Hola amigos,
I know, I promised not to pester you with more "respectful disagree" repetitive argument, and this is a very long post so I beg your indulgence and thank you in advance.
Joe complained about how the Franciscan ruins are being conflated with Jesuits, so I will complain about priests being conflated with lay brothers. It may well be correct to say that Kino had no involvement with any mining, however do you suppose it is correct to say that all Jesuit lay brothers, operating in the same province, likewise had no involvement with any mining? Do you suppose that the Amerindians saw a big difference, between the priest who orders them around, telling them to herd the cattle, plow the fields, etc and those lay brothers who were dressed just like the padres, but ordering them to work in mines? The fact that these Amerindians whose testimonies of having been forced to work in mines by Jesuits is so scorned, chose to eliminate several of the padres in the various uprisings doesn't tell you something?
I don't see how this connects
very well with the Stone Maps, though that
is one theory. The silver discoveries of the late 1720's/early 1730's is the time period most likely for the Jesuit mines to be operated but is that even accurate? Was Kino the very first Jesuit ever to set foot in Sonora and Pimeria Alta? As good as the records are that exist today, the Jesuits certainly did not record every activity they were involved in. Also, a good percentage of what records that DID formerly exist, do not exist today. The dates on the Molina document are too early for Kino and are a period for which we have very little records, despite the claims of how excellent the Spanish and Jesuits were at documenting everything. We know that the Jesuits founded a mission among the Mayos in 1613, and by 1653 had missions in the Sonora and Bavispe valleys. Do we conclude that those earlier missionaries, never explored beyond their villages? Why did father Keller make mention of so many years lost work (in 1751) if the Jesuit missions were destroyed and driven out of Pimeria Alta, a number of years that takes us earlier than the arrival of father Kino? Kino was not the first Jesuit to explore and work in Pimeria, clearly.
I hate to keep referring to the Pima revolt of 1751, but as we have some of the testimonies and correspondence from that moment of time we can use it as a "slice" of what the truth was. If the Jesuits were not involved in mining, why do we find this mention, quote
The rebels burned Caborca at the same time and killed the Father and those who were with him, as well as others who were in the mines and mining camps. <Gaspar Stiger to Felipe Segesser, San Ignacio, November 27, 1751>
(AGI, Guadalajara 419, 3m-48, pages 43-45)
Do you suppose this does
not refer to mining camps owned and operated by Jesuits? If it is not related (
directly) why the direct connection with murdering the padre (at Caborca) and those who were with him? Why do the Pimas tell the Franciscans that they are happy they are not going to be forced to work for them, as they had for the Jesuits? The modern revisionists and Jesuit apologists want to sweep all this under the rug (so to speak) but don't be so quick to dismiss the testimony of the Amerindians, and this is a major source for many of the Jesuit treasure tales. It is during this revolt that we have the letter from Father Keller, mentioning that he went to Terrenate to hide the ornaments of the church and a family, and Terrenate is not listed as a mission we ought to note, but yet it had a church with valuable ornaments.
Joe made much complaint of Bob's map layout of Tumacacori, yet the early Jesuit missions were
not impressive works of European architecture.
"
As they approached the mission of Guevavi, Father Joseph <Garrucho> must have been disappointed. There were signs of life all along the river but he could see nothing that resembled a mission. Suddenly they were there. Without the cross and bells and Pimas, it might have been a rancho." <
http://www.nps.gov/tuma/historyculture/joseph-garrucho.htm>
The newspaper article which Joe likewise found fault with, for its mention of a stone block covering the underground vault - well is that SO difficult to picture? What sort of covering would you put on an underground room, on top of which you were walking but a stone block or slab. Perhaps the newspaper reporter's choice of descriptive term is at fault, perhaps he ought to have said "slab" instead of "block" but this sort of nitpicking does not prove there never were any Jesuit mines or treasures. It is a fact that the Jesuit missions were described by those who saw them (while active) as richly decorated with silver and with gold, and it is likewise a fact that when the Franciscan padres arrived to take charge of the very same missions, scarcely a fraction of such silver and gold ornamentation was to be found. Where did it go? Was it hidden by Amerindians? Or did the Padres hide it, as the arrest and roundup on the frontier did not go like clockwork, in fact most of the mission padres were simply notified by an Amerindian runner sent from the main mission HQ (Guevavi in this case) to come in, the roundup was very far from a "sting" as envisioned by the King, and as depicted by our modern revisionists.
The Spanish royal authorities certainly were convinced that the Jesuits had amassed and were hiding treasure, and though their efforts to discover them were largely un-successful, this does not prove that their suspicions were utterly without foundation. I realize that there is some justification today to dismiss and even ridicule the various Jesuit treasure legends, on the grounds that some nitbrain will surely take pick-axe to the historic and beautiful remaining <and mostly Franciscan> ruins we see today in Pimeria. There is
no good reason to be digging and destroying such historic landmarks - as reported in the newspapers, whatever treasure(s) had been hidden IN any of the churches has long since been removed, and in at least one case, by the Jesuit owners. There could be treasure hidden somewhere in the 'hinterlands' such as in an old mine shaft or tunnel, and I don't see how it would be harmful to historic landmarks if treasure hunters were to find and recover such treasures.
My apologies for the repetitive argument again amigos, I know that I already promised not to keep on with this but for the sake of our readers I thought these points ought to be covered. Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco
