The Peralta Stones

[somehiker]

Joe:
Who was the original publisher of Relacion 1746,when was the manuscript written,what time frame did it apply to,and when was it first printed for distribution?
Might those dates have a bearing on what was included?

Regards:SH.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jim Hatt]

Hi wayne,

Of equal importance in my opinion, would be By whom, and when were they translated to English? I do not have my copy in front of me. (My Bookshelf gets too overcrowded and I have to move stuff to storage every couple of years) so I will let Joe dig for that info.

Jim

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

"Who was the original publisher of Relacion 1746,when was the manuscript written,what time frame did it apply to,and when was it first printed for distribution?
Might those dates have a bearing on what was included?"

That's a somewhat convoluted answer to post here. I believe Dunne's book was the first English translation of the original letters. There is a translation that was done by Dr. Ronald Ives in
1939 for the Smithsonian Institution, but there were changes from the 1746 draft that was done for the Viceroy.

In that respect, you are correct in saying, "Might those dates have a bearing on what was included?"
The answer to that is, IMHO, yes. Do I attribute sinister motives to those changes......no. That opinion and five bucks might get me an average cup of these days.

Good question. Can I assume you already knew the answer?

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Jim,

[It is pretty obvious when you are pulling things out of your A$$ Joe. Especially when you don't provide and supporting documentation.

I just didn't want you to forget where it came from, so you could put it back once you finished with it.

Who knows... You may want to refer to it again someday (or in a few minutes). If you don't put it back where it came from, you might not be able to find it when you need it.]

That seem like a reasonable opinion on your part. To prove your point, please quote the parts that I pulled out of my Jim......

When you do, I will be happy to provide the source and page number for my comments. On the other hand, if they are my opinions, I am the ultimate source for those.

As you may have notice, I am more than willing to have a normal conversation with you, until you get nasty, which you always do with people who don't agree with you. Others here, may have taken notice of that little habit.

I like a good debate on the facts. Your facts usually boil down to your opinion, which you really don't like to have questioned. When that happens, even those who have known you for years are made to feel uncomfortable.

If I make an observation based on my opinion, and you take it personally, look for your name in that part of the message. If it's not there, it could be any number of people(s).

One other thing: I did not have to "dig for that info", as the book is open in front of me. It can be found in Dunne's introduction. How many days will it take you to find your copy? Perhaps you can post a picture of it when you finally get/find the book.

Want to get back to polite conversation?

Joe Ribaudo

 

[somehiker]

Nope,thats why I asked....Many of the letters,manuscripts and essays were somewhat "rudo".In most cases they passed through a number of hands,including those of competing (for both souls and influence) factions of the mother church.Some even fell into the hands of non-catholic denominations I suspect.Many were hand written copies,with one intended for the church and another for the royal representative.Some were discovered with no authorship evident and it took years for modern scholars to identify the writer.Lots of opportunities for insertions and deletions,especially considering the circumstances of the day.But,it is all we have to work with as far as documents are concerned.All we can do is compare these accounts and maps with contemporary materials from sources outside of the mainstream of church and state.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

I know that to be true and in fact the third document in the book, labeled "derrotero", is "written in a cramped hand
(unlike Sedelmayr's) and with a somewhat different penmanship......". It was written by an unnamed ensign who was on this exploration and was unsigned.
Source: Pages i & ii from "Jacobo Sedelmayr....." by Peter Masten Dunne.

The rest of this post is my opinion.

So you see an honest presentation was provided throughout the history of these documents.

That is not to say that changes were not made to Sedelmayr's accounts, but those were written in his own hand and were recognizable to the historians who translated the original manuscripts. The book contains a photo copy of "The seventh of twenty-six manuscript pages of the Relacion." I can assure you it is in no way rough or simple. Actually, just the opposite.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Anyone know when the Catholic Church or, more specifically, the Jesuits first started using the modern-day depiction of the heart in their art?

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Cubfan64]

Man I wish you guys would give it a rest - I get really tired of sorting through the sarcasm, underlying insults, etc... to find useful and interesting information.

It used to be amusing - now it's just really tiresome.

 

[gollum]

Anyone know when the Catholic Church or, more specifically, the Jesuits first started using the modern-day depiction of the heart in their art?

Joe Ribaudo

Joe,

There is some validity as to what Father Polzer said when he stated that the Jesuits did not officially adopt the Sacred Heart until the late 18th Century. While the Jesuits were suppressed, Pope Pius VI pushed many of the former Jesuits to unite with another group, at which time they formed "The Fathers of the Sacred Heart." This happened in 1794-1796. Until the restoration of the Jesuit Order in 1814, the only Jesuits outside of Russia and Prussia were known as Fathers of the Sacred Heart.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut:

Here is the Frontispiece of the Jesuit "Ratio Studiorum". As you can see, the date is 1598. Quite a bit earlier than Father Polzer's late 18th Century

Best-Mike

 

[somehiker]

A ring,from a archaeology site in the Great Lakes area dated 1674-1707.
Didn't we cover this before?
Did you find an exact date,Joe?
SH.

 

[Oroblanco]

No attitude Roy,

If I appear to be losing my patience with you, it is because I am dumping FACTS and Photos on you one after the other, and you are responding with FANTASY questions.

It's late, I am signing off too!

Jim

Hmm, well I don't think the Franciscan presence in colonial Arizona is fantasy amigo. Fr Garces exp to the Moquis is a historical fact, as well as his founding of the mission Bicuner on the Colorado, where he was later killed by the natives. Same natives who tell the story of having been forced to mine placer gold, work in the fields etc by the Franciscan padres, and of dumping sacks of gold that were awaiting shipment - this besides the gold THEY claim that the Franciscan padres hid some time before the trouble arose. Now the Colorado river is some distance from the Salt river, but they were certainly making 'entradas' very like the earlier Jesuits, and active in much the same ways.

What I find odd is that Garces did not even attempt to force the Pimas to labor, and the Pimas were thrilled to learn this, yet on the Colorado they took the forced labor route which ended disastrously.

Before we go any farther here, is this thread for Professional Dutch Hunters only? If so then I must drop out; my 'credentials' can be looked up to a degree in old LT magazines, as well as others (W&E Treasures, Gold Prospector, Fur-Fish-Game was my very first published bit on how to prospect for gold back in '89, sheesh and I thought I was close to "expert" then! haha) so I have never had the pleasure and advantage of LIVING close enough to the Superstitions to just go whenever I felt like it. Anyway I think that a person with absolutely zero experience can certainly contribute to our discussions, and sometimes a new set of eyes (and brains) can bring a breakthrough.

Oh well I don't care to push someone's patience to the utter limits with a slow methodical piece-by-piece work-through the various evidence, just thought that approach might even help support the validity of the stone maps.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

I believe "Ratio Studiorum" was first published in 1599, although there was an initial publication that was done in 1591. That makes little difference, but the fact is that it has been changed and republished many time. The cover has changed over the years, and it's possible that's not the first edition cover.

I believe it was even banned at one point and brought back and reprinted again. I could be completely wrong on that point.

On the other hand, that may very well be the original cover and you have made the point. I do have a hard time bucking Father Polzer's opinion.

Nice job,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I wonder, everyone who talks about the Peralta Stones, talks about the 8NP.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that magnetic declination drift was not even a factor until 1903 - how would they have known about it in 1767? They didn't - they couldn't have.

I mean - Columbus knew about magnetic declination - but it was not until 1903-1906 (depending on if you are talking about the discovery or the proof), that the declination changed from century to century.

In 1767, they did not know that it would be different from year to year. So, how would be able to pinpoint a year on 8NP? They thought declination was a constant, when it really wasn't. (they didn't know it changed over time) So, what degree would that 8NP be today?

Beth

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

[A ring,from a archaeology site in the Great Lakes area dated 1674-1707.
Didn't we cover this before?
Did you find an exact date,Joe?]

Sorry my friend, you will need to give me a bigger nudge than that.

Oops, I guess you were going back to Jacobo Sedelmayr........

I did not go any farther than what Dunne wrote:

"so far as this writer knows, this is the first time that the following four documents have been translated into English and published. For all but his diary of the expedition to the Yumas, this is the first time that they have ever been offered in print at all. It is true that the Relacion, as the most important historically, was translated into English by Dr. Ronald L. Ives in 1939 under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution. But this translation was made fron a recasting of the first original draft written for superiors two years earlier and dated 1744. Thhe 1746 draft intended for the Viceroy was rewritten and was changed both as to wording in certain places and as to order of presentation. It was this latter which was published in Spanish in the Documentos para la Historia de Mexido, seri III, pages 843-859, and translated into English by Dr. Ives. The second document hereinafter offered, Expedition to the Yumas, has also been published in Spanish in the same set, seri IV, tomo I, pages 18-25. Here also has been presented one of Sedelmayr's letters to his Rector, Echeverria, dated from Tubutama, March 20, 1747. See the Documentos, series III, pages 841-842........"

This goes on for another page, with additional dates. I know nothing about previous publications, other than what Dunne has written in his introduction. When I said: "That's a somewhat convoluted answer to post here.", I meant it was convoluted for me. It may very well be perfectly clear to everyone else.

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

On that Sacred Heart - I don't think we can absolutely pin that to any Order alone.

Early devotion
From the time of John the Evangelist and Paul of Tarsus there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, but there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries of Christianity, any worship was rendered to the wounded Heart of Jesus.[3] It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that the first indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart are found. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or who were its first devotees. It was already well known to St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the Vitis mystica (previously ascribed to St. Bernard, now attributed to St. Bonaventure).

From the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, the devotion was propagated but it did not seem to have developed in itself. It was everywhere practised by individuals and by different religious congregations, such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carthusians, etc. It was, nevertheless, a private, individual devotion of the mystical order. Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, except for similarities found in the devotion to the Five Wounds by the Franciscans, in which the wound in Jesus's heart figured most prominently.

In the sixteenth century, the devotion passed from the domain of mysticism into that of Christian asceticism. It was established as a devotion with prayers already formulated and special exercises, found in the writings of Lanspergius (d. 1539) of the Carthusians of Cologne, the Louis of Blois (Blosius; 1566), a Benedictine and Abbot of Liessies in Hainaut, John of Avila (d. 1569) and St. Francis de Sales, the latter belonging to the seventeenth century.

