HOLA mi amigo Cactusjumper,
I didn't think you were convinced of our amigo Blindbowman's claim that the tomb of Montezuma is in the Superstitions. The version you are quoting (if memory serves) comes from "The Broken Spears" an Amerindian version of events, correct? We also have the alternative (Spanish) version which has Montezuma killed by the injuries he got from being stoned by his own people. I don't know any reason to look for his tomb outside of what was then Tenochtitlan (Mexico city, generally speaking today) but until and unless someone actually finds his "tomb" I don't see that we can say it is 'impossible' for that emperor to have a tomb that could be somewhere else.
That said, I would be VERY surprised if the tomb of Montezuma were to turn up in the Superstitions, and have my own reasons for this position - for instance we know that Montezuma was, at the time of his death, held in very LOW esteem by his own people and close relatives. Whether the stoning incident (if it happened) resulted in his death or not, if Montezuma were truly loved and honored by his people, it seems unlikely that they should have been stoning him for calling on the people to calm down. Another stumbling block has to do with the burial rites of the Aztecs - for example; I only recently learned that they practiced cremation of their ruling elite, which would not leave a body to have a tomb. It is conceivable that a tomb could be built to hold the ashes of the dead, but then we fall into the next stumbling block - namely the actual situation on the ground at the time. For we know that the Aztecs had become aroused and were (if not in actual fact) becoming ready for open war - hardly a time when the necessary manpower, rituals and offerings would be available to prepare any kind of "great" tomb or funereal procession. (This is one of the key reasons why I have strong doubts about the Arizona myth of Montezuma being buried at or in Montezuma Head, but that is an aside) If we look at the time period following the death of Montezuma, the Spanish were driven out of Tenochtitlan in a violent battle, the neighboring tribes supporting the Spanish mustered their forces in their home cities and towns, while those still being loyal to the Aztecs assembled outside of the city (around the lake) where they soon had a battle with the Spanish, (Otumba) which (fortunately for Cortez) came out a tactical victory for the Spanish. The whole campaign is (in my opinion) one of the most fascinating military campaigns in history, and I rank Cortez among the "great captains" of all history - as Clausewitz wrote, a great general is not measured by victories alone but also by surviving tremendous defeats, and Cortez not only survived el Noche del Triste but went on to ally with the Tlaxcalans (spelled?) and build a small flotilla of gunboats on the lake surrounding Tenochtitlan and the rest as they say is "history". Cortez being able to win at Otumba (where he and his cavalry really made a difference) so soon after the retreat from Tenochtitlan says something about his abilities as a military leader as well as some reflection on his ability as a diplomat.
Once the Spanish and their Tlaxcalan allies had successfully cut all the possible escape routes around the lake and laid seige to the city, I don't see how the body of Montezuma or anyone else could have been smuggled out. Heck even the last emperor Cuautemoc (again how to spell this correctly?) was captured when he attempted to escape the city and muster more troops and aid from the countryside.
So in order for our amigo Blindbowman's theory of the tomb of Montezuma being hidden within the Superstition mountains, the body would have had to be taken out of the city in the period while Cortez was busy building his inland fleet of gunboats. This surreptitious funereal procession would have had to slip past huge forces of hostile Amerindians, then traverse over 1000 miles of rugged terrain with no real "roads" to reach the Superstitions, then create a tomb (dig out a tunnel or shaft, or find a cave? I am NOT real sure of this part of his theory) lay the despised emperor to rest, then spend X amount of time and labor making sure there was no trace of their ever passing. Then anyone in the funeral troop must either have sworn never to say ONE WORD about it or they were killed on the spot or committed suicide etc? Again I just am not that solid on Blindbowman's theory as to how this was supposed to work, and he never answered several questions that might have shed some light as to how he thinks this happened.
Anyway I have to admit that I have not been able to agree with our amigo's theory either, for the various reasons we have discussed. Had Blindbowman said that he felt Montezuma is entombed in or near Montezuma Head, where we do have an Amerindian legend that would support it, I would still have most of the same reasons NOT to agree, but at least we would have some kind of support, though that would be mere "legend". I have said several times that perhaps these 'visions' or remote-viewing information that Blindbowman is receiving and relying on are in fact symbolic, yet when I asked him about this possibility he insisted that everything he has received is literal. I find that a rather ironic twist, that a person like Blindbowman, whom is so clearly drawn to mysterious codes and symbols, simply refuses to consider that the information he has accumulated about the Superstitions might just be symbolic, in which case he would still have an amazing mystery to try to work out - that could still lead to an amazing discovery.
I realize that Blindbowman will not answer any more questions, but I do wonder what it might mean if his information were in fact symbolic instead of literal? Suppose his vision of Montezuma was supposed to mean a "great chief" and the Tayopa treasures were supposed to indicate not literally Tayopa but a "great treasure". Then there was the five gallon jugs of nitroglycerin - what if this were symbolic and not literal? Couldn't it be interpreted symbolically as something "dangerous", perhaps something that could be deadly if disturbed carelessly like a stone death trap? Couldn't it also be interpreted as something "explosive" as in the news media usage of that term, something that might stand the historians on their heads? Would it make his discoveries any less important or shocking, if it turned out to be a lost tomb of a Hohokam king, a Pima chief or a great Apache warrior, complete with a treasure of some kind? Heck we know that the people who built Casa Grande certainly were capable of creating a tomb for their kings or leaders. However as he insists that his remote-viewing information is entirely literal and NOT symbolic, the point is moot - I can't even get him to consider that possibility.
Oroblanco
