Tumacacori Mission Mines RE: Sister Micaela Molina Document

[cactusjumper]

Paul,

It was interesting to read, but newspapers of that era provided a steady diet of that kind of story.

I have quoted Di Peso a number of times here, but he provides a great source for the early history of Tumacacori and the Pima Indians. You can search "rare books", if you would like your own copy, or try to find it in some local libraries. It's a bit pricey to purchase, but great to have in your collection. Leather bound is around $300, but I have seen paper backs for under $150. To say it's worth the money is, IMHO, an understatement.

In the opinion of many of his peers, he locates the original Tumacacori in the wrong place, but the body of his historical work is unmatched........in my opinion. That and $5 will get you an average cup of coffee these days.

I will get back to you on this, next week.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Paul,

It was interesting to read, but newspapers of that era provided a steady diet of that kind of story.

I have quoted Di Peso a number of times here, but he provides a great source for the early history of Tumacacori and the Pima Indians. You can search "rare books", if you would like your own copy, or try to find it in some local libraries. It's a bit pricey to purchase, but great to have in your collection. Leather bound is around $300, but I have seen paper backs for under $150. To say it's worth the money is, IMHO, an understatement.

In the opinion of many of his peers, he locates the original Tumacacori in the wrong place, but the body of his historical work is unmatched........in my opinion. That and $5 will get you an average cup of coffee these days.

I will get back to you on this, next week.

Take care,

Joe

Hola amigos,

This is yet another long-winded post, so I have to beg your indulgence again. Thank you in advance, and my apologies for not being able to put this into just a few words.

Interesting, that our amigo Joe <Cactusjumper> quickly dismisses those old newspaper accounts as so much fiction, without offering any grounds for classifying them that way. It sounds very similar to, and likely is referring to the very same article posted earlier - it ran in a number of newspapers. Within the reports we find no magic crystals, ghosts or cursed mountains, so I fail to see what grounds support the contention that they must be fiction.

There have been reports of 'secret' and/or illicit Jesuit mining operations about as early as there have been Jesuits active in the New World, which was even reported to the monarchies of Europe as a part and parcel of the accusations of Jesuit hi-jinx in the colonies. If we were to accumulate all of the reports of Jesuit mines in a single volume, it would amount to quite a large volume. This represents a rather long history of "fiction" - which by its very age in years, suggests that it is not fiction at all. Were it all truly fictional, by rights this age-old story of Jesuit mines ought to have dried up and blown away, like the reports of Unicorns that passed around civilization prior to the 'Age of Discovery' with the animals always existing in the far-off distant and un-explored lands. Yet there are Unicorns, even today - they are the single-horned Asian rhinos, as pointed out by Megasthenes and Marco Polo; so even those silly fairy tales of animals something like a horse, with a horn on its head, that was enemy to Elephants, was just a garbled transmission of real animals. I would say that our centuries-old traditions of Jesuit mines are not so different from the tales of Unicorns - that the "legends" are due to actual mining activities, operated illicitly in most cases (with the singular exception of Matape-Tecoripa) and deliberately hidden by the Jesuits due to troubles with Indians, impending expulsions, and the chances of having those mines taken away from them by the civil authorities. As for the Jesuits having "treasures" even father Och used that term, " The cathedral church possesses an exceedingly rich treasure in its gold and silver church appointments." Solid silver and gold, fall into the very category of what treasure hunters seek.

Joe I am not enthusiastic about attacking scholars or the work of scholars, but your repeated references to Charles Di Peso and his proposed location of San Cayetano de Tumacacori as well as his version of the history of Pimeria sort of forces me to do this. You mentioned that Di Peso's own peers pretty well dismiss his site for Tumacacori, on several grounds; one of the most important being that dating tests showed his site, now known as Paloparado, is from an earlier time period. An OSL test came up with a date of 900 AD, and 890 to 1250 AD. There are also human burials in the residential areas, which argues against Paloparado being the original Tumacacori.

Di Peso turned his attention to the controversial Acambaro figurines, (which included anachronistic dinosaur-like figures) and claimed to have minutely examined the entire collection (at the time over 32,000 figures) within not more than four hours spent at the home of Waldemar Jurlsrud whom had the collection at the time. That means he was minutely examining some 133 pieces per minute, over four hours. Does that sound like a careful examination, or a rather sloppy bit of research?

Di Peso may well be a great historian and excellent reference, but his work may not be quite so meticulous or un-biased as it could be.

