Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this picture?

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Gollum wrote
P.S.

Roy and Beth,

Here is a little something regarding the Peralta Massacre. I just got off the phone with Bob Corbin. He told me the story about how he got ahold of the journals of both Sgt. William Edwards and Joe Green (the two troopers who found the skeletons). He says that after reading the diaries, there is absolutely no doubt that those skeletons were Mexican, not Indian.

I have no doubt Green and/or Edwards very well may have been convinced those skeletons were of Mexicans. Unfortunately I still have doubts that they actually were Mexicans. I will try to post two articles (may have to ask Beth to do this) the first tells of a white child captured by Apaches, rescued by a Pima massacre of an Apache camp in Superstition mountain. This means a group of skeletal remains could be Apaches; the second article tells of an Apache massacre of a group of Pimas in the Superstitions, in which two children were survivors. This means a group of skeletal remains may well be those of Pima victims. If you have a documented report of a massacre of Mexicans in the Superstitions, I would like to see it.

Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

mrs.oroblanco said:
Actually, I don't know its a Tobias symbol. I think it is another assumption.

Based on some of the other things recently posted in different places, now the stones have absolutely nothing to do with the Supers/LDM and now
we are skirting around jewels, treasures and the like.

What makes you think its a Tobias symbol? It doesn't match any symbol you have shown - only parts. And, if you know what a Tobias symbol means - it doesn't even make sense to be there on the stones.

Considering all the people that were in the Superstitions over the years, I sincerely doubt that anyone can ascertain whether or not the bones were
spanish or indian - in fact, in truth, many, many MANY of the spanish of the time were actually both Spanish and Indian. I do not believe that any tests done back then could ascertain that as any sort of fact.

Just because someone else is convinced of someone's nationality, doesn't do a whole lot for me, and, while, honestly, I have lots and lots of
respect for people like Bob Corbin, again, it is an opinion - yes, maybe a more educated one then mine, but still an opinion from someone who does not have the fruits of their labors - in hand.

Having both spanish and indian in my family, I can tell you, without a doubt, that the "looks" can be very much the same. I can guarantee that if you saw a picture of my mother-in-law, you would not be able to tell.


Beth

"What makes you think its a Tobias symbol"

because it is ...lol

think code ... eat sleep and wake with code in your mind...lol
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

mrs.oroblanco said:
Actually, I don't know its a Tobias symbol. I think it is another assumption.

Based on some of the other things recently posted in different places, now the stones have absolutely nothing to do with the Supers/LDM and now
we are skirting around jewels, treasures and the like.

What makes you think its a Tobias symbol? It doesn't match any symbol you have shown - only parts. And, if you know what a Tobias symbol means - it doesn't even make sense to be there on the stones.

Considering all the people that were in the Superstitions over the years, I sincerely doubt that anyone can ascertain whether or not the bones were
spanish or indian - in fact, in truth, many, many MANY of the spanish of the time were actually both Spanish and Indian. I do not believe that any tests done back then could ascertain that as any sort of fact.

Just because someone else is convinced of someone's nationality, doesn't do a whole lot for me, and, while, honestly, I have lots and lots of
respect for people like Bob Corbin, again, it is an opinion - yes, maybe a more educated one then mine, but still an opinion from someone who does not have the fruits of their labors - in hand.

Having both spanish and indian in my family, I can tell you, without a doubt, that the "looks" can be very much the same. I can guarantee that if you saw a picture of my mother-in-law, you would not be able to tell.


Beth

REALLY? AN ASSUMPTION (See Below)? On second thought, you must be correct. I don't see any similarity between the two symbols.

tobiascross3.jpg


?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Beth, have you read Helen Corbin's Book? Tom Glover's Book was the only version of Sgt Edwards Story I had read until I got Corbin's Book. You said:

Just because someone else is convinced of someone's nationality, doesn't do a whole lot for me, and, while, honestly, I have lots and lots of respect for people like Bob Corbin, again, it is an opinion - yes, maybe a more educated one then mine, but still an opinion from someone who does not have the fruits of their labors - in hand.

Actually, it wasn't Bob's Opinion. It was the opinion of both Sgt Edwards and Joe Green. Bob Corbin just happens to have copies of both of their journals. So, actually, he does have the opinions and facts of the people at the scene, as well as their own words as to what they saw.

