Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,872
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
- #221
Thread Owner
Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?
Falling apart, if the ONLY Indian who ever had a gold tooth was Massai, the Apache Kid or the Carlisle Kid. Are you going to stick with the statement that NO Indians ever had gold work in their teeth?
Then there is the question of whether that victim with a gold tooth was even related to the rest of the skeletal remains; it could have been a captive Mexican or Anglo that just happened to get killed with the rest of the Indians. Also, the one found with clothes and gold in a poke, may not have been related to those in the main site. It is assumption, in fact one that may well be un-justified, since that particular one had not been stripped, while the others had, it is suggestive that the victors had time to pick over the dead enemies at their leisure, and would not likely miss one if he were close.
Suppose the massacre victims are the Peralta mining party, which is otherwise undocumented; what then do we do with the 1879 documented Apache attack on two Peralta brothers? The one who survived had rich gold ore on him, just like that odd one found by Edwards. Are we to just conclude the 1879 incident was made up to sell newspapers? Funny they would come up with the Peralta name in 1879, just as that odd story of Geronimo having a Mexican father also named Peralta, a point that no one seems to have picked up on.
I only posted two of the reports of Indian massacres Mike, there are several. Only the one of which Dr Montezuma has been posted. All of the reported massacres in the Superstitions are of Indians. You don't find it the least peculiar that Montezuma was sold in Adamsville, so close to where Waltz was obtaining his flour, or the other parallels (two children as survivors, the cattle and horses being stolen first etc) coupled with the fact that these would have been available to the early writers publishing LDM stories.
I have to ditto Joe's remark about putting too much weight on a family memory/tradition; on television recently one of the ads for Ancestry.com mentioned a grandfather who was remembered for being a sailor on a U-boat fighting for the "wrong" side in WW 1, only to learn that particular ancestor was a captain of a US Navy ship who fought against the U-boats in that war. Things get mis-remembered, embellished and confabulated in family memory tales; the fact that such later treasure writers as Storm and Bicknell did embellish the stories and were very likely aware of early and real incidents as the 1879 Peralta case, which could then be blended into a family history by the family reinforces the possibility of such errors. How could it be proven that this is NOT the case? How about finding another family of a victim or victims of the legendary Peralta massacre? A letter from a Peralta to someone, dating to before 1891, in which the massacre is mentioned as an event larger than two men being attacked by Apaches would help.
The collection of assumptions in the Peralta massacre can "fit" the legend of course and may well be true. However even if the skeletal remains are the Peralta mining expedition, we are left with more questions than answers - like why are there not piles of gold and/or gold ore all over the massacre site? Common knowledge has it that Apaches had no use for gold or silver, and there are a number of Amerindian memories of attacks on parties of Anglos in which the gold was simply dumped on the ground or into the creek or river etc. Instead we have the finding of ONE such pile of ore (Silverlock and Malm) and that not exactly on the spot of the massacre either. Silverlock and Malm made the erroneous conclusion that since the ore was found there, the mine must be very close by. Then there is the "work camp". It is an assumption that this must be very close to the mine(s) when it could be miles away possibly not even in the Superstitions at all. The Peralta party could have been traveling to and from a mine or mines that are located some distance away from where the massacre occurred. It may have been a different party of Mexican or Spanish miners which is equally un-documented. How can we assign a date for a collection of skeletal remains seen by Army scouts in 1864, that cannot be examined today? They could be the Espejo party for all we know.
I realize we have been over this ad nauseum, and the evidence which would settle the case absolutely probably can not be found. There is evidence that the Peraltas were mining, but not in what we call the Superstitions today; the gold mine in the Bradshaws of course everyone is aware of but a bit of evidence that they were doing some small scale digging in the Goldfield hills also was found. I don't have the letters handy but mining tools were found in the Goldfield hills in some old diggings, with the intials of Peralta on them. This would work with the full-scale massacre OR the 1879 documented incident of just two men as the site where the actual gold mining was being done.
Sorry for the long post.
Oroblanco
Falling apart, if the ONLY Indian who ever had a gold tooth was Massai, the Apache Kid or the Carlisle Kid. Are you going to stick with the statement that NO Indians ever had gold work in their teeth?
Then there is the question of whether that victim with a gold tooth was even related to the rest of the skeletal remains; it could have been a captive Mexican or Anglo that just happened to get killed with the rest of the Indians. Also, the one found with clothes and gold in a poke, may not have been related to those in the main site. It is assumption, in fact one that may well be un-justified, since that particular one had not been stripped, while the others had, it is suggestive that the victors had time to pick over the dead enemies at their leisure, and would not likely miss one if he were close.
Suppose the massacre victims are the Peralta mining party, which is otherwise undocumented; what then do we do with the 1879 documented Apache attack on two Peralta brothers? The one who survived had rich gold ore on him, just like that odd one found by Edwards. Are we to just conclude the 1879 incident was made up to sell newspapers? Funny they would come up with the Peralta name in 1879, just as that odd story of Geronimo having a Mexican father also named Peralta, a point that no one seems to have picked up on.
I only posted two of the reports of Indian massacres Mike, there are several. Only the one of which Dr Montezuma has been posted. All of the reported massacres in the Superstitions are of Indians. You don't find it the least peculiar that Montezuma was sold in Adamsville, so close to where Waltz was obtaining his flour, or the other parallels (two children as survivors, the cattle and horses being stolen first etc) coupled with the fact that these would have been available to the early writers publishing LDM stories.
I have to ditto Joe's remark about putting too much weight on a family memory/tradition; on television recently one of the ads for Ancestry.com mentioned a grandfather who was remembered for being a sailor on a U-boat fighting for the "wrong" side in WW 1, only to learn that particular ancestor was a captain of a US Navy ship who fought against the U-boats in that war. Things get mis-remembered, embellished and confabulated in family memory tales; the fact that such later treasure writers as Storm and Bicknell did embellish the stories and were very likely aware of early and real incidents as the 1879 Peralta case, which could then be blended into a family history by the family reinforces the possibility of such errors. How could it be proven that this is NOT the case? How about finding another family of a victim or victims of the legendary Peralta massacre? A letter from a Peralta to someone, dating to before 1891, in which the massacre is mentioned as an event larger than two men being attacked by Apaches would help.
The collection of assumptions in the Peralta massacre can "fit" the legend of course and may well be true. However even if the skeletal remains are the Peralta mining expedition, we are left with more questions than answers - like why are there not piles of gold and/or gold ore all over the massacre site? Common knowledge has it that Apaches had no use for gold or silver, and there are a number of Amerindian memories of attacks on parties of Anglos in which the gold was simply dumped on the ground or into the creek or river etc. Instead we have the finding of ONE such pile of ore (Silverlock and Malm) and that not exactly on the spot of the massacre either. Silverlock and Malm made the erroneous conclusion that since the ore was found there, the mine must be very close by. Then there is the "work camp". It is an assumption that this must be very close to the mine(s) when it could be miles away possibly not even in the Superstitions at all. The Peralta party could have been traveling to and from a mine or mines that are located some distance away from where the massacre occurred. It may have been a different party of Mexican or Spanish miners which is equally un-documented. How can we assign a date for a collection of skeletal remains seen by Army scouts in 1864, that cannot be examined today? They could be the Espejo party for all we know.
I realize we have been over this ad nauseum, and the evidence which would settle the case absolutely probably can not be found. There is evidence that the Peraltas were mining, but not in what we call the Superstitions today; the gold mine in the Bradshaws of course everyone is aware of but a bit of evidence that they were doing some small scale digging in the Goldfield hills also was found. I don't have the letters handy but mining tools were found in the Goldfield hills in some old diggings, with the intials of Peralta on them. This would work with the full-scale massacre OR the 1879 documented incident of just two men as the site where the actual gold mining was being done.
Sorry for the long post.
Oroblanco