The historical record from that time shows an early bringing to light of the devotion. Ascetic writers spoke of it, especially those of the Society of Jesus. The image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches.

<Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart>

....So yes, the sacred Heart was a symbol (and is) for the Jesuits, and Franciscans, Dominicans, Carthusians, etc.
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Joe,

You are mistaken. That is an original frontispiece. The information was also verified by my Jesuit Friend at Georgetown.

What Father Polzer stated was that the Jesuits didn't officially adopt the Sacred Heart until the late 18th Century. That is actually true...........kind of. HAHAHA

Another reason the Jesuits adopted the Sacred Heart were the visions of St Alacoque.

Here is part of the text of an email reply to my question about the Sacred Heart to my Jesuit Friend at Georgetown University:

Certainly, the great turning point in Jesuit use of Sacred Heart symbolism was after the Society recognized the apparitions of the "Sacred Heart" to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (d.1690). She had a Jesuit confessor, Claude de la Colombiere....but it took the church and the Jesuits a while to accept them. However, there were earlier precedents....look at the article on McBrien's Encyclopedia of Catholicsm. Jesuit in the early 17th century, before Margaret Mary, where using the symbol in their "emblem books," = high class meditation books with illustrations. The Society appropriated it in full force, however, only in the 19th century.... I hope that helps. jwo

As my friend stated to me "hope this helps"

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

"it's possible that's not the first edition cover."

"On the other hand, that may very well be the original cover and you have made the point."

If those comments are wrong, than I guess I'm mistaken.

Thanks for the information.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning Jim: Since I have been shot twice, I might as well go for the third.

There is no contest in the Jesuits being at head of the state of the Art in Celestial Navigation and the sciences of mathematics, but they could only work with the tools and knowedge of their times.

Accurate timekeepers were not available until the late 1700. or early 1800's. To establish longitude, time was crucial in those days. It was used to establish the difference in time between your position and Greenwich. this gave you your basis for your longitude.

Until the advent of the Sextant, the then used angular measuring tools were just not that accurate.

They established an observatory in Peking, China in the 1600 / 1700's which rapidly became a center of celestial observations. They then proceeded to measure the location of various cities in China and India, also the land areas of both countries.

Considering the task, and their tools, they did remarkably well. Their final errors ran from only 2 degrees to ,45 minutes.

I presume that I don't have to convert those errors into land measurements for you, but for those that are not acquainted with this, 2 degrees = 60 miles. .45 minutes = 27 miles.

In WW-2 we were doing fairly good if we could locate ourselves within !/2 mile at sea.

If we apply that error to the superstitions and the stone maps --hmmmmm?

Simple triangular measurements, perhaps. However if this was done, and you have the key , may I ask just why ----------?? hmmm

Of course the basic question for me is "if so, why so unnecessarily complicated with unusable measurements?

Incidentally, I am willing to try for that third shot, what evidence do you have for your remarks about sophisticated measurements being incorporated / established in the Stone maps

Don Jose de La Mnacha

 

[Springfield]

I wonder, everyone who talks about the Peralta Stones, talks about the 8NP.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that magnetic declination drift was not even a factor until 1903 - how would they have known about it in 1767? They didn't - they couldn't have.

I mean - Columbus knew about magnetic declination - but it was not until 1903-1906 (depending on if you are talking about the discovery or the proof), that the declination changed from century to century.

In 1767, they did not know that it would be different from year to year. So, how would be able to pinpoint a year on 8NP? They thought declination was a constant, when it really wasn't. (they didn't know it changed over time) So, what degree would that 8NP be today?

Beth

Beth, while it's true that the declination charts we are familiar with weren't available until 'modern' times, you can be sure that the concept was known and compensated for by chartists for many hundreds of years, if not millenia. It's a simple matter to determine true north/south at any latitude that human activity is prevalent, and just as simple to adjust for the reading there obtained from a magnetic compass. All 'professionally' prepared maps and sea charts were aligned to true north no matter what the declination happened to be in the year they were prepared. Errors were generally do to the difficulty in determining longitude, not direction.

The 'treasure map' debates, true vs magnetic vs year of declination, etc., turn out to be irrelevant in most cases (except 'mom & pop' crude maps which generally have errors of scale and geometry even greater than a few degrees of declination anyway). Why? Because a well-prepared 'treasure map', a real treasure map, was probably prepared by an educated person and definitely originally aligned to the cardinal points. The kicker is that these charts were then often rotated, all or parts of the map, at an arbitrary angle meant to deceive. This angle has often been mistaken for the magnetic declination. The amount of the arbitrary angle has also been known to appear on the map itself in some coded manner known only to the mapmaker and his confederates. These people were very clever, whoever they were (are) - moreso than us in many ways. The intent was to document and deceive.

 

[Springfield]

..... Hmm, well I don't think the Franciscan presence in colonial Arizona is fantasy amigo. ....
Oroblanco

Beginning with Fr Marcos de Niza in 1539.