Now I am certainly no scholar, just a simple prospector/treasure hunter, and find it a little bit funny when some of us go to the extremes of contacting various scholars for the purpose of settling an internet forum debate. It is helpful to be sure, but considering that not all of us have a circle of friends that includes ranks of published historians, museum curators etc it seems a bit unfair. You can certainly find plenty of historians whom will agree that there never were any Jesuit mines or treasures, however I respectfully disagree. In researching anything historical in nature, the oldest sources are most often the most accurate. The oldest sources surrounding the Jesuits, have repeated reports of illicit Jesuit mining activities and of amassing great wealth; the fact that the Church was found to own over half of the country of Mexico on the Jesuit expulsion, that the Jesuits had large herds of livestock, and had been involved in just about every type of commercial and agricultural venture <an impressive amount of capital, especially considering that many of the missions failed to even turn a profit> certainly doesn't help dismiss the mining accusations; especially when we have examples where the Jesuits were mining as admitted by father Polzer, the example at Matape found by Mr West, the rude (and brief) placer mining of copper by father Och, the record in Cananea, Pozos, etc. Were this a criminal case, and the defendant denied all criminal activity but we find actual records of SOME, along with a plethora of other reports, would we continue to maintain that criminal to be innocent, regardless of everything?

Gollum pointed out that the Jesuits were ordered to keep all communications about "secret" things, secret, or in code. Why should anyone expect then, to find incriminating records available to the public? Yet even so, such records of Jesuit mining activities are mentioned repeatedly by early treasure hunters. To the detriment of history, those early treasure hunters had no qualms about just taking any documents they discovered that might help them in their quest. For example;

La Cumbre District
The District of La Cumbre de San Manuel commonly referred to locally as La Cumbre is situated at the Southwest end of the San Juan valley in the municipal section of San Juan Nepomuceno. The mines in this district have an interesting history having been operated by the Jesuit fathers. There is a tradition in the district that when the Jesuits abandoned the mines they sealed up a number of the workings which have never been entered since. This is not at all improbable inasmuch as the Jesuits expected to return to the country at some future time. It is stated that the records of the mining operations of the Jesuits are still kept in Alamos Sonora and I understand these records are now being searched and those parts of interest are being translated.
<The proceedings of the Colorado Scientific Society, 1905, 1906, 1907 Volume 8 By Colorado Scientific Society, Denver 1908; Notes on Mining Conditions in and a Section Across the Sierra Madre Mountains in Mexico by AW Warwick pp153>

This is just one example, that parallels the newspaper account in which the Jesuit padre found records of the old mines. These records we may as well admit, have vanished. The fact that such records cannot be turned up on the click of a mouse today, does not prove the records did not exist formerly, and some examples may still exist in archives which we do not have ready access to. (I have my fingers crossed on the Portuguese national archives, at present it is not even indexed.) The fact that we have a number of articles that refer to actual records of Jesuit mines, certainly points to the fact that there WERE such records.

I had tossed out a name of a Jesuit of some standing, with the surname of Molina; half expecting someone to raise an issue with it. Luis de Molina penned a doctrinal defense of the institution of slavery, basing his arguments on scripture, moral and civil law. To be sure there were a handful of Jesuits who stood against slavery, but in two cases the Jesuits were quickly recalled from the New World and even those who did issue statements against slavery, were in some cases themselves owners of slaves and operators of slave-plantations. The African slaves were brought in to replace the Amerindian workers (un-paid, forced labor, by people whom were not free to leave the missions) so really Infosponge had hit the nail on the head by pointing out there is little difference between Amerindian forced labor and African slave labor. We could carry the comparison even further; slaves from Africa were bought and sold as chattel (property); Amerindians were likewise traded, willed etc as "encomendio" - certain amounts of forced labor, per village, or per tribe, for so many months per year. The mission Amerindians were not quite on the same basis as African slaves, but not far different either.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

The description of Tumacacori, as it was written in the article, did not exist in Father Kino's time, or any other Jesuit before the expulsion. I suppose I should have said something along those lines, but it seemed an obvious error on the writer's part.
Historically, the article is fiction. The description is from the Franciscan era.

I do not have access to my books, but believe that is fact.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

The description of Tumacacori, as it was written in the article, did not exist in Father Kino's time, or any other Jesuit before the expulsion. I suppose I should have said something along those lines, but it seemed an obvious error on the writer's part.
Historically, the article is fiction. The description is from the Franciscan era.

I do not have access to my books, but believe that is fact.

Take care,

Joe

Well, then you would change your classification, if the reporter had simply put in "Franciscan" rather than Jesuit? Perhaps you missed a detail or two in that article; he said he found the old mine in the area of the Wandering Jew mine, which is in the Santa Ritas; the very same region where the Robles expedition in 1817 found old mines and brought out nice silver, and the same region where the Salero mine was later worked by Franciscans. It would be correct to use either Jesuit or Franciscan when referring to that particular group of mines, at least for some of them. As for the mission - can we say that nothing was brought from the old (original) San Cayetano de Tumacacori to the new San Jose de Tumacacori? Who owned the lands where the Franciscan mission was built, when they obtained it?

The other newspaper article which parallels this example, describes the location of the "small mission" as "well up in the hills" which you likewise took issue with; perhaps the newspaper editors did not know the actual mission location, or perhaps the other version had it correct, it would not be out of keeping with normal Catholic practice to build a small 'visita' church very close to mine workings in any case.

Newspaper articles commonly contain simple and basic errors, and yet get the 'gist' of the story being reported correct.
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Still waiting to hear from Lamar on his request of Mrs Olson, but have a bit more to add - one that just about slipped past me.

Remember the instance found by Mr West, in which Jesuits were working silver mines?

<It is posted in this thread further up on this page, however for the benefit of our readers whom are not actively posting here it is again>
"In at least one documented case, the relationship between missionaries and miners in connection with food supply resulted in a singular activity on the part of the priests. Mining in sonora was not limited entirely to lay Spaniards. The Jesuits of Matape mission also engaged in the extraction and refining of silver ores from deposits near Tecoripa, not far from San Miguel Arcangel. According to the rules of the Jesuit order, priests were forbidden to own, operate, or even knowledge of mining. But apparently ownership of the mines in question had been signed over to the mission by a Spanish miner in payment for debts he incurred for supplies obtained from the padres. Moreover, the priests claimed that the mines belonged to the College of San Jose at Matape, not to the mission itself, and thus the superiors permitted continuation of the "forbidden" activity. During the late seventeenth century, annual proceeds from the Tecoripa mines under church management ranged from three thousand to twelve thousand pesos, a substantial windfall for the college and the missionaries. "
<Sonora: its geographical personality by Robert Cooper West, pp 62>

This happens to be the same area where African slaves were introduced, and the mines so glaringly omitted by father Nentvig; is this the only case where a Jesuit college held title to mines?

"Some capital was also placed in non-agricultural enterprises. The most significant were the mines which provided the sole support of the college of Zacatecas.<snip>
This occurred, for example, in the case of the mines belonging to the college of Zacatecas. The assessors appraised them in 1773 and gave them a value of 365,000 pesos but because of renewed vigor in the mining industry in Zacatecas, the officials conducted a reappraisal in 1780 and increased their value to 730,000 pesos."
<The Wealth of the Jesuits in Mexico, 1670-1767 Author(s): James D. Riley; Source: The Americas, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1976), pp. 226-266 Published by: Catholic University of America Press on behalf of Academy of American Franciscan History pp 243, 245>


Did you catch it? Riley tells us that the college of Zacatecas sole source of income was its MINES. The mines mentioned by Mr West, are not the same mines - they belonged to the college of San Jose at Matape! This means there are at least two documented cases of Jesuit colleges which owned and operated MINES. Whom do we think was doing that labor, in those mines? Hired Spanish workers, or do you think perhaps it could have been the local Indios?

Just for good measure, I will add this - the author James Riley also stated, quote
"The Jesuits had three kinds of investments, urban rental property, interest bearing notes, and commercial ventures such as haciendas, mines, obrajes and retail stores which they exploited themselves."
<ibid, pp 242>

Also, before this idea is proposed - NO, I don't believe we can attribute those two instances admitted to by father Polzer in which priests were found involved in mining, for the way he phrased it, implied they were individual priests, not a group of mines owned by Jesuit colleges. I am confident that if father Polzer was talking about mines owned by Jesuit colleges, there would have been no reason for the priests to be punished in any way.

Considering that this report of a second group of mines belonging to a Jesuit college, originates from a Catholic publisher, I don't think we can dismiss it as so much fiction from the imagination of treasure writers. It is interesting too, that in each case where an historian discovers an instance of Jesuit mines, they presume it to be a SINGULAR occurrence! Still think this topic and the evidence of Jesuit mining only qualifies for a VERY small hat?
Oroblanco

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I really have to ask - CJ, and for most who are on here.

Why is it that, if someone pulls a "writing" that agrees with their point of view, then it is "proof positive". If you take the exact same book, with something that doesn't agree with what someone thinks, then the writer must have made a mistake?

Come on now - this is ridiculous, at best. Written history is written history - especially when written by folks who's entire lives have been dedicated
to historical studies, or specific subjects.

Tossing things away, out of hand, because it does not agree with something else you've read, is never a good idea. Unless you are just looking for things to prove what conclusions you have already made - then all proof is suspect, including your own.

Beth

 

[cactusjumper]

Good morning Beth,

Since you primarily addressed your question to me, I assume you must believe I form my opinions on a single source. If that were true, I would still believe in Jesuit treasure/mining.....etc. I could easily reverse your statement and ask you why you believe this single article proves your point. Kinda silly, isn't it?

I take the weight of the evidence and let that guide me towards my eventual conclusions. There are so many things wrong about that article, that you would get bored before you could read it all. I have no problem with you or anyone else believing those articles. After all, I would have been making the same claims a number of years ago. I can see your side of the debate easily, but you have no tolerance for mine.

"Come on now - this is ridiculous, at best. Written history is written history - especially when written by folks who's entire lives have been dedicated to historical studies, or specific subjects."

Is that how you see the authors of those two articles?

You seem to take pleasure in putting me, and my opinions, in a box that makes you comfortable. The only person's opinions that could ever be proven true, are yours. Don't believe that has happened yet, but it remains possible.

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Joe,

I certainly do not think you form conclusions on a single article. However, I do see you forming instant conclusions ABOUT single articles - and quite quickly.

I addressed it first to you, because, I know you have many books, etc., in your own collection, and I'm sure many others you have read. But, the
question does not pertain JUST to you.

How do you decide one article is a work of fiction? Or a newspaper article is there "just because they wrote a lot of that stuff back then" I see you, and many others, take a piece of work, take part out and throw it away as bunk, and then take some of it and say - oh, that's right. That's not
a case of learning, that is a case of finding evidence to support your decision (again, the "your" is you+ others).

I'm not sure how one can do that - just because something is said many, many times, of course does not make it true. So it is that a "rare" find, does not make it correct, either. I have addressed this to Roy, also.

Is my English bad? I ask because you seem to twist everything I say into some random conclusion, and making it a question or statement I did not make. If this is the case, I need for you to explain to me how to write things differently, so that you will actually understand the statement or question I am making. Should I make my posts into one sentence-at-a-time? Or make my sentences shorter? I just want to make sure that you,
or anyone else, is not "making a conclusion" of what I am saying.

This trait, bothers me, especially if you do it when you read articles and books. It makes it difficult for me to discern exactly how much is what is written, and how much is conjecture.

I would hate to say "the sky is blue" and have you think that I said "you cannot see the sky". So - need help.

Beth

 

[cactusjumper]

Beth,

Why no.......I suppose your understanding of English is probably better than mine. If I could just express my thoughts better, many misunderstandings would be avoided. I will try to do better in the future.

"Tossing things away, out of hand, because it does not agree with something else you've read, is never a good idea. Unless you are just looking for things to prove what conclusions you have already made - then all proof is suspect, including your own."

I believe I have mentioned before, that it is the description of the "ruins" that raise the red flag for me. I have read a great deal about Tumacacori, and that includes accounts from just after the rebellion, when it was abandoned, as well as more modern accounts. I would agree with your statement, most especially the "your own" part.

I question my "proof" and conclusions all the time. How do you think I turned around my belief that Jesuits did and were all the things you believe? I did not go into those years of research hoping to find what I did. I did it hoping to strengthen my existing conclusions.
I did it with an open mind, which is how I believe all such questions should be approached. You are not seeking what you want to find, you are looking for the truth. Since you don't know me, you may believe that or not.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

<Mrs Oroblanco wrote>

I really have to ask - CJ, and for most who are on here.

Why is it that, if someone pulls a "writing" that agrees with their point of view, then it is "proof positive". If you take the exact same book, with something that doesn't agree with what someone thinks, then the writer must have made a mistake?

Come on now - this is ridiculous, at best. Written history is written history - especially when written by folks who's entire lives have been dedicated
to historical studies, or specific subjects.

Tossing things away, out of hand, because it does not agree with something else you've read, is never a good idea. Unless you are just looking for things to prove what conclusions you have already made - then all proof is suspect, including your own.

