal the same information.

Your assertion about place names being birthed by a combination of Spanish and Indian folklore is, in my estimation, spot on. But I don't think it stopped there. I think the inappropriate naming of sites (i.e. Montezuma's Well, Montezuma's Castle, etc.) likely gave birth to treasure legends based on nothing more than a name that was appropriated itself in not only limited fact, but despite the presence of one iota of evidence. I think the limited capacity of interpreters mingled with an odd assortment of history, tradition, and spiritual belief that endured and was the source of birthing so many more legends in the region by folks with even less understanding than the people who started the whole ball rolling.

On the other hand, perhaps it is not fair nor accurate to totally dismiss the idea that the Aztecs had some kind of friendly relationship with the Indians of Arizona and/or northern Sonora? The Hohokam certainly had some features of their civilization which resemble the achievements of the Aztecs, like having rather massive irrigation systems, solar calenders, and most intriguingly, ball courts of the same sort as found in the Aztec, and Mayan civilized states. Even the rubber ball used, is similar, though as far as I know only one has ever been found in Arizona. How was it that the Hohokam were playing a ball game not far different from that played by the Aztecs or Mayans? There are other bits of evidence that some kind of contact was taking place too, perhaps trade, in the form of beads, feathers, shells, turquoise.

I think that assertion likewise has some wisdom in it. The Aztecs had firmer trade routes established than has been suggested (more on that in a bit). In fact, I firmly believe these trade routes provided the means for the treasure to be moved. They followed established routes that included access to water, shelter, food and allies. I believe they were also able to communicate the threat they faced. This is REAL speculation as well, but it's not hard to imagine the value of leaving a few people behind in these "stop points" to act as intelligence gathers and messengers should they be followed by the Spaniards. This would be an ideal way to cope with individuals who were injured or sick.

I have to respectfully disagree on the one issue, the various stories of a lost mine with an iron door, but will explain. I think the reason there are several such stories, is that this might not have been an uncommon practice, to seal up a mine with an iron door. It would be an effective way of keeping un-invited "guests" from sneaking in and high-grading ore, always a problem with precious metal mines but especially so with very rich deposits. So they could be talking about different mines, just that it was a good way to seal up the mine by installing a stout iron door, or as in the one case, a copper door. (which may be a bronze door - won't know until someone finds it) This is just my own opinion on the iron doors, can not prove or disprove it.

It's a good insight...my issue with this premise is that the mines in question are frequently "lost," which suggests they are remote or in difficult terrain. These sorts of places don't lend themselves to having a several hundred pound door being transported (inconspicuously no less) much less inventing a mechanism to mount the door efficiently. Every states in the SW has a story like this one, it stands to reason some of those are probably the mere product of a retelling of a story that was misunderstood.

Thanks for the insight here Blanco, I'm going to stay in this threat while speaking on other replies...

Spring,

I have to disagree with your assertion that the Aztec didn't know when the Spanish would return. On the "Noche Triste" in 1520, Cortez and his men retreated to Tlascalla, which is only about 30-40 miles from Tenochtitlan (as the crow flies). They stayed there with their loyal allies (the Tlascallans), until they regrouped and went back after Cuautemoczin. The entire time they were there, they were watched by Aztecs and their allies. So, while the Spanish were blind as to the actions of the Aztecs, the Aztecs knew hour to hour what the Spanish were up to.

The more tribes that were treated cruelly by the Spanish, began believing less and less in the Godliness of Cortez. When they stopped believing that, they turned on the Spanish, kidnapped some of their men and horribly tortured and killed them.

Some great points here Mike, particularly about what the Aztecs knew or didn't know. It seems likely that whether they expected a return of the Spaniards or not, the Aztecs would have likely taken all measures possible to prepare for that eventuality. Besides recovering their leadership, they also had to prepare defenses against their enemies who might perceive them vulnerable, while maintaining control of outlying tribes who may feel less compelled to pay tribute, to say nothing of "paying back" those tribes they controlled who had demonstrated a lack of loyalty or worse, had joined with the Spaniards.

Incidentally, the notion that Cortez and the Spaniards were viewed in a religious light has become a highly contested point. I assume you're referring to the notion that Cortez was believed to be Quetzalcoatl. Read "7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest," it's a wonderful and short (but dense) book about many misconceptions of the Conquest, many introduced and perpetuated by the Spanish deliberately. the "divinity" of Cortez is thought by many to be just such a thing. This is particularly intriguing when you consider the lengths Montezuma went to to dissuade the Spaniards from coming to meet him. Does it seem logical that the Aztec leader would do his best to pay his gods to stay away or would he welcome them?
Randy,

Great post, but what happened to Motecusuma (per Bernal Castillo) was nothing fuzzy nor misunderstood. Every time the Spanish or Motecusuma (imprisoned) would tell the people of Tenochtitlan something, they would go to the priests, who would then pray to the War God Huitzilopochtli. On the occasion of Motecusuma acting on behalf of the Spanish asking the Aztecs to cease the fight, his loving (really) subjects restarted the attack. The arrows and rocks started to fly, and Motecusuma got hit by one arrow and three sling stones.

There you have it. The death of Moctezuma/Motecusuma by an eye witness; Bernal Diaz del Castillo.

Mike

The Aztec version of this story has the Spaniards executing Montezuma, not him falling prey to the angry volley of stones from the mob. This was documented by Bernardino de Sahagún and is further obscured by the fact that both parties (Aztecs and Spanish) had reasons for killing Montezuma and reasons for blaming the other party. he fact is "history" is generally written by the victor and the true events of Montezuma's death will never be fully understood or known because they are buried in the sands of time and the agendas of the parties involved. Something else to keep in mind, and I haven't researched this so it's anyone's guess, but there was some speculation Diaz may have been an invented character and that Cortex himself penned that account. *shrugs*

Thanks for the feedback though Mike, it's always good to have multiple vantage points to consider things from and I enjoy the level of thought and insight provided by folks kind enough to respond.

That brings me to Springfield...

The arguments begin with the assumption that large quantities of gold, jewels, etc. were removed to a secure location to put them out of reach of returning Spanish conquerors. However, the Mexica didn't know when the bad guys were returning, nor, apparently, did they have more than a limited trade connection into today's American Southwest. Occam's razor dictates the simplest solution generally prevails. To me, that means the goods were most likely hidden somewhere closer rather than farther away from Tenochtitlan. I would speculate the goods were secreted quickly and within, say, 50 or 100 miles away, in a place they were already familiar with.

I think you vastly underestimate the trade network of the Aztecs. There is ample evidence of the Axtec utilization of trade networks that spanned as far as Arizona and New Mexico. A wonderful example of this is The Blanding Sash. The Blanding Sash is a greened macaw feather and squirrel skin sash found in the 1950s (I believe) in of all placed, the Canyonlands region of the state of Utah. The Aztecs traded a great many things including shells, pearls, animal hides and perhaps (as suggested) even live animals as it is believed the Macaws may have been held living by Pueblo peoples, but clearly had to come by way of trade. Keep in mind also, the Aztecs had an entire merchant class of folks that were established and respected.

Makes sense, but I don't remember reading Ameridian tales relating to a quite large army of Mexica trekking through their parts of northern Mexico or the American Southwest. The same people told stories of much smaller Spanish expeditions a scant 20 years later - why not about the treasure train?

I have to confess, my understanding of SW Indian lore is pretty limited. My source materials for such things are poor as well. Treasure magazines frequently mention Indian stories in a vague, nebulous way without a scrap of documentation, support, or bibliographic data to review and confirm. that said, J. Frank Dobie specifically noted the relationship of several tribes relative to Montezuma's treasure including the Yaqui, Papago, Pecos and Pima. Whether or not these stories exist, have been preserved, etc is anyone's guess. My assumption is the presence of the figure Montezuma in several Pueblo tribes cosmology might reflect a merging of an oral history of the travelers which over time became a distinct part of their religious and spiritual way of thinking. Fact gives way to legend, legend gives way to religion. Keep in mind the Spaniards represented a threat to the people...a threat they may have been warned about by th Aztecs moving the treasure Northward. there are some very pragmatic reasons why the Spaniards may be remembered in away the Aztecs were not.

Concerning any Mexican rumors - if the Mexica were questioned by the returning Spaniards about the whereabouts of the gold, I suspect they might have pointed north and said, 'Thataway, boss'. The Ameridians used that trick to send Coronado all the way to Wichita in 1542.

I agree and touched on this earlier in this post. The best way to hide something is to have the only people know be the one's who hid it. I think the survivors, after securing the treasures, either stayed close to guard it until they passed away, their duty fulfilled or casually spread out and were adopted by other tribes and their history was forgotten as was their rationale for returning.

Not only did they die here and there, but 2000 hard working porters had to eat, drink and sleep along the way. The Mexica typically stole whatever supplies they needed along the way as they conquered tribes all over Mexico. I imagine they'd follow the same MO moving north toting the gold. Imagine all the bearers, support people, animals, supplies, etc. necessary for an expedition this size. Where are the widespread local tribal traditions that describe all this and support the legend?