In case you don't have Helen Corbin's Book, I will reproduce the part missing from Glover's Book (I don't feel like typing all that ;D ):

sgtedwards1.jpg


So, you and Roy are free to believe what you will, I will stick (once again) with the word of the people on the scene.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Another reason I say it is a Tobias Symbol is because of the meaning of the Tobias Symbol "A":

Your journey begins here - Begin reading this map at this point. BEGIN AT THE POINT TO WHICH THE LONG ARM OF THE "t" IS POINTING.

tobiascross4.jpg


Notice that the long arm of the "T" is pointing at the beginning of the dotted line?

HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM Provocative!

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Well first, duh - of course I have read Helen Corbin, and Ely, and Glover and have the notes of most people's writings (I think).

I'm not sure your statement of "taking the word of the people who were there" is really appropriate. Why do I say this? Because there were many
people around during that time, and many of them say different things. It just all depends on who you want to believe has the right story. Which is my point.

In my opinion, its ridiculous to even think that the two are related (Supers and the Stones). I just cannot buy it. Tell me, what is THE symbol below (beside, under, depending on how you hold the stones) your Tobias symbol? You realize that a cross is not a Tobias symbol, right? The symbol you are speaking of is a greek letter.

I also want to take note of your arrow - isn't it more likely, than not, just using common sense, that, since a Tobia is a greek symbol, and a square with lines and a CROSS on top is a mission, that that would NOT be a symbol for Tobias, but a symbol for a mission of some sort?

To change the subject, just a tad, I am going to try to post an article that Roy was talking about. I may have to make it smaller to post. If so, you will have to resize it yourself. You will notice that it was NOT uncommon for white, indian and spanish to intermingle. Of course, you will
have to believe a documented newspaper article, rather than someone's deciphering.

Beth
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.webp
    Clipboard01.webp
    108.8 KB · Views: 804
Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Sorry, I forgot this additional article that was written during a different time.

Beth
 

Attachments

  • boy.webp
    boy.webp
    17.1 KB · Views: 1,378
Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Beth,

First, I don't think that's the article Roy wanted you to post (at least I hope that's not it). The article he was referring to was one that told about Apache massacring a bunch of Pima Indians in the Supers.

Second, The symbol next to the Tobias Symbol I am currently keeping under my hat. It is most definitely not a symbol for any mission or church.

In my opinion, its ridiculous to even think that the two are related (Supers and the Stones).

REALLY? HAHAHA Yeah, just because they are worded in Spanish, were found less than five miles from the Superstitions, and have the first names of two of the most prominent Peralta Family Members engraved on them (Pedro and Miguel), it is absolutely ridiculous to even imagine that they have anything whatsoever to do with the Supers!

I also want to take note of your arrow - isn't it more likely, than not, just using common sense, that, since a Tobia is a greek symbol, and a square with lines and a CROSS on top is a mission, that that would NOT be a symbol for Tobias, but a symbol for a mission of some sort?

In a word ... No. Why are you saying anything about any Greek Tobia Symbols? The Spanish Tobias Symbol is not the same thing. It is simply a representative symbol for the book of Tobias/Tobit. PERIOD.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Hola amigos,

I can't confirm Kenworthy's definition of a Tobit symbol either. What I found is a set of five Greek letters, which make the word "fish" and-or the figure of a fish; also an image of a blind man and his wife inside of doors, perhaps being annointed by an angel, are defined as a 'Tobit symbol'. None seem to match what you have posted.
IX8YS.jpg


IX8YS2.jpg


Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Mike wrote
Beth,

First, I don't think that's the article Roy wanted you to post (at least I hope that's not it). The article he was referring to was one that told about Apache massacring a bunch of Pima Indians in the Supers.

Did you read the second article? The "indians" referred to can only be Pimas as 1900 residents of the Superstition region, and it names Apaches as having massacred a tribe of theirs in the Superstitions. Here is a transcription;

Superstition mountain was pointed out to the early settlers with awe by the Indians on account of the complete annihilation of one of their tribes there by the Apaches, who, after stealing their cattle and horses, killed them all except two small children, a boy and a girl. The boy and girl were rescued by a man living near where the town of Florence now is. He took them as his own and educated them. The boy is now a prominent physician in Chicago.
Daily Arizona Silver Belt Jan 16th, 190? page 4

Also, please re-read my previous post, I mentioned two different articles not just one, one telling of a massacre of Apaches by Pimas, the other telling of a massacre of Pimas by Apaches, which is what has just been posted. The rest of the Dr Montezuma & Mickeyfee story you can find in the newspaper, it tells how the Pimas struck while most of the Apache men were away negotiating peace and the two children were the only survivors taken by the Pimas.

Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

mrs.oroblanco said:
Sorry, I forgot this additional article that was written during a different time.

Beth

THAT'S THE ONE! Is there a date on the article? A date for the massacre? Yes, the Pima and Apache killed each other all the time. Only problem is that I don't think the Pima ever used arrastras. Did you read the part of William Edwards Story I posted? Doesn't sound like Pimas to me (or anybody else).

Roy,

The Tobias Symbol is a well known Spanish Treasure Map Symbol that has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek Translation of the Bible. Not only by Chuck Kenworthy. But yes, I do trust his work.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

gollum said:
Another reason I say it is a Tobias Symbol is because of the meaning of the Tobias Symbol "A":

Your journey begins here - Begin reading this map at this point. BEGIN AT THE POINT TO WHICH THE LONG ARM OF THE "t" IS POINTING.

tobiascross4.jpg


Notice that the long arm of the "T" is pointing at the beginning of the dotted line?

HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM Provocative!

Best-Mike

The cross also refers to a marker altered by man, with sign of the Templar present. From this point along the water of the Salt, one can see "The priest who stands by the River" from across the water; fast and deep....and there's Loggerheads around. The symbol collectively means "Church Vault This Way" final chain.

A span of 1847..........Between two like markers. Door at center; concealed and sealed by the mark of the cross.
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

We have the books you mentioned Mike, yep read it, not sure that Green was NOT connecting dots that may not have been really connected. The massacre victims were not found strewn over the arrastras, nor in the work camp after all. There are other newspaper articles telling much the same thing on the Indian massacres in the Superstition mountains, but I still have not yet seen one telling of the massacre of Mexicans there.
Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Roy,

First, Maybe you missed the last part I had underlined that stated the ore found at the arrastra EXACTLY MATCHED the ore he found in the Poke Bag on the only clothed skeleton?

Did you also forget the part of the story in Corbin's Book in which Edwards stated that while the Apache would strip whites and Mexicans of everything, they never did that to other Indians? Maybe it's time for a quick reread?

Before posting that article on your Pima Massacre Postulation, you might want to research your story a little more in depth.

Here is the biography of Dr. Carlos Montezuma:

PLEASE NOT THAT YOUR PIMA MASSACRE OCCURRED IN 1871. THAT WAS A FULL SIX YEARS AFTER SGT EDWARDS FOUND THE SKELETONS AT THE MASSACRE GROUNDS.

Carlos Montezuma (ca. 1865-1923), was a Yavapai (Mohave-Apache) university-educated medical doctor and political leader, who bridged both cultures.

Sometime in the mid-1860s, perhaps as early as 1865 or as late as 1867, Carlos Montezuma was born as Wassaja to Yavapai parents in a band in central or southern Arizona. As that period was quite turbulent, given Anglo-mining expansion and settlement and warfare among the southern Arizona tribes, Wassaja's childhood was far from uninterrupted play. Indeed in 1871, the Yavapai's longtime enemies, the Pimas, attacked Wassaja's band and carried him off, along with his two sisters. A man bound for Mexico soon purchased his sisters, and the boy never saw any of his family again.

Later that same year, an Italian immigrant photographer/artist named Carlos Gentile took pity on the boy, purchased him for $30, and had him baptized as "Carlos Montezuma" on November 17 in Florence, Arizona. Soon Gentile moved to Chicago, where the child attended public school for the next three years, moving on next to Galesburg, Illinois, where Carlos attended a country school for his health for the next two years. The next stop was New York, where the lad went to school in Brooklyn. Gentile's business suffered a reversal, however, due to a fire, and he was unable to care for the child any longer. After a short time under the care of a Mrs. Baldwin, Carlos found himself the ward of a Baptist minister, William H. Steadman, of Urbana, Illinois.

Once in Illinois, Montezuma prepared himself for college and enrolled at the University of Illinois. There he pursued a B.S. degree in chemistry, obtaining grades ranging from middle C's to low A's. He authored a thesis entitled "Valuation of Opiums and Their Products" and received his degree by the mid-1880s. After a brief period of indecision in Chicago, Montezuma resolved to go on to medical school. With the help of a Dr. Hollister at the Chicago Medical College, he entered that program, working at a job cleaning a local drugstore. In 1889, after some setbacks with the faculty, he finally completed medical training and contemplated where best to apply his new skills. Contact with the "Friends of the Indian" reformer group soon propelled him in the direction of becoming an Indian doctor.

Captain Richard Henry Pratt, the founder and director of the Carlisle School in Pennsylvania, was Montezuma's first backer. As early as 1887, Montezuma had been corresponding with the energetic reformer. Pratt was a staunch believer in immersing Indian children in white culture and erasing indigenous traits. For Pratt, and increasingly for Montezuma at this time, no matter how glorious was the Indian's past, the present and future realities dictated that tribal peoples modernize according to the whites' model. At his school, Pratt often brought in reluctant charges for this social experiment. Although Montezuma was too old for Pratt's curriculum, he became an adult example of what the whites' education could accomplish for indigenous people. In 1887, Montezuma thus addressed audiences in New York and Philadelphia on this topic.

Such a bright specimen of the white man's handiwork caught the attention of Commissioner of Indian Affairs Thomas Jefferson Morgan. After an exchange of letters, Morgan appointed Montezuma to be a clerk and physician at Fort Stevenson in Dakota Territory in 1889. Montezuma embarked on the mission with great zeal:

While there is life in me I shall teach my race the values of life from savagery to civilization. I will lead them to the Father that watched over their forefathers when they fell into the hands of their enemies, to the God who permitted the nation to which they belonged to be nearly wiped out of existence.

Once in Dakota Territory, however, Montezuma found reservation conditions much worse than he had expected. Soon he was in conflict with Office of Indian Affairs policies and personnel. Handling the medical problems of the Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan tribal peoples on the Fort Berthold reservation, Montezuma became convinced that physical problems stemmed from the inadequate supervision of the reservation facilities. Within the year, he and Superintendent George Gerowe were trading accusations. Commissioner Morgan stepped in and transferred Montezuma to the Western Shoshone Agency in Nevada in 1890, where he remained until January 1893. Although Montezuma's service there was less choppy, the lack of medical and other supplies, clashes with tribal shamans and customs, and rivalry between Catholic and Protestant missionaries frustrated his attempts to make progress. Commissioner Morgan granted his request for another transfer, this time assigning Montezuma to the Colville Agency in Washington state. That move was no better, however; the Colville Agency, too, lacked the necessary supplies and facilities for a doctor to carry out his tasks. Quickly Montezuma secured another transfer to what would be his last Indian Service position, physician at Pratt's Carlisle School. In July 1893, he began his tenure at Carlisle, a position he kept until January 8, 1896.

Montezuma's stay at Carlisle was far happier than his other Indian Service positions. Back with his friend Pratt, he threw himself into the spirit of the school, praising the education, football team, and band. Although critics pointed to discrepancies in Carlisle's mission and its accomplishments - few students graduated or stayed in the East - Montezuma believed in the potential of the school. One of the musicians, a Dakota named Gertrude Simmons or Zitkala-sa, would figure importantly in Montezuma's life. Being in the East also allowed him greater contact with the white reformers. In 1893 and 1895, he attended the annual Lake Mohonk conferences of the "Friends of the Indian." By 1896, despite his positive connections with Carlisle, Montezuma decided to venture back into private practice.

At first back in Chicago, Montezuma had few patients. Then he chanced to meet up with Dr. Fenton Turck, an eminent internalist, who invited Montezuma to assist at his clinic. Montezuma's career prospects improved, although he never became an excellent doctor nor a rich one. Around this time, he and Zitkala-sa reactivated their acquaintance. Friendship blossomed for a time into engagement in 1901, but in August of that year, she broke off the relationship. Within the year, she married Raymond Bonnin, a Sioux. Montezuma was bitter at first, but later the two resumed a friendship and alliance in favor of Indian causes. Probably her biggest impact on him was to reawaken some interest in the Indian past. Montezuma never became an enthusiast for indigenous culture, preferring the path out of what he and most whites considered savagery, but in 1901 he revisited the places of his boyhood. On a trip to Arizona with the Carlisle football team the previous year, Montezuma had returned to his native region for the first time. Now he came back on his own and tracked down some of his distant relatives, especially Mike Burns and Charles Dickens. With them and Charles's brother George, Montezuma was instrumental in the creation of the Fort McDowell Yavapai or Mohave-Apache Reservation by late 1903.

Starting in 1905, Carlos Montezuma attracted national attention as an Indian leader. Much of his energies over the next six years focused on establishing a national organization of Indians, one the indigenous leaders would control themselves, unlike the reformer groups such as the Indian Rights Association. Montezuma joined in this Pan-Indian movement with Zitkala-sa and other prominent native leaders, such as the Sioux Charles Eastman and Henry Standing Bear, the Seneca Arthur Parker, the Oneida Laura Cornelius, the Omaha Thomas Sloan and Rosa LaFlesche, the Ojibwa Marie Baldwin, the Winnebago Henry Roe Cloud, the Arapahoe Sherman Coolidge, and the Peoria Charles Daganett. On Columbus Day, 1911, in Columbus, Ohio, with the help of Ohio State University economics and sociology professor Fayette McKenzie, the Society of American Indians held its first meeting. Montezuma, however, in spite of pleas from Sloan, Eastman, Cornelius, Daganett, and Standing Bear, did not attend. Despite his obvious credentials for leadership in such a movement and his ongoing disputes with Commissioner of Indian Affairs Francis Leupp, Montezuma had become disappointed with the agenda of the society. He suspected that the group had simply become a tool for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and, as he and Pratt asserted, did not concentrate on the real needs of indigenous peoples. Instead of contributing to what he saw as a charade, Montezuma returned to southern Arizona to resume his efforts on behalf of his Yavapai tribe.

Since the establishment of the Fort McDowell Reservation in 1903, the Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel and the Yavapi themselves had been trying, with some success, to develop a thriving agriculture on the land. Their success, however, depended on the water supply from the Verde River, which cut across the reservation. The time period was a confusing one for water rights in the West as a whole. Although the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902 projected a bright future for western irrigation, the legal definitions of ownership became murky. The 1908 Winters v. U.S.Supreme Court decision ruled that Indians had prior water rights, but it was ambiguous whether the indigenous people themselves or their "guardian" governmental agencies owned the water. Competition with nearby Phoenix and attempts to consolidate the Yavapai with other Arizona tribes clouded the future for Montezuma's people. Problems with setting up or repairing irrigation ditches further complicated matters. So in 1911, Montezuma, now signing his letters Wassajah, joined in with the Dickens brothers to ward off Bureau of Indian Affairs plans to relocate the Yavapai. After a drawn-out struggle, the Yavapai won their case and the right to stay at Fort McDowell. For Montezuma, this victory had repercussions, as the federal government saw him more as an obstacle to bureau plans rather than a cooperative, educated Indian.

The next year, 1912, Montezuma returned to the Society of American Indians. He became a crucial and controversial force within the group, never completely at ease with the society's agendas. He attended the 1912 meeting, again in Columbus, Ohio, but declined to go to the 1913 meeting in Denver, when it became clear that local promoters were using the gathering as publicity for an upcoming Buffalo Bill Cody Wild West show. Instead, he redirected his energies to Yavapai issues and also to an extremely personal one, marriage to a Rumanian-American woman named Marie Keller on September 19, 1913. The following day, Montezuma left for Arizona. (Marie, who lacked her husband's reformer zeal, preferred to stay in the background of his life.) The next February, however, he returned to the Society of American Indians to plan the 1914 meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. Despite arguments with moderates in the organization, such as Arthur Parker, and continuing conflict with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Montezuma went to the Madison gathering, as well as the 1915 one at Lawrence, Kansas. At the Lawrence meeting, Montezuma sharpened his attack on the bureau with a talk called "Let My People Go," in which he urged abolition of the federal agency.

Clearly, Montezuma was at an ideological watershed in his opinions, deciding that personal commitment was more important than organizational cooperation with the "enemy." The next April, he published the first number of his personal newsletter, Wassaja, an "obsession" that he carried on until shortly before his death. For six and a half years, Montezuma waged an unrelenting war of words with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That October, even though he was in hot dispute with Arthur Parker, Montezuma attended the sixth annual Society of American Indians convention, held that year at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. There matters deteriorated to a shouting match between Montezuma and Sherman Coolidge over the notion of Indians in the employ of the Indian Service. "I am an Apache," Montezuma screamed at Coolidge, "and you are an Arapahoe. I can lick you. My tribe has licked your tribe before." Obviously, with tempers so frayed, the conference accomplished little, and Montezuma was ever more the lone wolf. His editorials in Wassaja turned more sarcastic and clever. His main antagonist was the Bureau, but he also attacked churches and schools for what he considered complicity in the scheme to defraud Indians. Indeed, although his primary concern was for his people in Arizona, Montezuma expanded his focus to cover Indian calamities in Montana.

