Tumacacori Mission Mines RE: Sister Micaela Molina Document

[Springfield]

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

That's a point well taken Joe. We have a long and growing list of isolated pranksters who have tried to fool the world with cooked up 'sensational discoveries' on a local level. These types of fraud are usually quickly and rightfully discredited, giving the prankster his '15 minutes' of notoriety and causing little or no damage to society at large. On a larger scale, we've seen downright conspiracies such as the Morman cult jimmying a number of artifacts and documents to further their cause - the damage done to a fairly large flock subject to interpretation based on your point of view. On a global level, a helluva bunch of humans have been affected by the WMD fraud, but as you inferred, 'history' is a dynamic rascal with a limited number of bedrock truths and an unlimited number of spins. We generally consume what we're fed. If corndogs are all that's on the menu, we probably won't be served sushi.

Concerning professional archaeologists, they will admit to you that they are caught between a rock and a hard place concerning, as you label them, 'questionable artifacts'. The obvious frauds usually discredit themselves, but the real puzzlers which also defy accepted dogma become hot potatoes that the archies ironically shun. I say 'ironically' because the very nature of their chosen profession is to get to the truth of such things. You may wish to call them 'watchdogs', but as an archy friend once admitted to me, too much energy going 'off center' is professional suicide. Rocking the boat has always invited ramifications.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Infosponge]

Good evening everyone,

This reply will be posted in two parts, mainly because I will be including too many images.

Cactusjumper, you stated the following:

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?

No wonder at all, I have to agree completely.

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.

I don't have a problem with this statement either, But I do have a problem when they do make definitive statements which appear to be based solely on written history. Such as evidence of any mining found at a mission site like Guevavi, must be from the post mission period, when in fact the evidence they themselves dig up suggests otherwise. I present to you some excerpts from the KIVA, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1976, titled "Mission Guevavi Excavations in the Convento" by William J. Robinson.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this statement goes against the written history. Here is another "alternative," maybe Guevavi was setup by the Jesuits as an refinery and a foundry cleverly disguised as a mission. Of course that has to be complete conjecture on my part with no evidence to back it up, right? Lets take a look, and see what you think. Here is the plan map of the so called Mission Guevavi site.

Please take note of the following: The area being discussed will include the rooms on the left hand side which are rooms 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and the courtyard. All of which is separated from the church building.



I can understand their initial assumptions of post mission mining activity because of the mixed strata levels at which they found ash and slag, and the recorded history of the rich slag being found at the missions being resmelted by some of the first Americans that came through the area. Which their reports seem to verify, but...




Not much here other than that so called "beehive oven," or could it possibly be a furnace for smelting ore? It kind looks like one of these from page 383 of the book titled "De Re Metallica."




Nothing definitive in that statement with words like "appear to relate," and "either occupation.".



What was that? Did I read that right? The crown of a brass bell which had failed during casting from the mission period! But how could that be? Wasn't all the ash and slag from the post mission period? Hmm.




That's it for part one, stay tuned for part two!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

This one is again a long one, my apologies again & I beg your indulgence;

Tropical Tramp wrote

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*

Thank you for the heads-up; the 'itinerary' for a visit to Old Mexico has been changing quite a bit, and any wasted side trips that could be safely avoided is appreciated. The names being used over and over (and often spelled in various ways) has been a problem; in the case of La Cieneguilla, I am not even certain that particular mine purchase is the 'famous' Cieneguilla or another one that just has the same name. It may not be possible to determine from where I am.

Springfield wrote

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

Thank you buddy, I do have that one <the Los Lunas Dekalogue> and it is quite a puzzler; even the site itself is mysterious and hints at ancient visitors. I had planned on making a visit there on our way here from AZ, but so many things went wrong (breakdowns) I had to put it off for another day. I can't finish my little 'project' on ancient visitors until I can spend a day there.

Cactusjumper wrote

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.
<snip>

I apologize for throwing stones, it is the result of a certain amount of frustration with our professional historians (academia) and the apparent resistance to even look at anything controversial. That resistance is understandable (as Springfield mentioned, it is risking career suicide to put your PHD on the line of something that could turn out to be another Piltdown man or Cardiff Giant) but there is hope. Also as Springfield noted, even a Phd can only make conclusions based on what they have seen (heard) and much that is associated with lost treasures / lost mines (Jesuit or otherwise) has the 'taint' of the fiction writers whom have added BS stories into the mix. Can you imagine what the reaction of academia would be, if some historian were to pen an article on Captain Kidd's buried treasure, even though there is an historical person of that name and his reference to it is a matter of court records? If my career would be put at risk by publishing such an article, I would sure have to think it over very carefully.

One more point that any historian must consider before authoring anything on Jesuit mines and treasures - it would be likely to arouse the ire of the Society of Jesus, which could lead to unforeseen repercussions. Being 'anonymous' as we are here (for anyone reading our discussion, my real name is Roy A. Decker) provides us with some insulation against any critical attacks from the members of academia, and also means that our evidence and conclusions carries virtually no weight as far as academia is concerned. I kind of doubt that the treasure legends sub-forum of an internet site is being followed by academia to any degree.

Infosponge - I find it rather remarkable that in the study you have shared with us, the experts have not made the simple connections - Nentvig even mentioned the mines around Guevavi, not ranches nor Indian villages being on the spot. The later Anglo prospectors hauling away wagon-loads of slag is mentioned by several early chroniclers of Arizona, so that slag was already there when Americans entered the arena. The mis-cast bell should be that 'smoking gun' to tell historians the mission of Guevavi was no cattle ranch or apple orchard!

I have only ever walked the actual site of Guevavi once in my life, (it was all posted 'keep out' the last time I visited, could not legally enter) and the site is interesting to say the least. I look forward to your next post!
Roy

 

[Oroblanco]

PS forgot to add this;

I found yet another Molina; a Father Jose Javier Molina SJ who penned a letter to governor Vildosola in 1741 from his mission in Tecoripa; the same location where the Jesuit college of San Jose owned silver mines. Another Molina was lieutenant goveror in Parral 1701-1714; <Juan Felipe Orozco y Molina> and a padre Molina who survived an Apache attack on the San Saba mission (famous for the lost San Saba silver mines) in 1758. A Molina also built a ship for the Jesuits in Baja CA, but I have not been able to find his first name. It looks like the name Molina was certainly not unknown in colonial Mexico. We may find Sister Micaela Molina yet!
Roy

 

[Springfield]

....I kind of doubt that the treasure legends sub-forum of an internet site is being followed by academia to any degree.....

Nearly all posters on this and similar forums are fishers for information, hoping that occasionally someone will share a tidbit or link that may be of some use to them. Even when the discussions get interesting, someone with proprietory source information will not share it online - everybody holds back the best stuff. I would guess that there are many more lurkers than posters. Authentic 'treasure hunters', not the armchair experts, may or may not look in, but have seldom posted in the past ten years. Academia is overwhelmingly absent.

 

[Infosponge]

Good morning,

I now present to you part two, with more excerpts from the KIVA, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1976, titled "Mission Guevavi Excavations in the Convento" by William J. Robinson.



Other than the presence of ash and slag, the only thing unusual here is the size and length of the room.



The only room with an apparent window.



Maybe it’s just me, but I have a bit of a problem here. The 11 pitted stones the same type of artifacts they found at floor level in room 5, are being associated with the post mining activity. The only problem with that is they found them under a half meter of strata, and at the same level as a crucifix and a musket ball?




And lets not forget the gouge bit was found at floor level along with the pitted stones in room 5.



Now here is where the archaeologist admit they have found something they could not interpret! The apparent window in room 9, which has a step down and four postholes. The only possible reason they could not interpret it would be they had never come across anything like that on a dig before, nor had they read about anything like that in any other archaeology reports. Another words, they were completely unfamiliar with what they were looking at.



For some strange reason I recognized it, which I will share with you a bit further on.




As far as interpreting what the window with the step down and four postholes might have been setup or used for, this was the icing on the cake. But once again if you hadn’t studied mining practices of old, you wouldn’t understand it, or put it together. It is a classic setup for an animal driven mechanically operated bellows system designed to force “fresh air” into a confined space such as a mineshaft, or in this case maybe a refinery? It is depicted on page 211 of the book titled “De RE Matallica.”



Now lets look at the plan map again.



Now keep in mind the door leading into room 3 from room 5 had been walled off, so the only door allowing access to rooms 3, 6, 7, and 9, was the door leading into room 7. The only room in the entire building with what they deemed to be a window was in room 9, with the only other means for air circulation being the draft created by the so called beehive oven in room 3. As far as I’m concerned, IMHO., the evidence is overwhelming that the Jesuits were smelting and casting metal at this site.

Then there is also this little tidbit.



We were able to be part of the park tour about ten years ago and the Parks tour guide informed us that the most recent excavations have yielded exactly what Robinson didn’t, more smelters, crushers, and lots of slag. But of course he went on to tell us “the smelters, crushers, and slag that were unearthed, had to be from post mission mining activities because history tells them the Jesuits did no mining. I enquired if any of the charcoal had been carbon dated in order to gain a definitive date, and the answer was no.

Cactusjumper, you stated the following:

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.

Of course I will forgive you, I hope you will do the same for me.

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Really - if they tested the glue - what would it really tell you?? Unless it is glue from before the stones were found and broken - duh, it would tell you absolutely nothing.

Beth

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Funny they wrote " yet we found no crushing or smelting equipment at the mission" - gee what is an arrastre? Isn't that a primitive tool for crushing hardrock ores? What kind of "beehive fireplace" is open at the top? Now I am wondering about those mysterious "fire pits" which were found on a bench just above the (proposed) site of San Cayetano de Tumacacori. Making charcoal for a smelter? Charcoal was 'the' fuel of choice as it burns hot and clean, better than most coals and used by most early smelting operations.

I have to wonder too about their decision to date the slag and obvious mining operations to after the mission period; Americans tend to have left plenty of JUNK around their operations - from tin cans to beer bottles, and unless these miners were teetotalers, whom did not buy or use anything that left junk behind.....then it is questionable whether the miners were Anglos from the mid 1800's at all.

Very interesting amigo Infosponge, I look forward to reading more!
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Are Indian slaves working in Jesuit gold and silver mines the only possible answers for the questions you pose? Could the slag that was found only come from the refinement of gold and silver ore? What does the (metalwork) evidence that was found suggest to you?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

Are Indian slaves working in Jesuit gold and silver mines the only possible answers for the questions you pose? Could the slag that was found only come from the refinement of gold and silver ore? What does the (metalwork) evidence that was found suggest to you?

Thanks,

Joe

Hola amigo,

I am breaking down your questions separately;
<you wrote>

Are Indian slaves working in Jesuit gold and silver mines the only possible answers for the questions you pose?

No, of course there are always other POSSIBLE answers; perhaps the slag/ashes were dumped there by visiting UFO's who were working silver and gold mines in the region, using primitive methods since they couldn't transport their advanced technologies over the vast distance of space to the planet they called home. Seriously, we have "legends" of Jesuits working mines in the region, we have mines which were found by early Spanish/Mexicans in the late 1810's which were already old and rich in silver, we have father Nentvig's mention of the silver and gold mines which were not being worked in 1764; we know that Jesuit colleges owned mines all over Mexico; and we have an old Jesuit mission which has lots of slag and ash, from which early Anglo prospectors hauled away many wagon loads of slag to sell since it still was rich in silver, not to mention the mis-cast bell. I would say the most probable conclusion is that Jesuits were mining and doing some smelting at the mission as this would explain all the other points quite well. Whether they used Indians as labor, we can only surmise, because they were using Indians to work at all other tasks, and we have the mention of father Och that he had his Indians gather mule-loads of placer copper for him, plus those pesky treasure legends which were gathered and (usually) published by treasure writers like John Mitchell.

<you also wrote>

Could the slag that was found only come from the refinement of gold and silver ore?

Slag could be from smelting/refining of ores, or from ironwork as at a blacksmith shop. The amounts of slag that generally accumulate at blacksmith shops is not a lot - (check out the one at Pinal to see an example) and these slags are (generally) not found to be carrying any kinds of precious metals; hence the early Anglos would not likely bother to gather up wagon loads of slag from a smithy, which would be high in silica, iron, and sulphur but with virtually nothing of value. I would think that one load would be enough to convince the prospector not to bother gathering it.

<you also wrote>

What does the (metalwork) evidence that was found suggest to you?

It is hard to make a lot of conclusions on the little I have seen thus far; the fact that virtually nothing of the American junk/trash that is always left at early American mining sites certainly does not support identifying the activities with Americans; however Mexican/Spanish operations often have little in the way of trash. How would you tell the difference between early Mexican and late Jesuit refuse? The crucifix is very interesting (and 'way cool' as they used to say) and would seem to point to our Jesuits, but many Mexicans wear or carry crosses (as do many people world-wide) so we can't make too much of that. If we include those four post-holes, I think we can safely conclude there was some kind of foundry/smelting operation going on, for no blacksmith would have had need of a bellows of that size; the largest "great bellows" I know of (for blacksmiths) was four feet long and almost three wide, but was hand-operated with a lever and mounted on two posts not four; the four post setup points to the huge bellows that were either water or animal powered, for running some kind of metal-melting foundry. The large amounts of slag, and that it still contained silver values when gathered by Anglos, indicate what was being smelted (silver-lead) and this would require a large bellows; likewise, it would also require good quantities of charcoal, which may be what those odd "fire pits" found at the other proposed Tumacacori site.

I will tell you one other thing, which apparently did not turn up and which tends to point more at Jesuit rather than some mystery Mexicans who slipped in between 1821 and 1845 un-documented; that is they found no lead bullets, no flints for guns, no powder horns, in other words nothing of early firearms. Can you imagine an American, Mexican or Spanish mining expedition, which would venture into hostile Indian country, and have no firearms? Now finding a 69 caliber round ball would not automatically rule out our padres either, the good fathers were not afraid to use firearms in an emergency either - but the lack of any kind of evidence that the operators of the Guevavi smelting/refining operations had firearms certainly doesn't support identifying the operators as Mexicans, Spaniards or Americans.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning Cactus Jumper deLuxe: Sorry for such a long delay in both this, and my personal reply to you. but I have been extremely busy on the semi annual mining taxes and reports.

You posted --> When you consider the number of proven archaeological frauds that have taken place over the years, ------
*************

I have found that it is extremely interesting that the major perpatrators are 'Archeologlists themselves', this includes burying uncomfortable OoP artifacts.. So much for peer review.

If this is being done with physical evidence, how many other data or documents, such as references to Jesuit mining, have also been buried?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Infosponge]

Good morning,

I believe in order for us to go forward a misnomer, or a misconception as to use of the word “mission” should be clarified. When referring to the "Jesuit mission," be it at Guevavi or else where, it is not specific to a "church," rather it is all encompassing to the entire effort. Such as the following: It was part of their mission at each mission site to teach Catechism to the Indians, it was part of their mission to setup a ranch and raise livestock, it was part of their mission to plant and harvest crops, and it was part of their mission to build a church at the chosen site for their mission. Therefore, it could be a misconception when one refers to something like "the Jesuits lost mission of Santa Isabel," which is claimed to be located in Baja, California. Most people automatically assume there is a church or a mission complex involved, which historian's such as Charles W. Polzer, S.J. claim no such mission ever existed. If the lost Jesuit mission of Santa Isabel does exist, then maybe it is nothing more than a site which was chosen and named Santa Isabel, and it was the Jesuits mission to hide their most valuable church treasures there in order to keep them out of the hands of the King of Spain. Or maybe its just another mission impossible!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Joe, what would you say is the explanation for Guevavi and the artifacts/evidence found there? Thank you in advance,
Roy

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Sponger: look for a book on their search for the lost mission of Santa Isabel by Dana & Ginger lamb, my original mentors.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,
I just wanted to add, that I forgot to acknowledge my debt to our amigo Cubfan (Paul) for his obtaining that article "The Wealth of the Jesuits in Mexico" for me, as I had no way to obtain a copy. In it was listed several of the mine holdings of Jesuit colleges, including Zacatecas and Leon as well as an impressive amount of real estate of various kinds. It is quite a 'smoking gun' as far as Jesuit-owned mines is concerned, and these mines were worked by Jesuits. I owe you one amigo Cubfan, hope I can repay your kindness some time.
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"Joe, what would you say is the explanation for Guevavi and the artifacts/evidence found there?"

Like everyone else, my explanation is a guess. The early missions were often located a great distance from new tools and hardware. In many cases the priests would create a foundry/blacksmith area to make the items they needed for the mission.

There were some priests who had enough knowledge to do the work, and train the natives to do it. In other cases, they hired a blacksmith. If they had a well run and prolific metal working shop, they would create metal items for other missions and sell their products to the local mines, ranches and civilian populations.

Anything you can think of that could be crudely made, such a hinges, window bars and tools, they made. Each mission had a need for such items and usually made or purchased them from others.

It's always possible they were refining gold or silver ore, but I believe the more mundane answer is probably the norm. What is known, and written, is what I have just provided. What does not have any reliable record, are the stories that they were refining precious metals.

Others may have another opinion......that's mine.

Take care,

Joe

 

[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

Mike,

I believe I will stick with my original statement.......that I believe the glue will never be tested. Now never is a pretty long time, so I may need to amend that to.....in our lifetime.

You have suggested a few times that we read "Pimas, Dead Padres and Gold". Like any good student, I have taken your advice. While many of the historical details are correct, the rest of the pamphlet style book would be classified as an historical novel. Pure speculation and fiction from a fertile mind.

Can I assume you don't consider it a "primary source" for your conclusions on Jesuit mining/treasure?

IMHO, the story just goes downhill from here:

Does that picture create any doubts as to the reliability of the story that follows? Anyone have an opinion?

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

One other thing about the book: In the map that comes with it, Tumacacori is shown on the west side of the Santa Cruz River. So much for all that meticulous historical research.

Just my opinion, so I could be wrong.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

"Joe, what would you say is the explanation for Guevavi and the artifacts/evidence found there?"

Like everyone else, my explanation is a guess. The early missions were often located a great distance from new tools and hardware. In many cases the priests would create a foundry/blacksmith area to make the items they needed for the mission.

There were some priests who had enough knowledge to do the work, and train the natives to do it. In other cases, they hired a blacksmith. If they had a well run and prolific metal working shop, they would create metal items for other missions and sell their products to the local mines, ranches and civilian populations.

Anything you can think of that could be crudely made, such a hinges, window bars and tools, they made. Each mission had a need for such items and usually made or purchased them from others.
It's always possible they were refining gold or silver ore, but I believe the more mundane answer is probably the norm. What is known, and written, is what I have just provided. What does not have any reliable record, are the stories that they were refining precious metals.

Others may have another opinion......that's mine.

Take care,

Joe

I put some of your post in bold, to highlight my next question; if they were making many of the things they needed (and I agree this was the case, as it was in almost all Euro-frontier regions; whom today would think there was a glassblower working in what is now Pittsburgh, in 1769 for instance) don't you agree, that all missions (including visitas) needed the ornaments of the church? How would a padre, living on the wild frontier, obtain the needed implements and decorations for the churches? Or are you saying that they only had rude wooden decorations, nothing like silver or gold? (Casting a silver cross is not exactly high-tech) I am curious as to why any American prospectors would have bothered to haul away and sell iron slag from a blacksmith shop? How much slag do you suppose is created in a blacksmith shop?

Cactusjumper also wrote, in reply to our amigo Gollum;

Mike,

One other thing about the book: In the map that comes with it, Tumacacori is shown on the west side of the Santa Cruz River. So much for all that meticulous historical research.
Just my opinion, so I could be wrong.

Not to get picky here amigo but the location of Tumacacori was at one time on the west side of the river; the location of its visita church was moved at least twice, and the Franciscan edifice we see on the cover of that particular book (another one I don't own) was supposedly built on the Jesuit foundations. Kino's first visit to Tumacacori was on the west bank of the river.

In March of 1699 Lieutenant Juan Matheo Manje (who had been delegated by the alcalde mayor of Sonora to accompany Kino on many of his trips) made an interesting entry in his diary. While he and Father Kino were returning from a trip to the Gila River, the padre became ill from a drenching received in a terrible storm. When they came along the west bank of the Santa Cruz River, opposite the village of Tumacaconi, the river was so high they were unable to cross it. The Indians then obligingly brought mutton across the torrent to make a stew for the sick man. That must have been a rugged crossing, and a real act of devotion!

Since the town apparently was, at the time of this entry, on the east bank, we are curious as to when it was moved across the river. It must have been on the west side long before construction began on the present church, but we can find no reference to the move.

In October of this same year Kino records, "We slept in the earth-roofed adobe house, in which I said Mass the following day." We believe this to be the "adobe chapel" referred to by later writers, and that it was the only "church" at Tumacacori in Kino' s time.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/jackson/chap1.htm

The timeline helps - we know that Tumacacori had a church by 1757, for an important person was buried in the church that year, <on the spot where the current Franciscan church stands> and we know that an Apache attack in 1768 left the Tumacacori church in ruins. In 1773 Guevavi was dropped to a visita, and Tumacacori was raised to the main mission. The Apaches were not done yet though;

On May 24, 1776, Don Felipe Velderrain, alferez of Tubac, came to see Father Font at Caborca, and reported that "nothing now remained at the mission of Tumacacori, for the Apaches had carried off everything and caused much damage . . ."

<ibid>

Entries in the Tumacacori church register continued in 1777, to be followed by many entries in the following year. The church was evidently repaired not too long after the raid of 1776, for we have a reference, commenting on the commonplace grim reality of the frontier, that the killing of Father Felipe Guillen in 1778 on the road between Atil and Santa Teresa (south and west of Tumacacori) did not deter the padres in their work "Other church buildings were repaired and roofed, as at Tumacacori, Cocospera, and Calabazas, or decorated . . ."

<ibid>

So the pretty Franciscan mission church we see today at Tumacacori, is a repaired, rebuilt <and improved with fired brick walls instead of adobe> version of the earlier Jesuit one. We might note here too that Guevavi (aka Huevavi, Guebavi, Guebabi etc) was totally abandoned for the last time in 1775.

This is not intended as a defense for a book I have never read, but the title doesn't say "Pimas, Dead Jesuit padres, and Gold" rather it is generic for the Order of the priests, all would be "Padres" right?

Before I forget this, remember those descriptions of the beautiful silver and gold ornamentations found in all of the mission churches, even the visitas, from the time of the Jesuits? Bishop Antonio de los Reyes on 6 July 1772 wrote a report on the condition of the missions in the Upper and Lower Pimería Alta. Following is his report on San José de Tumacácori as translated by Father Kieran McCarty:

The village of San Jose at Tumacácori lies seven leagues to the south <north, translation problem> of Guevavi and one from the Presidio of Tubac, in open territory with good lands. In this village they have a church and house for the Missionary devoid of all ornament and furnishing. According to the Census Book, which I have here before me, there are twenty-two married couples, twelve widowers, ten orphans, the number of should in all ninety-three.

Hmm - so what happened to all that beautiful silver and gold ornamentation and instruments? Carried off by the Apaches I suppose?

Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Joe,

Maybe you should reread my thread regarding Jesuit Treasures and Mining if you think that this is my source material. The only thing I have ever said about this book is that it is very interesting and throws some possibilities out.

Maybe you should have read the book a little closer as well. If you had, you would know that Paul Lease's Widow just took his research and gave it to a family friend to put together. This family friend had no interest in history or treasure hunting. About the only thing you can consider about the book is that it is very interesting.

I think I have sufficiently referenced much of my source material, and don't need to repeat it here. I'll leave you to look that up if you are unclear.

Best-Mike