That's a good question, and frankly it's one I'd very much like to answer. My main interest in the Montezuma Treasure is not to prove it, not to find it, but to preserve the traditions. How many people in Del Rio, TX or Dove creek, CO or Taos, NM realize they have a huge treasure legend in their backyard? Not many, because those stories have been lost, trivialized, scoffed at as our culture becomes more "sophisticated." It seems likely to me that many important stories and histories have been lost, even in American Indian populations to many of the same influences. My point is the lack of stories doesn't prove it didn't happen, though it would go along way to proving they had if the stories happened. In my mind, these stories may exist and not shared openly or frequently, HAVE been shared and I simply haven't come across them, or have been lost if they indeed existed. It is definitely something I'd like to be much, much more definitive about but uncovering those stories might be a book in itself.

I do think your'e right in your assessment that if they had come, a party that size could take whatever they wanted or intimidate local tribes into providing for their needs. I also think that's precisely how they carried it out.

Try telling that one to the Taos community in particular, and a number of other Pueblo traditionalists in the Rio Grande basin. In fact, I had a conversation about exactly the same topic with a native anthropologist at Taos Pueblo this past summer. The 'North American Montezuma' (don't know if the original name is identical to the Mexicas' or not - may be different) was/still is revered there. Their traditions describe their Montezuma as having been descended from white people who came to the Southwest from the east and moved south to Mexico long before the time of the Spanish Conquest. That's what the Taos woman told me and I have no reason to think she doesn't have a good reason to believe it.
(Off topic: she also was of the opinion that the Mexica migrated to Mexico from Cahokia in the Mississippi Valley, through Chaco Canyon, then on south.)

Interestingly, I have one lead I've never followed that talks about a large group of people taking boats up the Mississippi River and hiding a large amount of treasure there as well. the thought of the Aztecs taking boats sailing the Mexican Coast and up the river would certainly answer some of the logistical records but is likewise not supported by any oral tradition I'm aware of. It's a possibly that has as much validity as any other I suppose.

I'd love to believe the vanquished Mexica army carried tons of gold to a secret hiding place in Chicomoztoc, their ancient homeland. However, I haven't seen any definitive mention of the feat anywhere except in treasure hunting lore, and an operation that large ought to have left evidence in its wake. It seems likely to me that the gold was hidden in central Mexico.

There is also the possibility of both. I've had it suggested the large gold was hidden close to the Aztec capital (within 200 miles) while a smaller band carried items of importance...records specifically and religious artifacts...much farther North. Don't get me started on the legends of a lost city in the Grand Canyon either, though they're an important part of the overall theme of the region as it related to Aztec gold.

That said, the original source of all this gold seems as yet to be unspecified. I'm more interested in the idea that the gold mine(s) that supplied the Mexica may exist in North America.

Richard Marks in his book on Cortes mentions this, he actually send troops with Native guides to the sources of the Aztec gold though I don't recall hearing anything about them reporting back. I highly recommend the Marks book to anyone researching the Spanish Conquest as it's detail oriented but presented in a smooth and flowing fashion. Great stuff...

Springfield, as with the others, I very much appreciate your feedback. It's always good to hear from a skeptic, helps illuminate the flaws in my thinking and gives me ample aspects to explore in greater detail. In the end it's always good to receive insights from others who have different experiences, points of view and ways of thinking on such things...

As always, look forward to responses...

 

[piegrande]

One source of gold, documented in books I have read is the region of Izucar de Matamoros in the state of puebla.It was slow and laborious work, and the mines operated even in modern times. Hack away at the rocks and get small pieces now and then. There would be many such places in the Aztec region, which ran for considerable distance. And, the Aztecs would have sucked it all up very fast as tribute.

I do not for a minute believe there was one super mine that produced all that gold. They also extracted gold as tribute. "If you can't pay, you must pay with 100 virgins to sacrifice."

In my region the legend says gold was paid to the Aztecs as tribute. They obtained it from merchants passing through the region on trade trips from farther away. A true protection racket.

We simply must agree to disagree on the gold being taken out of the Aztec region. I respect your view and the reasons for it. I just do not agree. Two days from a beleagured city, and have it available on demand, or a one-way trip to no where.

 

[piegrande]

I forgot to mention. Not far away is a mound called Tetele de Moctezuma. I visited it before vandals started digging because of poor local economy. When I stood on top of it, it was apparent by its location that it was actually a military observation tower with a tremendous view far away.

The ejido now prohibits access to that area.

There are a number of teteles in the region. Some are visible from the highway. Tetele de Moctezuma also is visible from the highway, but I can only tell because I visited it.

What I do not know is are the mounds simply mounds, or were there constructions under them, and they simply covered them?

 

[Oroblanco]

Here is one version of the story of Montezuma's treasure being hidden at Montezuma Head

The Papago Indians have a legend that their ancestors helped bury a great treasure belonging to the Aztec Montezuma and brought up from Mexico and hidden in the Estrella Mountains near Montezuma Head. It was gold from the mines of Mexico and valued at untold millions of dollars. According to the legend the gold is secreted in a cave in the mountains beneath or near the well-known landmark known as Montezuma Head. After the treasure was well concealed, according to the story, Montezuma climbed to the top of the mountain and turned to stone, presumably so that he could guard his treasure. We know, of course, that the Aztec Montezuma was never in what is now Arizona.

The great treasure stored in the cave can be released only by Montezumam and the legend states that someday the spirit of Montezuma will approach from the east. When this happens, the stone Montezuma will climb down from the mountain top, open the secret cave and distribute the vast wealth to its rightful owners who, of course, are the Indians.

Well, this is as it should be.

According to the Papago legend, when the treasure was being buried near Montezuma Head, they were so close to the village of Ajo (a word the means "garlic" in Spanish,and so named because of the abundance of wild garlic in the mountains in certain seasons), that on a still night the workers could hear the dogs barking. This statement is made of several lost mines in the Southwest.

Dig Here! Thomas Penfield, pp 60

Was this legend simply something made up to attract tourists, or planted in the minds of the Papago by Spanish missionaries, or is it possible that there was something at the root of it?

Please do continue,
Oroblanco

 

[Springfield]

... Interestingly, I have one lead I've never followed that talks about a large group of people taking boats up the Mississippi River and hiding a large amount of treasure there as well...

Very interesting. I wonder if any DNA comparisons are possible that might allow the possibility that Chicomoztoc/Aztlan are located not in the Southwest, but in the Midwest?

... Don't get me started on the legends of a lost city in the Grand Canyon either, though they're an important part of the overall theme of the region as it related to Aztec gold...

OK, I won't, but I've always been intrigued with the Hopi legends re their sipapu. The newspaper article describing the Kinkaid discoveries has eluded verification on all points, but as you know, I believe many of these newspaper stories are coded messages. This one is sure a puzzler.

Richard Marks in his book on Cortes mentions this, he actually send troops with Native guides to the sources of the Aztec gold though I don't recall hearing anything about them reporting back. I highly recommend the Marks book to anyone researching the Spanish Conquest as it's detail oriented but presented in a smooth and flowing fashion. Great stuff...

Springfield, as with the others, I very much appreciate your feedback. It's always good to hear from a skeptic, helps illuminate the flaws in my thinking and gives me ample aspects to explore in greater detail. In the end it's always good to receive insights from others who have different experiences, points of view and ways of thinking on such things...

As always, look forward to responses...

Thanks for the heads up on the marks book - I'll look into it.

Yes, I'm skeptical about much of the treasure lore, for reasons I've explained many times elsewhere. It's funny, because I'm a believer in other things that you would laugh at. Two questions that I tend to ask about these stories that help me form an opinion are: what do people believe to be true, and more importantly, why do they believe it?

Good luck with your book idea - I'll want a signed first edition please.

 

[Randy Bradford]

Here is one version of the story of Montezuma's treasure being hidden at Montezuma Head

Dig Here! Thomas Penfield, pp 60

Was this legend simply something made up to attract tourists, or planted in the minds of the Papago by Spanish missionaries, or is it possible that there was something at the root of it?

Please do continue,
Oroblanco

Penield lifted that story from Dobie who first wrote about it (as best I can tell) in Coronado's Children, refer to his footnotes:

4 The Pecos Indians kept the sacred fire for Montezuma burning
until 1840, when the remnants of the village moved to Jemez.—Bandelier,
A. F., "A Visit to the Aboriginal Ruins in the Valley of the
Pecos," Papers of the Archaeological Institute of America, Boston,
1881, p. 112. In Willa Gather's recent Death Comes for the Archbishop,
a noble and beautiful novel, use is made of the secret firechamber.
For an account of the Pima Indian belief in Montezuma as their
ancestor, see Major William H. Emory's Report on the United States
and Mexican Boundary Survey, Washington, 1857, Vol. I, p. 117.
The Papago Indians applied the name of Montezuma to a character,
"Elder Brother," that had existed in their myths probably centuries
before they heard the name of Montezuma. See "The Papago Migration
Myth," by J. Alden Mason, Journal of American Folk-Lore,
Vol. 34, pp. 254-268. Compare also with "The Pima Indians," by
Frank Russell, 26th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,
p. 225.
The rise of the Montezuma cult in the Southwest has been brilliantly
traced by Adolph F. Bandelier in The American Anthropologist,
Vol. V, October, 1892, pp. 319-326. As Bandelier shows, neither
the war chieftain Montezuma nor his ancestors had anything more to
do with the Southwest than had Julius Caesar. The name of Montezuma
was hardly known among the aborigines of the Southwest prior
to the Mexican War of 1846. At that time, however, officials of the
Mexican government had manuscripts circulated in New Mexico representing
that Cortez had married "the Malinche," a character familiar
to Indians through the "Matachines" dance. As a matter of history,
Marina—in the Aztec tongue, Malinche—was mistress to Cortez. The
common people hated her. This Malinche, so the government document
circulated in New Mexico asserted, was the daughter of a great Indian
from the north named Montezuma, and thus she brought to the conqueror
of New Spain, as a part of her dowry, the territory of New
Mexico. Such a tale was fabricated to inspire loyalty to the Mexican
republic among New Mexicans, most of whom detested the gachupines
and therefore had a sympathy for the symbolic object of gachupin
tyranny—Montezuma. What such propaganda really inspired was
legend.

Penfield, while an interesting researcher, was a poor scholar...or simply an unwilling one. Regardless he lifted tons of material with no attribution and left a frustrating trail to follow. I believe the attribution to Montezuma's Head comes from other sources as well but I'd have to check through my books to be sure.

Very interesting. I wonder if any DNA comparisons are possible that might allow the possibility that Chicomoztoc/Aztlan are located not in the Southwest, but in the Midwest?

I'll try to copy the article and post it later in the week, should have posted it on my foru ma long time ago but I never really took it very seriously. But it's one more aspect to consider, jsut not something I'd probably put in the book with so little information to share about it.

OK, I won't, but I've always been intrigued with the Hopi legends re their sipapu. The newspaper article describing the Kinkaid discoveries has eluded verification on all points, but as you know, I believe many of these newspaper stories are coded messages. This one is sure a puzzler.

Tell me more about the sipapu, haven't heard of that before...

The Kinkaid story is actually one of 5 that I know of for sure in that same vicinity. In general there seems to be multiple sources for the legend of a vast cache in the Grand Canyon...whether it's Aztec or something else is hard to guess. Check out this thread from my forum, The Treasures of Utah, where I've included 4 versions of the story, including the Kincaid version:

Grand Canyon-Aztec Treasure Repository? in Montezuma's Treasure/Aztec Treasures Forum

There is a 5th version as well that I haven't tracked down, something about a group of prisoners who escaped from the Yuma prison, overloaded a raft with treasure, and it subsequently sank in the Colorado River.

Yes, I'm skeptical about much of the treasure lore, for reasons I've explained many times elsewhere. It's funny, because I'm a believer in other things that you would laugh at. Two questions that I tend to ask about these stories that help me form an opinion are: what do people believe to be true, and more importantly, why do they believe it?

Good luck with your book idea - I'll want a signed first edition please.

It's like I said, one of the thrusts of the book is presenting the stories and thus preserving the folklore. I want to look at how these stories might have started, how they endured, what evidences support them and how the stories impacted communities...people looking for them, etc. It's a broad approach that I think will appeal to more than just the treasure hunting crowd and I hope will lead me in some new directions. Most of what has been written about Montezuma in the last 20 years is just rehashes of old stuff. For me whether the treasure is true or not is secondary to the idea that these sorts of stories used to be a significant part of the "color" of the Southwest and they are slowly being lost in a society that increasingly has less and less use for such stories, history and lore.

As always, thanks for the feedback....I'm always happy to chat with people that get me thinking in new directions or give me a reason to complete a bit of work I've been putting off...

 

[piegrande]

Why do I believe what I believe? Well, it is not so much that I believe a fortune in gold and jewels is buried near my house. It is more that I begin to think it is possible, whereas in the past I sneered at the possibility.

In the past, there were too many unanswered questions. Why would the treasure come to this small village of all possible places? Where did the treasure come from? When was there time to bring it out here? And, I am sure even more questions that I have forgotten.

Over recent years, with much study, question by question has been answered. Not as a certainty, but as a possibility.

Why here? Well, I have received believable if not absolute evidence that this village was used more or less as a vacation spot by the Tenochas. Also, as a rest stop on trips to the east. Also, they had ties to the local people via a daughter of Moctezuma I who married the local cacique years before Cortes came to Mexico.

Also, the oral traditions of treasure being buried here are not to be sneered at -- even though I did for a long time. Oral tradition is often very effective over many generations. And, some of the legends have been proven true.

A negative is the possibility that Moctezuma I might have had many daughters marry in many places around the Aztec territory. So, either the treasure was buried elsewhere, or buried in small quantities in different places. A ton of gold here; a ton of gold there.

As another negative is the alleged fact that the grandson of Moctezuma I sent messengers to Cortes in Tlaxcala, offering to help him fight the Tenochas. If the Tenochas knew this, as they most likely did, they would probably not want to send a valuable treasure here.

I had no idea where the treasure came from, since it was allegedly lost during the Noche Triste. Diaz's report that the Aztecs actually salvaged much of it supplies another possible answer.

And, there was plenty of time between Noche Triste and the final invasion. Of course, there was also time to take it to the current USA. There are other reasons such as future availability to preclude, in my own mind, that option.

For example, if you win a ten million dollar lottery, do you buy gold ingots, and travel by airplane and ship to Pitcairns Island and bury it in a hole thousands of miles from home where you will never see it again? No? Well, neither did the Aztecs, in my viewpoint. And, neither do the local historians here believe they would, which is why they laugh when I tell them of the theory the treasure went a thousand miles away.

Still, you can go and look and dig in the US, but not where the treasure would be buried here. So, why not, and you stay out of my hair, heh, heh.

 

[Oroblanco]

Piegrande wrote

For example, if you win a ten million dollar lottery, do you buy gold ingots, and travel by airplane and ship to Pitcairns Island and bury it in a hole thousands of miles from home where you will never see it again? No?

What!? YES that is what I do - as far from the tax man as possible and in gold that holds its value and won't rust! Just kidding amigo, your logic is sound, but there is another argument too, that being to remove the treasure as far out of reach of the invading Spaniards as possible. Not saying this is what they did, just that either idea has benefits and drawbacks.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad!
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Gentlemen regarding Monty's treasure , in 5 five years of living with the Yaqui, no word or hint of the treasure was ever suggested , while hundreds of other large treasures were. The route north to Papago country must, by geological configurations, have passed through Yaqui territory on it's way north, yet no hint is ever passed on of such a move. In fact most Yaqui merely give a questioning look if asked.

SOoooo Oro,,it must be at Tayopa, along with the lost Adams, Naranjal, Ldm and a few others still unnamed, and yer bars of Golds & Silver.- hehehhehehhehe

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Randy Bradford]

Gentlemen regarding Monty's treasure , in 5 five years of living with the Yaqui, no word or hint of the treasure was ever suggested , while hundreds of other large treasures were. The route north to Papago country must, by geological configurations, have passed through Yaqui territory on it's way north, yet no hint is ever passed on of such a move. In fact most Yaqui merely give a questioning look if asked.

SOoooo Oro,,it must be at Tayopa, along with the lost Adams, Naranjal, Ldm and a few others still unnamed, and yer bars of Golds & Silver.- hehehhehehhehe

Don Jose de La Mancha

That's a wonderful insight and it sounds like your time there was an interesting one. I'd be the first to admit that living in Kansas and doing research on a treasure that's at least as far from me as it is from it's own "home" leaves some of my research avenues somewhat compromised. The upside is that with the approach I'm taking it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convince anyone it's here, much less where it's at. It's that approach that also lets me be very open to a myriad of opinions and ideas without getting my feathers ruffled when people suggest something that doesn't jive with the consensus, or even worse, when they suggest the whole thing is nonsense. that said, the vast array of opinions encoutnered here has been exciting, enlightening and very educational.

 

[Springfield]

A quick note. I'm reading Golden Mirages by Philip A. Bailey, an excellent 1940 book focused on the lower Colorado desert. Bailey deals with the Aztecs and notes that Montezuma had very early formed a deeply suspicious opinion of Cortes and the Spaniards, based on their response to the gifts he sent them after their Veracruz landing. Bailey claims Montezuma ordered that half the Aztec treasure be removed even before the Spaniards arrived in Tenochtitlan. This is something I was previously not aware of.

 

[Randy Bradford]

A quick note. I'm reading Golden Mirages by Philip A. Bailey, an excellent 1940 book focused on the lower Colorado desert. Bailey deals with the Aztecs and notes that Montezuma had very early formed a deeply suspicious opinion of Cortes and the Spaniards, based on their response to the gifts he sent them after their Veracruz landing. Bailey claims Montezuma ordered that half the Aztec treasure be removed even before the Spaniards arrived in Tenochtitlan. This is something I was previously not aware of.

I mentioned Marks' book on Cortes and the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, he was one of the first authors I read that brought up the idea that Montezuma had doubts about the Spanish as gods based on a number of issues. Primarily, he thought it strange that the Aztecs would try to persuade their 'gods" from coming and saw their attempts to bribe the Spaniards into leaving as a sign that that aspect of the Conquest was likely fabricated.

"7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest" also touches on this topic in a broader context and is, in it's own right a splendid (though dense) read. highly recommended for the academic minded.

I need to re-read the Bailey book, it's been a while since i had a copy immediately available and even then I only focused on the Aztec related stuff. WorldCat says there's a copy not far from me, i need to come up with a reading list of stuff they have at KU's library and make a day of it.

The idea that Montezuma moved part of the treasure prior to the arrival of the Spanish is a new one to me, though it wouldn't be surprising. Keep in mind, if memory serves me the treasure the Spaniards found while staying with the Aztecs was hidden in a recently plastered room, I think that's why they found it in fact. Though it wonders why would you put your un-trusted house guests in the room next to that which you were hiding from them. Something else, Montezuma made multiple attempts at preventing the Spaniards inward march by sending them treasure. the treasures describe are themselves vast, but it we consider it merely a "pay off" it stands to reason what was sent was merely a drop in the bucket. I also find it implausible that the Aztecs would hide ALL of their loot in one place, much less one so easily discovered by the Spaniards.

Right now my desk is a cluttered mess with about 20 books laying in piles for various projects I'm working on. Most notable with regards to my recent post of Colorado stories includes:
Colorado's Lost Gold Mines and Buried Treasures: Caroline Bancroft
Treasure of the Sangre de Cristos: Arthur Campa
Golden Treasures of the San Juan: Temple Cornelius and John Marshall
A Guide to Treasure in Colorado: H. Glenn Carson

 

[Springfield]

More from Bailey: the Tenochtitlan treasure was allegedly moved north by Tlahuicole, Montezuma's 'great favorite'. Two possible hiding places are offered - the Ajo Mountains in AZ and Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California.

The New Mexico Montezuma is also prominent in the book, being described as a 'sun god' similar to Quetzalcoatl. Bailey had significant Indian friends before he moved to CA and mentions NM pueblo prayer ceremonies that feature Montezuma. I know that the Taos Pueblo traditionalists have a strong reverence for the old god and little regard for the Catholic church. The argument has been raised that the NM Pueblos only acquired their Montezuma beliefs since the Spanish conquest, but this is strongly denied by the New Mexicans. The two Montezumas (New Mexican and Mexican) become a bit tangled together it seems - maybe for good reason. There is talk of the older Montezuma having secreted treasure 'to the west' in underground caverns further back in history.

My tentative working model has been that the Aztecs' gold source was in the American Southwest, known about from the times before the Aztec migration and then exploited afterwards.

 

[Oroblanco]

Don Jose de la Mancha, suffering from an acute case of Tayopa Funnel Vision wrote

SOoooo Oro,,it must be at Tayopa, along with the lost Adams, Naranjal, Ldm and a few others still unnamed, and yer bars of Golds & Silver.- hehehhehehhehe

It must needs - along with the lost Cabin mine, the lost Lemon mine, the lost silver mines of Jonathan Swift, the Sacambaya mines, not to mention the mines of King Solomon!

Springfield wrote

More from Bailey: the Tenochtitlan treasure was allegedly moved north by Tlahuicole, Montezuma's 'great favorite'. Two possible hiding places are offered - the Ajo Mountains in AZ and Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California.

Hoo boy - Tiburon Island is a most interesting possibility, and we could even surmise that the Seri Indians whom fought so tenaciously to keep the island from the Spaniards.

Springfield also wrote

My tentative working model has been that the Aztecs' gold source was in the American Southwest, known about from the times before the Aztec migration and then exploited afterwards.

In support of your working model, we could note that it is well documented that many beautiful turquoise found in possession of the Aztecs, came from mines in New Mexico and Arizona. It is not a great leap to suspect that turquoise was not the only thing the Aztecs were importing from the region.

Merry Christmas to you all, Feliz Navidad!
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

PS - Don Jose de la Mancha - your Yaqui friends have no tribal memory of the passing of an Aztec army, yet did the Yaqui control the entire area through which the Aztes would have had to pass? As far as I can determine (and I am not an expert) it looks like they could have passed through Opata, and Pima territories without encountering the Yaqui, or more easterly through the Jocomes and Apaches to end up in NM, without meeting Yaquis. This could explain why they have no memory of such an encounter, as it was possible to have passed through without meeting them. It is interesting that the Indians of New Mexico have tribal memories of some kind of link to the Aztecs.

 

[somehiker]

Kino spent six weeks on Tiburon Island with the Seri's....Jun-Aug 1685
In Jan 1686, he requested funding to further his work in Baja. Although he had the support of officials in Mexico City, the King turned him down.
However, in June of 1686, he was appointed as missionary to the Seri's.
Could some of Kino's routes of exploration suggest an interest in tracking down the Aztec treasures, based on rumors he may have heard from Spanish or native contacts ?
Perhaps the explorations of certain Franciscans as well ?

Regards:SH.

 

[piegrande]

Oroblanco, Dec 22, 2013, 04:29 AM yes, I also think they wanted the gold hidden from the Spanish. But, they still wanted it accessible. Which is why I think it would be two days away on known territory, not four months away. If their motive was to really hide it from the Spanish, all they had to do was toss it in the lake. Heh, heh. This sort of thing is where personal viewpoints come in.

Dec 22, 2013, 01:54 PM Springfield The possibility that there was much more treasure than my estimate of 20 tons is definitely on my brainstorming list. As I have said many times, the Aztecs were great military strategists. Also, I think more than one Emperor owned lots of gold. The man between Moctezuma I and II would have received his own when he was Emperor. So, where did that go? Moctezuma II only got gold from his father, who very probably inherited it from his own father, Moctezuma I.