When the United States entered World War I, the Yavapai doctor looked at the war effort with ambiguity. The U.S. should not be able to commandeer indigenous males to fight, he thought, but if any wished to fight, they should be able to do so. His editorials also pointed out the ironies of native peoples fighting for rights abroad that they didn't enjoy at home. When war needs justified the closing of Carlisle School in 1918, Montezuma responded angrily. The bureau became, in his eyes, the "Kaiser of America." He urged the Society of American Indians to meet again - it had canceled the 1917 convocation - and lead the fight against the bureau. At the Pierre, South Dakota, meeting that September, Montezuma delivered an impassioned speech on Carlisle. Better yet, from his perspective, the society voted for abolition of the Indian Bureau. The society also named Gertrude Simmons Bonnin to replace Parker as editor of American Indian Magazine. Emotionally elated, Montezuma praised the society lavishly in the pages of Wassaja.

Throughout those years of infighting within the society, Montezuma was also busy defending the rights of his beloved Yavapai and other tribes back in Arizona. In 1912, he responded to requests from the Salt River Pimas to become their representative. Washington officials did not look favorably on that match, but in that year Montezuma and the Yavapai received confirmation of their homeland status on the Fort McDowell Reservation. Arguments over ceremonial dancing on the reservation, however, soon plunged Montezuma into conflict with bureau officials Charles Coe, Frank Thackery, C.T. Coggeshall, and Byron Sharp, as well as Indian Rights Association agent Samuel Brosius. Although Montezuma had no intention of reinvigorating tribal customs of the past, he did support the dances as harmless. Mostly the dispute was over the power of Indian agents over the tribal peoples, so any issue would have triggered the physician's anger. The clash over dancing carried on until 1918. Water problems also continued to plague the Arizona Indians. The Yavapai, particularly, wished for a dam and irrigation system, but Indian Bureau officials maintained that the project was too costly. Instead, the bureau recommended the Yavapai accept allotments on the Salt River. Whether or not this was a thinly disguised attempt to relocate the Yavapai, Montezuma and the Dickens brothers led the resistance to the plan. By 1918, even though the water situation was as tenuous as ever, Montezuma had won the battle over keeping Fort McDowell intact.

In what turned out to be the last four years of his life, Carlos Montezuma continued his efforts in national Indian affairs, tried to enroll as a member of the San Carlos Apache, and kept up his interest in southern Arizona concerns. He pressed once again for abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for citizenship for all Indians (not granted completely until 1924). The Society of American Indians continued to meet, and Gertrude Bonnin still held the editorship of the society magazine, but by the early 1920s, that group was losing its clout and luster. Successive meetings at Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, and Kansas City all witnessed decreases in attendance. By 1922, Montezuma was disillusioned once more with the society. Back in Arizona, however, he launched a more ambitious effort to enroll at the San Carlos Apache agency, because some genealogical tracing had convinced him that his family had ended up on that reservation in 1871. The Indian Bureau, already at odds with the aggressive Yavapai physician, put him through many hoops, requiring sworn statements and proof which Montezuma could not obtain. In the end, the bureau's 1922 denial of his enrollment request was as much a punishment of Montezuma as a bureaucratic technical decision.

Controversies over water rights once again surfaced in 1919. Bureau officials tried yet again to persuade the Yavapai to relocate to the Salt River reservation, and once again Montezuma, the Dickens brothers, and Mike Burns headed off that campaign. In 1920, Montezuma and agent Byron Sharp nearly came to blows on the reservation, an incident that involved some rough handling of Montezuma's wife Marie. Next plans to pipe water to Phoenix across the Fort McDowell lands aggravated Montezuma even further, reinforcing his fears of a gigantic conspiracy between city politicians and the bureau lackeys. Montezuma kept protesting this turn of events, but with the arrival of the new Harding administration and its probusiness secretary of the interior, Albert Fall, Montezuma made little headway. A new Salt River agency superintendent, Frank Virtue, proved as hostile to Montezuma as his predecessors had been. A new generation of Indian leaders would have to pick up the fight for him.

In the summer of 1922, Montezuma noticed that his health was failing. At first, he thought he had influenza, but being the physician he was, he soon diagnosed his condition correctly as tuberculosis, the major Indian-killing disease of the day. Throughout the autumn of 1922, he continued to publish Wassaja, but in December, he chose to prepare for his death. He left Chicago for Arizona, had the Dickens family build him a wickiup rush shelter near their home, and resisted the medical advice of a Tempe physician to commit himself to a sanatorium. Montezuma lingered for nearly a month, writing letters of encouragement to his wife back in Chicago. On January 23, 1923, he finally succumbed, home at last among his people. Several newspapers and native leaders, including the Society of American Indians, eulogized him, but his overall legacy was uncertain. His crusading passions carried over to other native leaders for a few years after his death, but then his memory faded, outside of the Fort McDowell Reservation. Not until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a reawakening of interest in native American resistance occurred, did scholars and indigenous leaders rediscover Carlos Montezuma.

Best-Mike
 

Attachments

  • Wassaja.webp
    Wassaja.webp
    15.5 KB · Views: 832
Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

I saw the date problem, and question the dates given by Green; in Glover it is listed as "1867 or 1865" which sounds like guessing, not an exact date. Glad you found Dr Montezuma, there is a book on him. The whole point is that there are SEVERAL massacres reported in the Superstitions during the 'pioneer' era, not one mentioning any Mexicans, all are Indians.

As to whether Green & Edwards may have mistaken Apaches for Mexicans, do we need to go back over that too? Apaches were mistaken for Mexicans by Anglos all the time; including the meeting of Cochise with general Howard.

BTW Montezuma was purchased in Adamsville, very near Adams Mill where Waltz purchased his flour. ;D
Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

PS - Apaches took gold and silver from their raids too, which could easily explain any gold found there or in the vicinity.
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Oroblanco said:
I saw the date problem, and question the dates given by Green; in Glover it is listed as "1867 or 1865" which sounds like guessing, not an exact date. Glad you found Dr Montezuma, there is a book on him. The whole point is that there are SEVERAL massacres reported in the Superstitions during the 'pioneer' era, not one mentioning any Mexicans, all are Indians.

As to whether Green & Edwards may have mistaken Apaches for Mexicans, do we need to go back over that too? Apaches were mistaken for Mexicans by Anglos all the time; including the meeting of Cochise with general Howard.

BTW Montezuma was purchased in Adamsville, very near Adams Mill where Waltz purchased his flour. ;D
Oroblanco

Roy,

Forget Glover's Book for a minute. Bob told me on the phone that it took him years of working with the families to get copies of those two men's journals. Glover's Book says it happened in December 1865, while Corbin's Book says early in 1866. Neither book says anything about 1867. Either way, the massacre happened AT LEAST five years before the 1871 Pima Massacre in your article.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Oroblanco said:
PS - Apaches took gold and silver from their raids too, which could easily explain any gold found there or in the vicinity.

COME ON ROY!

Now you are stretching beyond belief. There was ore AT AN ARRASTRA. That ore EXACTLY MATCHED the ore in the poke bag on the only clothed skeleton. So, are you saying the Apache carried some of the ore from the massacre site to the arrastra and salted it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe you missed the connection between how Edwards (the Apache fighter) stated that since the Apache would not strip personal effects from other Indians, only Whites and Mexicans, AND ALL THE SKELETONS WERE STRIPPED OF EVERYTHING??

Come on Roy. all you are doing is crawling further out on that branch. ;D ;D ;D You have referenced that Indian Massacre Article for so long like it was the end all be all for the Mexican Massacre Argument that took me two minutes and one Google Search to show it couldn't be that.

Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

gollum said:
Oroblanco said:
PS - Apaches took gold and silver from their raids too, which could easily explain any gold found there or in the vicinity.

COME ON ROY!

Now you are stretching beyond belief. There was ore AT AN ARRASTRA. That ore EXACTLY MATCHED the ore in the poke bag on the only clothed skeleton. So, are you saying the Apache carried some of the ore from the massacre site to the arrastra and salted it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe you missed the connection between how Edwards (the Apache fighter) stated that since the Apache would not strip personal effects from other Indians, only Whites and Mexicans, AND ALL THE SKELETONS WERE STRIPPED OF EVERYTHING??