Well yes I am guilty of this practice, of posting only the evidence which supports the contention that there were in fact Jesuit mines and treasures, but in my defence I am working from the precept that if there truly were no Jesuit mines or treasures, we must not find any evidence of them. I have a number of sources which claim there were no Jesuit mines or treasures, but since these simply reiterate the old claims that there is no evidence therefore there were none, and that Polzer for example is a Jesuit source, their arguments are of no substance. Also in almost every instance, these sources which deny any and all Jesuit mining/treasures are modern. As much as it might appear that I am just ignoring the various sources which state there never were any Jesuit mines or treasures, I do take them very seriously - it is in trying to reconcile the clear contradictions that doesn't get posted.

The Jesuit apologists hold that there never were any Jesuit mines or treasures; claiming that it is a "Southwestern literature genre" based on fantasy of treasure writers and - or stories made up to increase tourism. For this to be true, there should be NO evidence of ANY mining or treasures of the Jesuits. So let us look at a summation, just for Mexico mind you, not referring to a considerably larger body of evidence available in the rest of Latin America;

• The Jesuit California Mission Fund owned mines
• The Jesuit college of Zacatecas owned mines
• The Jesuit college of San Jose of Matape owned mines
• The Jesuit college of Leon, purchased the Mina de los Remedios in 1731*
• Father Polzer admitted of two instances in which priests had become involved in mining
  
• The mining registry of Cananea reportedly shows mining started there by Jesuits
  
• Pozos proudly displays their Jesuit furnaces and treasure blockhouse
• Father Och told the story of his bit of placer copper mining
  
• The Jesuits were in many instances the pioneer prospectors of the frontier regions
  

*<source Wealth of the Jesuits in Mexico, cited in previous post>

Can you say "Tip of the iceberg"? Finding the evidence of Jesuit mines and mining is a bit like a mini-treasure hunt. We might wonder why, so many modern historians have not found the records of Jesuit mines *and treasures* - in the case of Jesuit historians, it is quite understandable, just as Father Nentvig failed to take note of the silver mines of the Matape mission. The Jesuits are and were, a somewhat secretive organization. Where do we find any records of any kind of wrongdoing by Jesuit priests? Father Lavalette, padre of the Jesuit mission in Martinique, "took the bullet" and full blame for the massive loss of revenue that led to lawsuits and a chain reaction that resulted in the expulsion of the Jesuits from France and French colonial territories. To my eye, that looks like he was made the 'patsy'.

I would say too, that one probable reason why modern historians have been failing to find records of Jesuit mines and mining, is that they have not been searching for them. Their purpose has been to research and record history, not focused on the topic of Jesuit mining activities. It has been pointed out before - our debate over this topic is sort of a 'tempest in a teacup' insofar as academia is concerned, for they are <generally speaking> not concerned with such things as lost mines and buried treasures except when a famous historical personage is directly involved as in the tomb of Genghiz Khan or the tomb of Alexander. A rather primitive silver or gold mine, located off in the hinterlands of Arizona or Sonora, which likely has had little to no mention in official documents, has as little interest to an historian as the trading records of a fur buyer at a Wind River rendezvous. So lets not start throwing too many stones at our historians, their task is just not focused on lost treasures and mines that are difficult to document and would take up overmuch of their valuable time. Worse, it would be risky for the career of an historian, to publish anything that IS focused on lost treasures (Jesuit or otherwise) due to the overall negative view on it by the members of academia.

That we can find such instances of recorded Jesuit mines should indicate that we are only getting a part of the story - these mines are most probably openly owned and recorded in mining registries for the various provinces; mines being operated in the wild regions of Pimeria or other frontier places would not be recorded in mining registries. Nentvig even mentions a mine that was being operated wholly outside of the laws, and also mentioned the presence of mines near Guevavi which were not being worked. Can we name those silver and one gold mines near Guevavi, which Nentvig obviously knew about and were not being worked in 1764? The current Park Service view would have us believe there are no such mines.

<For our readers, here is the relevant statement from father Nentvig>
"There are several silver mines and one gold mine in the vicinity of Guebavi, but they are not being worked."
<from Rudo Ensayo, cited elsewhere in this thread>

If there were mines, there were precious metals produced; clearly some of the metals went into decorating and ornamenting the various mission churches and visitas in Mexico and elsewhere, but what did they do with the remainder? Smuggling was a major activity in the whole of Latin America from the earliest conquistadors and right up to today; if anyone is expecting to find actual records of smuggled precious metals, whether shipped by Jesuits or a Spanish entrepreneur, it will be a long and forlorn wait! In the Molina document, like with the Tayopa inventory document, we have either complete falsehoods (hoax) or some rendition of real documents that represent a massive amount of treasures.

My apologies for yet another long-winded post, I hope you all have a pleasant evening.
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good evening Oro You posted --> It is stated that the records of the mining operations of the Jesuits are still kept in Alamos Sonora and I understand these records are now being searched and those parts of interest are being translated. [/b]
<The proceedings of the Colorado Scientific Society, 1905, 1906, 1907 Volume 8 By Colorado Scientific Society, Denver 1908; Notes on Mining Conditions in and a Section Across the Sierra Madre Mountains in Mexico by AW Warwick pp153>
************
I have spent hrs going over those records, but they only start from the 1900's. Earlier records are in Hermosillo

Ocampo served the Tayopa zone, north. I had a chance to go over some of them looking for the data on Los Remedios which had been denounced by Teter shortly after the revolution. When I arrived on a Friday all records had been packed in cardboard boxes ready to be sent to Chihuahua on Monday. I had 2 hrs to find it, I was successful, but inhaled almost a century of deteriorating paper dust. The records were sent, but have never been opened to the public. The excuse is that they are 'still' in the cardbard boxes, but no place has been authorized to put them, nor has any money been made available.

I wonder just how many similar records of the Jesuit mines have met the same fate? Perhaps some may survive in the record room of Tayopa, but the odds are against it, still one can hope.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Infosponge]

Good evening Oroblanco,

I have a number of sources which claim there were no Jesuit mines or treasures, but since these simply reiterate the old claims that there is no evidence therefore there were none, and that Polzer for example is a Jesuit source, their arguments are of no substance. Also in almost every instance, these sources which deny any and all Jesuit mining/treasures are modern.

Without a doubt it was Father Polzer’s calling to debunk any stories pertaining to lost missions, treasures, or mines of the Jesuits, in fact it is more or less stated as such in his and Burrus΄book titled “Kino’s Biography of Saeta.”


I love that part about him spending a year studying in there “vast treasures.”

Finding the evidence of Jesuit mines and mining is a bit like a mini-treasure hunt. We might wonder why, so many modern historians have not found the records of Jesuit mines *and treasures*

They have found them and they do exist, but they have been "un-appropriately" or shall I say "conveniently" labeled and swept under the carpet so to speak. Nobody likes to air their dirty laundry, one just needs to know where to look in order to find it.

It has been pointed out before - our debate over this topic is sort of a 'tempest in a teacup' insofar as academia is concerned, for they are <generally speaking> not concerned with such things as lost mines and buried treasures except when a famous historical personage is directly involved as in the tomb of Genghiz Khan or the tomb of Alexander.

I couldn't agree with you more about the academia. My past experiences of dealing with the learned academia, has shown me for the most part what they have learned more than anything else is to close their minds eye. Remember, “although none are so blind as those who will not see, none are so deaf as those who will not hear.”

Nentvig even mentions a mine that was being operated wholly outside of the laws, and also mentioned the presence of mines near Guevavi

Ah Guevavi. A classic case of the learned academia refussing to see, or outright push aside the evidence they themselves uncovered. It appears from the archaeology reports that the present day ruins of Guevavi, were in fact setup or used as foundry. Complete with an ore crusher and smelter. In fact the evidence in the reports is overwhelming, but the archaeologists were not trained nor looking for anything to do with a foundry, they were expecting to find typical mission artifacts. What they found was anything but!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Springfield]

.....
Oro said:

It has been pointed out before - our debate over this topic is sort of a 'tempest in a teacup' insofar as academia is concerned, for they are <generally speaking> not concerned with such things as lost mines and buried treasures except when a famous historical personage is directly involved as in the tomb of Genghiz Khan or the tomb of Alexander.

I couldn't agree with you more about the academia. My past experiences of dealing with the learned academia, has shown me for the most part what they have learned more than anything else is to close their minds eye. Remember, “although none are so blind as those who will not see, none are so deaf as those who will not hear.”....

Sincerely,
Infosponge

I saw yet another example of academic stonewalling this past week in Alexandria, MN, when I personally viewed the Kensington Runestone. The stone was immediately labeled a hoax after it was discovered wrapped in tree roots by an immigrant farmer clearing his field in 1898. Despite contemporary and recent geological analysis and opinions by respected scientists which verify the weathering of the engravings, the early judgement of a well-known linguist that the grammar was 'wrong' has continued to trump the entire issue. Even with a smoking gun in hand, academia refuses to accept an historical anomaly - proof that a Scandanavian expedition of discovery reached western Minnesota in 1362.

 

[gollum]

Yep,

Seen that a few times myself. My ex-wife is from Alexandria, MN.

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Infosponge wrote

Ah Guevavi. A classic case of the learned academia refussing to see, or outright push aside the evidence they themselves uncovered. It appears from the archaeology reports that the present day ruins of Guevavi, were in fact setup or used as foundry. Complete with an ore crusher and smelter. In fact the evidence in the reports is overwhelming, but the archaeologists were not trained nor looking for anything to do with a foundry, they were expecting to find typical mission artifacts. What they found was anything but!

Thank you for posting that extract, Infosponge - I don't have that article "Lost Treasures..etc" by father Polzer, only a few extracts from it. It is interesting that Burrus chose that phrase to describe the archives though, and I have to wonder why father Polzer seems to have missed the records of Jesuit-owned mines which were a matter of official record, like los Remedios.

There is little doubt that Guevavi was a refining center - for mines which were not far away. As we know the population of Guevavi was very largely Indians, whom was working those mines, that were processed and refined at the mission? Spanish miners would have had to record their mines (denounce) and these records might survive today, as they do for many other mines of Sonora. Guevavi also brings to mind another little point that has helped to keep Jesuit mining 'off the radar', a footnote found in Rudo Ensayo is enlightening and may change how we look at the lists of properties owned by the Jesuits, that the term "hacienda" may be applied not only to agricultural properties but also to refining and assaying plants! Those lists of properties owned by the Jesuits include a number of "haciendas" and some are in mining districts - trying to determine which were agricultural and which were refining plants would entail quite an investigation in itself, but it is certain that we are not getting the whole picture of Jesuit mining and smelting operations.

Don Jose, el gringo de la Mancha wrote

Good evening Oro You posted --> It is stated that the records of the mining operations of the Jesuits are still kept in Alamos Sonora and I understand these records are now being searched and those parts of interest are being translated.
<The proceedings of the Colorado Scientific Society, 1905, 1906, 1907 Volume 8 By Colorado Scientific Society, Denver 1908; Notes on Mining Conditions in and a Section Across the Sierra Madre Mountains in Mexico by AW Warwick pp153>
************
I have spent hrs going over those records, but they only start from the 1900's. Earlier records are in Hermosillo

Ocampo served the Tayopa zone, north. I had a chance to go over some of them looking for the data on Los Remedios which had been denounced by Teter shortly after the revolution. When I arrived on a Friday all records had been packed in cardboard boxes ready to be sent to Chihuahua on Monday. I had 2 hrs to find it, I was successful, but inhaled almost a century of deteriorating paper dust. The records were sent, but have never been opened to the public. The excuse is that they are 'still' in the cardbard boxes, but no place has been authorized to put them, nor has any money been made available.

I wonder just how many similar records of the Jesuit mines have met the same fate? Perhaps some may survive in the record room of Tayopa, but the odds are against it, still one can hope

Isn't it strange, that even with mining properties which were openly owned and operated by the Jesuits, the relevant records are so difficult to obtain? As an aside, another mine purchased by a Jesuit college (la Cieneguilla) is fairly famous in its day, did you by any chance run across anything relevant to Cieneguilla?

If the records are stored in Tayopa, (and it is possible) perhaps we can start to fill in some of the holes in the early history. I know that according to 'legend', Tayopa was first discovered in 1603, and coincidentally Capt Hurdaide was leading a prospecting expedition in the area 1601-04. Also ran across a brief bit that might be interesting, that it was in fact first operated by Franciscans but their 'rule' of the local Indios was so harsh that they rebelled, and were replaced by Jesuits. <this reminds me, want to post in Tayopa>

Springfield wrote

I saw yet another example of academic stonewalling this past week in Alexandria, MN, when I personally viewed the Kensington Runestone.

Thank you for posting that photo amigo - and yes it is an excellent example of the widespread bias among academics against any kind of evidence that does not "fit" the accepted dogma. If not for the efforts of 'amateur historians' the Kensington Runestone, and many other historical things would remain swept under the proverbial rug.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning Oro, I forgot to mention that there are no records at Alamos any more, they have all been sent to Hermosillo. A very important factor to remember is that looking for a mine etc by name is futile basically, since the popular St names, and Tayopa, have been repeated endlessly. Only the expediente no is helpful. In the accompanying map of Chihuahua there are a couple of Tayopas, the true one is at he center left, next to the Sonora line.

Don Jose de La Mancha *el Tropical Tramp*

 

[Springfield]

.... Thank you for posting that photo amigo - and yes it is an excellent example of the widespread bias among academics against any kind of evidence that does not "fit" the accepted dogma. If not for the efforts of 'amateur historians' the Kensington Runestone, and many other historical things would remain swept under the proverbial rug.

Oroblanco

Here's another dustbunny under the rug that might interest you Oro: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

 

[cactusjumper]

Guy's,

When you consider the number of proven archaeological frauds that have taken place over the years, Charles Dawson, immediately comes to mind, is it any wonder that academia is reluctant to jump on any bandwagon that includes questionable artifacts?

Archaeologists seldom make definitive statements that could be negated by the next turn of the spade. Because they may be looking for supporting evidence, before changing their opinions, does not mean their opinions are written in stone, pardon the pun.

You, sitting in your place of public anonymity (for the most part) can afford to throw stones at the opinions of those who must place their opinions and conclusions before their peers, and a populace hungry for every new and unusual artifact that comes along.

As archaeologist, they are the professional watchdogs who's duty it is to stand between fraud and reality in their chosen field.
That certainly does not mean they are infallible, but I would much rather have them there to inform me, than be bowing down to the wonder of Piltdown Man.......

I feel the same way about history. I don't accept every theory that goes against the weight of historical opinion....out of hand. I like to examine it, as best I can, from every opinion and angle I can find, before forming a solid opinion, despite what has been written about me. Even when I am convinced that my conclusions are correct, there is always the possibility that the next turn of the spade/authentic document will prove me and others wrong.

There is nothing wrong with your questioning the conclusions and opinions of professional archaeologist's and historians, but you will forgive me if I do the same with your conclusions and opinions. After all, we are all brothers in doubt, in that respect.

Just one man's opinion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Guy's,

When you consider the number of proven archaeological frauds that have taken place over the years, Charles Dawson, immediately comes to mind, is it any wonder that academia is reluctant to jump on any bandwagon that includes questionable artifacts?

Archaeologists seldom make definitive statements that could be negated by the next turn of the spade. Because they may be looking for supporting evidence, before changing their opinions, does not mean their opinions are written in stone, pardon the pun.

You, sitting in your place of public anonymity (for the most part) can afford to throw stones at the opinions of those who must place their opinions and conclusions before their peers, and a populace hungry for every new and unusual artifact that comes along.

As archaeologist, they are the professional watchdogs who's duty it is to stand between fraud and reality in their chosen field.
That certainly does not mean they are infallible, but I would much rather have them there to inform me, than be bowing down to the wonder of Piltdown Man.......

I feel the same way about history. I don't accept every theory that goes against the weight of historical opinion....out of hand. I like to examine it, as best I can, from every opinion and angle I can find, before forming a solid opinion, despite what has been written about me. Even when I am convinced that my conclusions are correct, there is always the possibility that the next turn of the spade/authentic document will prove me and others wrong.

There is nothing wrong with your questioning the conclusions and opinions of professional archaeologist's and historians, but you will forgive me if I do the same with your conclusions and opinions. After all, we are all brothers in doubt, in that respect.

Just one man's opinion.

Take care,

Joe

"The next turn of the spade/historical document."

That is true Joe. For the most part. When I was at the Superstition Museum last weekend for the Stone Maps Picfest, I was talking to Greg Davis about them. He asked me what I believed, and I told him that although I believed they were authentic based on what I have seen to date, that since there is absolutely zero historical provenance for them, I have to also accept the possibility they are hoaxes. Greg's reply was "No historical provenance.......YET!" HAHAHA

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

["The next turn of the spade/historical document."

That is true Joe. For the most part. When I was at the Superstition Museum last weekend for the Stone Maps Picfest, I was talking to Greg Davis about them. He asked me what I believed, and I told him that although I believed they were authentic based on what I have seen to date, that since there is absolutely zero historical provenance for them, I have to also accept the possibility they are hoaxes. Greg's reply was "No historical provenance.......YET!" HAHAHA]

Interesting statement. Makes me wonder if there isn't hope for Jim's glue test.

Take care,

Joe