Dec 22, 2013, 06:29 PM Randy Bradford I also had problems with him putting them in the house with 20 tons of gold. Though while the Aztecs were brilliant military strategists, that doesn't mean the Emperor was especially smart, does it?

Dec 22, 2013, 08:14 PM Springfield Some people do assume the gold had to come from far away. However, with hundreds of tribes all desperately trying to save their own tribe members from being sacrificed by supplying gold instead, over a very wide area, it is possible they produced a large total of gold each year, even with only a tiny piece a day per person, And, why do we assume all those gold mines were not well hidden just as the treasure was in its own time?

I want to remind y'all that those Emperors were not named Montezuma. That was how some of the Spanish mis-translated it. So, Indians in NM or AZ would be very unlikely to have known the Emperors as Montezuma. Our local church records only much later changed to Moctezuma, which is the modern pronunciation. The very use of a name that did not actually exist except as a Spanish invention IMO totally discredits that NM/AZ claim. And, I have noted that no one who mentions the Montezuma claim in the US has really addressed this very critical issue.

It is well known that indigenous traders covered very large areas. For example, the turquoise mentioned by Oroblanco. In college history in the 70's, I read of an ancient skeleton found in the northern part of the US, a young female with jewelry from the Gulf of Mexico. That has nothing to do with the decision to move many tons of gold two days or two months.

While traditional indigenous traders may have moved small bags of turquoise, long distances, that does not extrapolate to tons of gold moved from western California.

I am not saying no gold was exported to Mexico. Those tribes desperate for gold to save their virgins may have had traders out. We cannot be sure.

I am not so solidly against small bits and pieces of gold moving south as I am against tons of gold being taken out of the Aztec area.

Anyway, I agree with Randy that all the different ideas keep the topic open, rather than being married to one idea which might be totally wrong, and keep us from looking around.

 

[Oroblanco]

Piegrande wrote

Oroblanco, Dec 22, 2013, 04:29 AM yes, I also think they wanted the gold hidden from the Spanish. But, they still wanted it accessible. Which is why I think it would be two days away on known territory, not four months away. If their motive was to really hide it from the Spanish, all they had to do was toss it in the lake. Heh, heh. This sort of thing is where personal viewpoints come in.

Where ever it was hidden, a very good job was done that no one has managed to find it in nearly four centuries. This point actually helps support the idea that it is hidden farther away, than closer, where much development was done and a great deal of searching as well.

Piegrande also wrote

I want to remind y'all that those Emperors were not named Montezuma. That was how some of the Spanish mis-translated it. So, Indians in NM or AZ would be very unlikely to have known the Emperors as Montezuma. Our local church records only much later changed to Moctezuma, which is the modern pronunciation. The very use of a name that did not actually exist except as a Spanish invention IMO totally discredits that NM/AZ claim. And, I have noted that no one who mentions the Montezuma claim in the US has really addressed this very critical issue.

As I am not an Aztec, and later modifications to the spelling of the famous Aztec emperor's name are considerably farther from the source, I will stick to the way it was spelled by the Spaniards whom met Montezuma in person, and spelled it the way it sounded to their ears. After all, we do not call Japan, Nippon, even though that is technically the correct way a Japanese would spell it, nor do we spell Mexico, Mehico even though that would be technically correct, in other words simply following the original spelling. That Spanish would continue to spell the name that way, in their encounters with non-Aztec Indians as far away as Colorado, NM or AZ, tells us nothing other than that is the way they were accustomed to spell it.

Piegrande also wrote

It is well known that indigenous traders covered very large areas. For example, the turquoise mentioned by Oroblanco. In college history in the 70's, I read of an ancient skeleton found in the northern part of the US, a young female with jewelry from the Gulf of Mexico. That has nothing to do with the decision to move many tons of gold two days or two months.

While traditional indigenous traders may have moved small bags of turquoise, long distances, that does not extrapolate to tons of gold moved from western California.

The point about evidence of far-ranging trade, was to show that the Aztecs were in contact with peoples located hundreds of miles away, some on a friendly basis, and one version of their origins has it that they came from a place in the north (the seven caves of Chicomoztoc) thus allowing the idea that it might have been where they decided to move the treasures, out of invading Spanish hands. Not that turquoise and feathers means they MUST have taken the treasure there. It is more likely that they would choose a place to hide the treasure that was known to them, than a place which was NOT known to them.

Please do continue,

Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Well Roy,

If we are going to use that as a standard, you should spell his name MOTECUSUMA. That is how Bernal Diaz del Castillo spells in his book (and he personally knew the man).

Mike