Come on Roy. all you are doing is crawling further out on that branch. ;D ;D ;D You have referenced that Indian Massacre Article for so long like it was the end all be all for the Mexican Massacre Argument that took me two minutes and one Google Search to show it couldn't be that.

Mike

Mike it is you that has ventured out onto that branch with a whole series of assumptions. You assume that all the skeletons were stripped of everything; the fact is they were found that way, we do not know when or whom did any stripping. Edwards states the Apaches always stripped White & Mexicans but not Indians, however this does not tally with every report of an Apache attack so I have to wonder at Edwards expertise on Apache tactics. You assume that his judgement of the ore matching exactly is correct, was he a geologist or an Apache fighter? You also conveniently forgot that the officer in charge of both Edwards and Green felt the skeletal remains were of Indians. I pointed out that there are several reported massacres of INDIANS in the Superstitions, and have asked you for one published report of a party of Mexicans massacred there - you ignore that. What I was showing you was that the whole story of the Peralta massacre may well be rooted in real massacre and really in the Superstitions, but a confabulation of different and un-related events.

So where is that article reporting a massacre of Mexicans in the Superstitions? Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

gollum said:
Another reason I say it is a Tobias Symbol is because of the meaning of the Tobias Symbol "A":

Your journey begins here - Begin reading this map at this point. BEGIN AT THE POINT TO WHICH THE LONG ARM OF THE "t" IS POINTING.

tobiascross4.jpg


Notice that the long arm of the "T" is pointing at the beginning of the dotted line?

HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM Provocative!

Best-Mike

If the "T" is actually related to this point ...
the Spanish reference suggests to go NE.
T=23 + D=5 x 2 = 33varas.
The chain dots are classic 100 vara points.
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Sorry Roy, but you are wrong.

The Lieutenant was not even there when Edwards first found the skeletons. He was also not there when Edwards went back and found the clothed skeleton with the poke bag and gold. He also didn't see the camp or the arrastra.

It was also likely that the Lt. said they were Indians because if the skeletons belonged to whites or Mexicans he would have had to filled out a lot of paperwork. If the skeletons were Indian, he could just leave them be and nothing extra was required. Remember that they were chasing a band of Apache at the time and didn't have time for a bunch of paperwork.

So, you're telling me that at that SAME TIME there were two sources of rich gold ore within a couple of miles of each other in the Supers? You are saying that the rich gold ore in the poke bag is from a different source as the rich gold ore at the arrastra? REALLY? REACHING!

I need to get this straight ..... you are telling me that when Edwards finds those skeletons, he follows the trail of bones back into the mountains. Along the way finding pieces of sandals (Mexicans not Indians wear those cactus sandals), mining equipment, and other personal things leading to a camp site. By this camp site is a rock lined well and a trail leading up to the top of a hill near the camp site. On the top of this hill is rich gold ore that matches the gold ore he found on one of the skeletons at the massacre grounds around an old arrastra ........................................ and they are no relation to each other? REALLY?

Where is the report? It is in the words of Pedro Peralta in the Peralta Family History. Pedro being the only Peralta to survive the massacre. His picture exists and so does his story. The reason for it not being reported in the US is because Mexicans could not own mines in the US after the Gadsden Purchase. So you're telling me that if you had a gold mine where the ore (today) was valued at about $2,000,000 to the ton, and it was in a National Park where mining was illegal, you would announce your visits whenever you worked it? NOT LIKELY!

..................... and Roy. I am no geologist, but I can tell pretty accurately if two pieces of rich gold ore match. If you are looking at Dutchman Ore, with nuggets the size of beans, with strings and leaves of gold in between, maybe you could figure on what the odds might be of two veins of ore like that? And you think it would be uncommon for a man in 1866 to be both an Apache Fighter and a Prospector? REALLY?

................... and with the exception of Crooks' Skeleton Cave Apache Massacre, maybe you could show me some of those other reports of massacred large numbers of Pima and Yavapai in the Supers?

Sorry Buddy, but you are wrong as can be on this one. You just can't admit it. I won't argue the point any further because anybody who reads this has more than enough information to form their own opinions, as long as their feet aren't too deep in the mud.

Best-Mike
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom