Tumacacori Mission Mines RE: Sister Micaela Molina Document

[cactusjumper]

FEMF,

"Hello Roy
Have you, or anyone else hear, ever heard of a connection between the San Cayetano Del Tumacacori Mission and a Cross Del Santa Fe?"

As far as I know, "Cross Del Santa Fe" is a monument for the Franciscan Priests killed in the Pueblo Revolt in 1680. There may have been two such crosses in Santa Fe, one steel and the other concrete. Don't believe there is any connection to San Cayetano Del Tumacacori.

Good luck,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Oroblanco]

<snip>
Hello Roy
Have you, or anyone else hear, ever heard of a connection between the San Cayetano Del Tumacacori Mission and a Cross Del Santa Fe?
Thank's again Roy.
FEMF

Hola amigo FEMF - to answer your question no, I have never run across a connection but wow what an interesting thought if there is! Over in NM we have a Santa Fe, a governor named Peralta, and a santero (saint carver or painter) named Molleno who carved a famous crucifix. Not to mention the 1680 revolt, the execution of over 20 padres, the concealment of church treasures and mines, it is a tangled but very interesting angle to investigate.

As we usually think of Tumacacori as being Jesuit, we often forget that it was under Franciscan control for quite some time, and although it would be unlikely for the Jesuits to be involved with any Franciscan valuables needing protection, it would be completely normal for the period when it was Franciscan.

Any light you can shed on the connection, without giving away anything that would impede or endanger your own work? I would like to hear more, if possible, thank you in advance.
Roy



PS here is a photo of what I think is the cross carved by Molleno, some time before 1800;
http://www.elsantuariodechimayo.us/Images/HolySaturday.jpg

 

[cactusjumper]

FEMF,

A few points about what you are writing:

If "Cross Del Santa Fe" is something you got from a document, it is likely incorrect. "del" is a contraction of "de" (of) and "el" (the). It should not be capitalized and, as you wrote it, would read.....Cross of the Santa Fe.

What makes you think that the cross you have found in Arizona is related to Santa Fe?

I understand if you don't want to answer that question.

Good Luck,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Joe,

It is possible that if the cross was not speaking about the city of "Santa Fe" but the "cross of the faith of saints" it could be correct and also have nothing to do with the city in New Mexico. Santa Fe as an ideal and not a person, place, or thing.

FEMF,

It would either have to be "The Cross of Santa Fe" (Cruz de Santa Fe), or "Cross of the faith of saints" (Cruz del santa fe).

Best - Mike

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ladies & gentlemen. for old digital maps of the zone go to -->


Re: Discovering our Past World with Digitised Maps
Reply To This Topic #4 Posted Jan 20, 2012, 06:51:45 pm

Re: Discovering our Past World with Digitised Maps
Reply To This Topic #5 Posted Jan 20, 2012, 06:52:42 pm



courtesy of 'Alexandre' of the ship forum.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[FEMF]

Joe,

It is possible that if the cross was not speaking about the city of "Santa Fe" but the "cross of the faith of saints" it could be correct and also have nothing to do with the city in New Mexico. Santa Fe as an ideal and not a person, place, or thing.

FEMF,

It would either have to be "The Cross of Santa Fe" (Cruz de Santa Fe), or "Cross of the faith of saints" (Cruz del santa fe).

Best - Mike

Hello Mike
Thank's again! I believe Cruz de Santa Fe is what I'm looking for. Many Thank's, and take care.
FEMF

 

[gollum]

FEMF,

Never heard of anything like that associated with Tumacacori, but maybe it has something to do with "Cursum Perficio"

"El Tesoro de las Eglesias de Santa Fe"

Just a thought.

Mike

 

[gollum]

Joe,

One thing I see all the time is bad Spanish Grammar. I think that instead of questioning the grammar, I will first ask for the origin of the quote. If it is supposedly taken directly from an historical document, then the grammar is important. If the quote is taken from a treasure story in a magazine or book, then the poor grammar is likely the fault of the writer not the poster. The exact wording may be important to figure the exact meaning, or whether the quote is BS, but older writers often (since many couldn't speak Spanish) screwed up and never corrected it in print.

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe,

One thing I see all the time is bad Spanish Grammar. I think that instead of questioning the grammar, I will first ask for the origin of the quote. If it is supposedly taken directly from an historical document, then the grammar is important. If the quote is taken from a treasure story in a magazine or book, then the poor grammar is likely the fault of the writer not the poster. The exact wording may be important to figure the exact meaning, or whether the quote is BS, but older writers often (since many couldn't speak Spanish) screwed up and never corrected it in print.

Mike

Mike,

I don't disagree with what you have written, but if we are talking Jesuit......They were the most highly educated people in the New World. Having looked at a few Jesuit documents, they seem pretty accurate. Do you have any samples of such documents that have mistakes that were not just common usage spellings of the day?

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I have seen all kinds of "bad grammar" with Spanish, also.

However, sometimes it is NOT bad grammar - especially when we are talking about the Mexican, Arizona, California, Texas areas. There is a diversion of
dialects in that area - Spanish spanish, Latino Spanish, Basque, Mexican etc. (not to mention all the other countries that came to the area that have picked up a mixture of the dialects - like German National Jesuits, Italian Jesuits, etc.).

What is "bad grammar" for one, is perfect grammar for another.

Spelling, however, is a whole other matter.

If you go to the Mission 2000 database, you can find copies of many, many spanish documents.


www.nps.gov/applications/tuma/search.cfm

Beth

 

[cactusjumper]

Hi Beth,

I believe that Father John O’Malley would be a good source for information concerning the level of accuracy for early Jesuit writing. As a historian on the Catholic Church, and the Jesuit Order, I believe
Father O'Malley is at the top of the food chain.

I know he is working on a new book, as well as teaching, but believe he would be happy to answer any questions concerning the language and writing skills of the early Jesuits.

Personally, I don't have any doubts about those skills, in any language they are writing in. Those who learn a new language are often relatively better at it than native speakers. On the other hand, many treasure hunters tend to butcher whatever language they are using, including their own.

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

How ya doing, Joe,

I have to agree - wherever there is language - someone, somewhere - will butcher it.

(of course, after butchering, they sometimes call it a "new" language).

Beth

 

[gollum]

Joe,

Most of the Jesuit / Spanish writing issues are from non-Spanish/Mexican Jesuits. German Jesuits MANY times learned languages phonetically (as opposed to grammatically). In such cases many such misspellings occur (coazon, cabollo, etc). Before you say "How do you know they learned languages phonetically?" I have to ask you "Is there any other way to learn languages that have never had a written form? (Nahuatl, Piman, Tarahumaran, Opatan, etc)"

However, Jesuits were not specifically referenced in this question. The Franciscans ran San Cayetano del Tumacacori for many years after the Jesuits were removed. The quote could also have come from a civilian source. Nothing specific was given as to a source of the quote. It could have been something as simple as a little treasure story in some book of treasure legends with no source given. I don't want to guess at a source, but it doesn't really matter for the sake of this discussion.

Mike

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning, may I suggest that not all Jesuit documnets were written by 'ordained' Jesuits, but many by underlings -coadjutors, who in turn had a very variable education, if any. Don't confuse the two.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe,

Most of the Jesuit / Spanish writing issues are from non-Spanish/Mexican Jesuits. German Jesuits MANY times learned languages phonetically (as opposed to grammatically). In such cases many such misspellings occur (coazon, cabollo, etc). Before you say "How do you know they learned languages phonetically?" I have to ask you "Is there any other way to learn languages that have never had a written form? (Nahuatl, Piman, Tarahumaran, Opatan, etc)"

However, Jesuits were not specifically referenced in this question. The Franciscans ran San Cayetano del Tumacacori for many years after the Jesuits were removed. The quote could also have come from a civilian source. Nothing specific was given as to a source of the quote. It could have been something as simple as a little treasure story in some book of treasure legends with no source given. I don't want to guess at a source, but it doesn't really matter for the sake of this discussion.

Mike

Mike,

I don't believe San Cayetano del Tumacacori existed after the Pima revolt of 1751, and the Franciscans did not take over until 1773. Many treasure hunters confuse San Jose with San Cayetano. In other words,
"The Franciscans ran San Cayetano del Tumacacori for many years after the Jesuits were removed." should have read San Jose de Tumacacori.

Mixing the two sites and artifacts that have been found at San Jose, causes problems for many of the Jesuit treasure legends.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Joe,

<snip>
However, Jesuits were not specifically referenced in this question. The Franciscans ran San Cayetano del Tumacacori for many years after the Jesuits were removed. The quote could also have come from a civilian source. Nothing specific was given as to a source of the quote. It could have been something as simple as a little treasure story in some book of treasure legends with no source given. I don't want to guess at a source, but it doesn't really matter for the sake of this discussion.

Mike

Mike,

I don't believe San Cayetano del Tumacacori existed after the Pima revolt of 1751, and the Franciscans did not take over until 1773. Many treasure hunters confuse San Jose with San Cayetano. In other words,
"The Franciscans ran San Cayetano del Tumacacori for many years after the Jesuits were removed." should have read San Jose de Tumacacori.

Mixing the two sites and artifacts that have been found at San Jose, causes problems for many of the Jesuit treasure legends.

Take care,

Joe

Hi Joe,
Not to speak for Mike but I have to respectfully disagree here on the timeline and use of names. There are at least two other places that were also called San Cayetano and the only problems with artifacts at mission sites has been for those who deny there ever was any Jesuit mining activity. Remember, for that theory to hold true, there must be NO evidence of any mining activity, not piles of slag. The Jesuit padres were still visiting Tumacacori in 1764, and people from Tubac had been moved there after the 1751 revolt.


San Cayetano de Calabazas was established in November 1756 by Jesuit Father Francisco Pauer.
San Cayetano de Chamada was a visita of Sahuaripa, I don't have the foundation date handy but is before 1700

"For many years, though, it was a visita or visiting station of the mission headquarters at Guevavi. During most of those years, it was located on the east side of the Santa Cruz River and was called San Cayetano de Tumacácori. Services were held in a small adobe structure built by the Pima inhabitants of the village. After the Pima rebellion of 1751, the mission was moved to the present site on the west side of the river and renamed San José de Tumacácori. "

<http://www.nps.gov/tuma/historyculture/tumacacori.htm>

"The main mission of Guebavi is less than three leagues northwest of Buenavista, and the Tubac presidio47 is seven leagues beyond Buenavista in the same direction. The presidio of Tubac was established in 1752 and occupies the Pima settlement of that name. The Indians were moved to Tumacacori where they lack the good land of Tubac and can only sow seasonally."

<Rudo Ensayo, 1764 http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/rudo/body.1_div.9.html#page126>

Not to go back over all of this, but here is another quote from the description of Sonora circa 1764, quote
"There are several silver mines and one gold mine in the vicinity of Guebavi, but they are not being worked. " <Rudo Ensayo page 99>

All of the archaeological studies that I have seen, show NO presence of Spanish colonists in Guevavi or Tumacacori in 1764 or earlier. So who or whom was working those silver and gold mines? Calabazas also seems to have been established to operate the gold mine there.

It is notable that these Jesuit establishments declined precipitously under Franciscan care.

"Tumacacori, or San Jose, a visita of Guevavi from Jesuit times, with 199 Indians in 1761-7, and 39 in 1772, was almost in ruins in the latter year, having been attacked in 1769 by the Apaches at midday. But before 1791, a new roof had been put on the church, and from 1784, or earlier San Jose had become a mission instead of a visita Adobe houses for the neophytes and a wall for their protection were also built. After Padre Gil de Bernave, I have no records of missionaries in charge of this mission, and the adjoining presidio in early times; but Fra Narciso Gutierrez was the minister in 1814-20, Juan B. Estelrio in 1821-2, and Ramon Liberos in 1822-4. The ruins of Tumacacori are still to be seen near Tubac, on the west bank of the river. San Cayetano de Calabazas, the only pueblo de visita that seems to have survived 1784, had 64 neophytes in 1772, but no church or house for the padre, though these were supplied before 1791. In 1828, Calabazas is mentioned as a rancho near which some poor people worked a gold mine. Aribac, or Arivaca, in the west, appears on a doubtful map of 1733, as a pueblo. Anza, in 1774, says it had been deserted since the Pima revolt in 1751, though mines were worked until 1767. In 1777, it is noted as a place rich in mines, and one Ortiz is said to have applied about this time for a grant of the rancho. Zuniga, in 1835, mentions it as a 'rancho despoblado.

<A history of Arizona, Farish>

Populations declined, mines as at Arivaca ran until 1767 then were "rediscovered" by 1777 and utterly abandoned 1835. While there is evidence that the Franciscans were involved in mining, it was not on the same scale as previously.

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"San Cayetano de Calabazas was established in November 1756 by Jesuit Father Francisco Pauer.
San Cayetano de Chamada was a visita of Sahuaripa, I don't have the foundation date handy but is before 1700"

I don't believe either of those places were at the original location of San Cayetano that was established by Father Kino.

The priests named just about everything after saints. Because of that, repetitious place names in Mexico are common. This is a picture of the entrance of La Valencianna San Cayetano:

From what I have read, I will stick with my comments concerning San Cayetano del Tumacacori.

My main sources for this opinion are Charles Di Peso, "The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeohistorical Reconstruction of the Ootam of Pimeria Alta." and Deni J. Seymour "A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano Del Tumacácori."

As always, it's possible that I have misunderstood their writings.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

"San Cayetano de Calabazas was established in November 1756 by Jesuit Father Francisco Pauer.
San Cayetano de Chamada was a visita of Sahuaripa, I don't have the foundation date handy but is before 1700"

I don't believe either of those places were at the original location of San Cayetano that was established by Father Kino.

The priests named just about everything after saints. Because of that, repetitious place names in Mexico are common. This is a picture of the entrance of La Valencianna San Cayetano:

<snip>

From what I have read, I will stick with my comments concerning San Cayetano del Tumacacori.

My main sources for this opinion are Charles Di Peso, "The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeohistorical Reconstruction of the Ootam of Pimeria Alta." and Deni J. Seymour "A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano Del Tumacácori."

As always, it's possible that I have misunderstood their writings.

Take care,

Joe

Joe,
I don't believe that I said Kino founded or otherwise established either Calabazas or Chamada, nor that either was or is located where San Cayetano de Tumacacori was located; was pointing out that the names can cause confusion as the name was used after San Jose de Tumacacori was renamed, and that San Jose was established by Jesuits, later run by Franciscans, and I think that was what Mike was trying to say. San Cayetano de Calabazas also was founded by Jesuits and then run by Franciscans at least until 1784. I have no idea what sort of building(s) Pauer had built or appropriated, but most likely were simple adobe. A point that I disagreed with, which you posted, was this one:

I don't believe San Cayetano del Tumacacori existed after the Pima revolt of 1751 <snip>

According to Nentvig, some of the Indians from Tubac were moved there 1751, the mission church moved across the river, but still a village named Tumacacori and while not precisely in the exact same spot, not distant either and retaining the name Tumacacori. I don't think the mission church was moved until 1753. Unless my sources are wrong, the 1751 abandonment was only brief with the Indians being coaxed by the padres to return very shortly after the rebellion, the 1844 abandonment (after a severe Apache attack) being more of a permanent nature. I may have it all wrong of course. If you mean the place name did not exist after 1751, then yes the name was not used.

All is well here, hope you are having a very pleasant winter,
Roy

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I believe the Pima Indians who were moved to San Cayetano de Calabazas were from the village of Toacuquita, not from San Cayetano del Tumacacori. I don't believe that location was inhabited again
by the Pima.

Could be wrong, but so far I still stick with my original statement. Would love to see some documentation.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Roy,

I believe the Pima Indians who were moved to San Cayetano de Calabazas were from the village of Toacuquita, not from San Cayetano del Tumacacori. I don't believe that location was inhabited again
by the Pima.

Could be wrong, but so far I still stick with my original statement. Would love to see some documentation.

I think the extract from Rudo Ensayo said that Indians were brought from Tubac to Tumacacori, not from Tumacacori to Calabazas, I do not know where Pauer brought the natives from to create a pueblo at Calabazas so will take your word. Wiki has this

"Mission San Cayetano de Calabazas, also known as Calabasas, was founded by Jesuit missionary Father Francisco Xavier Pauer in 1756 when he relocated at least seventy-eight Pima Indians to the site from their village of Toacuquita in what is now Arizona, near Tumacácori."

Are you saying that the Indians brought from Tubac were NOT brought to Tumacacori? Many of the rebellious Pimas started returning to their homes within a month of the uprising, forty families had returned to Tubac; Captain Joseph Díaz del Carpio marched up the river valley in the spring of 1752 and enumerated the people he found, you may have his census totals in your own library. Soldiers brought to Tubac to establish a presidio there 1752 displaced Indians and occupied their houses. Pauer builds a new church 1753.

"Pauer, Francisco - A native of Brno, Moravia, this Jesuit Priest was at San Xavier at the time of the uprising. He was not well proportioned but had clear, swarthy skin and a thick nose with brown hair. He had only been at San Xavier a few months when the Pima rebellion erupted and he ran for his life. He came back to Guevavi in 1753, and built churches at Tumacacori, Calabazas, and Sonoitac. He left Guevavi more prosperous than he had found it."
http://www.nps.gov/tuma/historyculture/pedro-chihuahua.htm

The NPS views San Jose de Tumacacori as a continuation of San Cayetano de Tumacacori, not as a totally NEW mission and village. In this rare instance, I am in agreement with the NPS. As far as I know, Tumacacori was not abandoned (permanently) prior to 1844, and the last few residents leaving 1848. I sure don't know for certain as I was not there.
Oroblanco