Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 158
Like Tree60Likes

Thread: Location of Aztec Gold

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #31
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1162 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Quote Originally Posted by Oroblanco
    ... Just think of me as another silly fuddy-duddy type of American resistant to learning new ways...
    Ha ha. You've got lots of company standing in line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oroblanco
    ... I would like to see some research into a possible different origin to the Montezuma legends we see associated with Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Texas ...
    The Taos legends, in particular, but also the Zunis, Acomas, and others who have lived in New Mexico for millenia, continue to revere the godlike Montezuma from their past. Interestingly, some of their traditions claim Montezuma himself was descended from white people. I was told this by the governor of the Acoma pueblo back ca 1980. Of course, the pointy-heads such as Bandelier claim these legends were all made up. I guess he knew better than the elders. I would be interested in what the Hopi say - anyone ever turn up a Hopi-Montezuma legend?
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  2. #32
    um
    Nemo me impune lacesset

    Jan 2005
    DAKOTA TERRITORY
    Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
    5,710
    1636 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold


    Cactusjumper wrote
    Roy,

    I would go with Diaz as well, but as has been mentioned, Cortez also spelled it Montezuma in his letters to the King.
    "The Broken Spears" is also a favorite of mine, and Miguel Leon-Portilla spells it "Motecuhzoma" for both I & II. My
    guess would be that the Spaniards spelled the name phonetically.

    That would seem to give the edge to the speakers of the Nahuatl language. The name used in "Cave, City and Eagle's
    Nest", is "Motecuhzoma". When you read the credentials of the many people involved in that research, it lends some
    credence to the use of that name.

    In "The Discovery And Conquest Of Mexico....", there is: "note on Spelling, etc." which states: "In the Translation a purely
    arbitrary course has been adopted, but it is one which will probably prove more acceptable to the general reader. Such words
    as Montezuma (Motecuhzoma) and Huichilobos (Huitzilopoctli) are spelt as Bernal Diaz usually spells them.......". It would seem
    the names have been corrected in parenthesis.

    Don't see how it matters much for people looking for the alleged lost treasure.
    I think it is actually a mistake to limit your research to a single form of spelling when investigating any treasure legend, for very often numerous different variants are encountered. I don't know why so much issue has been raised, perhaps in order to correct me? Perhaps it would be of some benefit to re-read what I posted, to see if there is any thing which to take issue with? I will re-phrase what was posted, in an attempt to put it more clearly.

    1. - the early Nahuatl spelling appears to have been Motecuhzoma
    Even this spelling which some may see as authoritative, should be taken in the view of a people speaking Nahuatl, attempting to put a native word into a foreign alphabet and spelling. On this basis, it is questionable whether this would be a correct spelling in Spanish, much less English.
    2. Cortez spelled it Muteczuma in his second letter to his king, which is the first instance where he mentions the name of the Aztec emperor at all. Thank you Nat for providing a link, more on this in a moment.
    3. The modern Spanish or Mexican spelling held to be correct, has in fact reversed the ordinal positions of T and C, and dropped a vowel, which in effect has also lost a syllable. Hence it is about as inaccurate as the English spelling.
    4. The Montezuma spelling has been in common usage since Bernal Diaz del Castillo, a man who was among the fellow conquistadors of Cortez and actually met the Aztec emperor. We may well be utterly incorrect in using that spelling, but it appears that the Aztec pronunciation of the emperor's name sounded like Montezuma to Castillo, which will suffice for me. As English speakers we do not always adopt the 'correct' spelling of names in every case, for who among us refers to Japan as Nippon, which is their own name for their country? No English map or geography I am aware of uses the correct name for Japan. Of course I refuse to conform to many of the modern revisionist attempts to change spellings, as with Ceylon, will forever be Ceylon to me, and not Sri Lanka which is quite alien to an American English native speaker.

    The native languages sounded odd to Spanish explorers, with unusual combinations of consonants and unusual sounds; <example, "ATL" and the "NG" consonant sound> - in attempting to record these rather alien sounding names and terms, they simply spelled them phonetically as close to a Spanish spelling as they felt was possible.

    In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested;

    http://books.google.com/books?d=koAb...page&q&f=false

    In this work, a footnote explains the justification for using the Montezuma version of spelling the name, quote
    1 Muteczuma, Motezuma, Motecuhzoma are some of the various forms used but amongst the several spellings of the Aztec sovereign's name it seems simpler to adopt the one sanctioned by the best English and American usage Montezuma.
    <page 187, footnote on the spelling, in the chapter covering the second letter of Cortez>

    the volume covering the remaining three letters is also online at:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=4IA...page&q&f=false

    These letters and Bernal Diaz del Castillo's account ought to be considered basic source materials for any search for lost Aztec gold. Not to cast aspersions on the works of later authors, some of which are excellent, but IMHO it is always best to go to the closest source for any treasure research. Even the best works done later are prone to errors creeping in, through no fault of the authors.

    I think it is notable that the name Montezuma was in use among several tribes living in the American southwest, in some cases in association with legends, which may well have had nothing at all to do with the Aztecs or their famous emperor; the early explorers hearing this familiar name and seeing impressive ruins, could very well have made the Aztec connections which were not truly warranted. In some cases a presumption was made that the "primitive" peoples found living in the area could not have been responsible for the impressive ruins, hence leading to the Aztec theory.

    Sorry for heading off into such a tangent, just found myself baffled at the replies taking issue with my earlier post, in which I fail to see anything at variance with what was corrected. Please do continue, as my posts only seem to provoke controversy I won't post any more replies in this thread, but will read the very interesting discussion. Good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
    Oroblanco



    TNglen and piegrande like this.
    SUPPORT THE BEEF INDUSTRY - EAT BEEF
    "We must find a way, or we will make one."--Hannibal Barca

  3. #33
    us
    Jan 2008
    Black Hills of South Dakota
    Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
    4,175
    78 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    I just have to say, it does seem that certain folks have a need to "chime in" only when Oroblanco tries to make a point.

    I may just be jaded (as well I should), but, I have to say that Ancient History and studies is Roy's forte, and has been for many many years. He has colleges teaching his courses, and is a well-esteemed member of the Phoenician International Research Center.

    So - I just had to say my peace about that.

    Continue.

    Beth
    "Irony is the rule"

  4. #34
    Charter Member

    Dec 2005
    Arizona
    5,756
    989 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Roy,

    I assume your last post was directed towards me.

    "In short I fail to see what stands in need of correction. Now on that letter of Cortez, there is an English translation online in Google books of the first two letters, here is the linkee for anyone interested..."

    If so, I believe I was agreeing with you, rather than correcting you. I was only trying to add to the dialog. Sorry if I stepped on
    your toes.....in some way.

    Take care,

    Joe
    TNglen likes this.

  5. #35
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    11,185
    2323 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Sorry Beth, he is still just a sheep luvin bum, a looter of treasures, and further more, a lousy cowboy ! However, since the hounds of Baskervill like him, he must have "some" redeeming features

    Don Jose de La Mancha.
    TNglen likes this.
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  6. #36
    mx
    May 2010
    636
    98 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    So, a historian has a reason for his opinion. That is good, of course. In fact, I would certainly hope so.

    I also have a reason for my opinion, which is also as it should be. My reasons include local church records going back to 1609, with the spellings used by the priests. Not that I take their spellings as written in granite, they did tend to spell at times phonetically, and no name used for that family ever had so much as one 'n' in it.

    It also includes information, both from local historians with extensive backgrounds, and books written by both US historians, and Mexican historians, who have direct access to ancient archives in both Puebla and Mexico City.

    I note with interest that these "experts," even professional historians, at times disagree. For example, some Mexican historians have written that the female member of the Moctezuma family who married a cacique in our part of Mexico, thus putting the Moctezuma name in our local history, and producing my wife's great-grandma by that name, was niece of Moctezuma 2. The retired former Secretary of Culture of the State of Puebla, says the evidence is she was daughter of Moctezuma 1, and the dates involved would indicate he is correct. I am praying he lives long enough to finish the book on the Moctezuma family in my part of the country. He is an authorized historian and has full access to the ancient documents in the restricted archives, which I do not. I don't know him personally, but my best friend is his friend.

    Am I sure my opinion is correct? No, of course not. Opinions, whether member of family descended from the Moctezuma's themselves (the ruins of an ancient house of the Moctezuma family is about 100 yards from my house, and my wife lived in it as a little girl), or important historians, are in the end only opinions.

    And, sharing those opinions is called debate.

    I will tell you the fact a college professor or important historian enters a debate is no reason to stop it, but especially on a board like this. People who are spending large amounts of time looking for the treasure deserve to hear all the opinions, and the reasons for them. This board is no place for anyone to shove his credentials, or credentials of her husband, into the front to stifle open debate. In my case, though I find theories the treasure was taken hundreds of miles through enemy territory during a fight to the death more than preposterous (and so do many Mexican historians) I don't mind if someone continues to believe it. Until the treasure is found, assuming it still exists, all theories should be left on the table.

    As far as Cortes spelling of the name, that is not relevant to whether the locals in Arizona would have heard the name pronounced that way during the Noche Triste period, when the alleged movement of the treasure to Arizona occurred. There is no evidence the name existed with that pronunciation in that time period, anywhere. In fact, the use of that name alleging it was used at that time is self-defeating.

    Cortes was known as a much better warrior than speller, but especially in the Aztec names and places.

    Also, there is something that I admit I know little about. My understanding was few original examples of Cortes' writing exist, most are copies, and it is admitted much of his writing is missing, including one or more letters to the king. If anyone here has full knowledge, verifiable, that the Cortes documents referenced, were bona fide originals in his handwriting, and not the ubiquitous hand copies common from that era, please say so. I have no reason to disagree, though I would check out your claims.

    There was at least one historian from the late 16th century, whose writings and drawings in their original form, are allegedly in those ancient archives. But, it was not Cortes. There may, of course, be some court type documents still maintained.

    I clearly did not intend to make a personal attack on anyone. Nor do I think I did. I did intend to disagree for very clearly stated reasons, and anyone who takes an honest disagreement as a personal attack probably should scurry back to his campus. I do try to check out opinions different from my own, but I do not feel precluded from expressing my opinions based on a person's credentials.

  7. #37
    us
    May 2006
    southern utah
    wander aimlessly in circles with camera in hand
    377
    81 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    I will tell you the fact a college professor or important historian enters a debate is no reason to stop it, but especially on a board like this. People who are spending large amounts of time looking for the treasure deserve to hear all the opinions, and the reasons for them. This board is no place for anyone to shove his credentials, or credentials of her husband, into the front to stifle open debate. In my case, though I find theories the treasure was taken hundreds of miles through enemy territory during a fight to the death more than preposterous (and so do many Mexican historians) I don't mind if someone continues to believe it. Until the treasure is found, assuming it still exists, all theories should be left on the table.

    wowser , just so you know i happen to enjoy Oro's posts .
    the idea is simple even if you find it preposterous , now i am going to paraphrase an Aztec legend for you because i am a little busy today . the mexica found their war god in a cave during the migration to the valley of Mexico .the place was called coihuacan i think .
    also known as curl mountain . they carried it on their backs with them.

    then comes the first "mo tec a zoma" . story of an attempt to find the homeland is here
    http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/...cle_2369.shtml

    its kind of got a "spinach" influence to it cause they say the debil changed them into animals to go to the place .
    the Spanish never found the statue or whatever it was or all that much of the treasure , so why do you not think it possible the Aztecs headed back to their homelands . the homeland is vast IMO. but curl mountain is in Arizona
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	curl edit.jpg 
Views:	1793 
Size:	63.0 KB 
ID:	590572  
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides

  8. #38
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1162 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Quote Originally Posted by piegrande
    ... Until the treasure is found, assuming it still exists, all theories should be left on the table. ...
    Exactly on point, not only pertaining to this legend, but for all 'lost mines and hidden treasures'.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  9. #39
    us
    Nov 2010
    94
    2 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    There may be tailings of a Aztec mine near Yucaipa calif...The tunnel has not been located, but the tailings found were rich,probably worked with Indian slave labor,antiqua Spanish is also a possiblity .

  10. #40
    us
    Jan 2008
    Black Hills of South Dakota
    Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
    4,175
    78 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    I was NOT trying to stifle open debate.

    In fact - just the opposite. I was merely pointing out, to certain people, who seem to have made it a hobby to discredit anything he says, that, Oroblanco has spent years reading ALL different aspects of ancient history.

    And, I'm getting tired of seeing certain folks enter "debates", not to debate the ideas, but only to "debate" (using that term loosely), Oroblanco, and, I see, quite often, the impression of trying specifically to discredit HIS statements, in particular.

    I said my peace - like it or not. I'm tired of people "speaking down" to him, and, whether he is my hubby or just another forum member, I would say the same.

    Beth
    TNglen likes this.
    "Irony is the rule"

  11. #41
    natchitoches

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    this is why you guys are never going to find it.
    all you guys do is fight,if you can;t work togher you should not even post.
    i am out of here. never to post in a treasure topic again.!!!!!
    by
    littlejohn

  12. #42
    ca
    May 2007
    1,791
    680 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Quote Originally Posted by natchitoches
    this is why you guys are never going to find it.
    all you guys do is fight,if you can;t work togher you should not even post.
    i am out of here. never to post in a treasure topic again.!!!!!
    by
    littlejohn
    Natch:
    Don't let it get to you.It can get tiresome ,but sometimes it's pretty entertaining for those in the audience.
    If it gets too bloody,there's always the ignore button.

    Regards:SH.
    Hell,you ain't never too old to look!

  13. #43
    Charter Member

    Dec 2005
    Arizona
    5,756
    989 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    As I recall, Diaz, and by extension I believe we can assume Cortez, were convinced they had recovered and found most of the treasure of the Aztecs. If that is a true statement, they would be the best evidence for that belief.

    Anyone know when the "Aztec Treasure" story was first published, and by whom?

    Joe Ribaudo

  14. #44
    ca
    May 2007
    1,791
    680 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    I doub't the wealth of the Aztec's ever left Tenochtitlan....not carried by Aztecs at least.
    If the tale of the column of Aztec Warriors was true,they would have carried more than treasure,I would think.
    They would have taken smallpox as well.There should be records of outbreaks,likely beginning in the second half of 1520, in any direction they would have travelled.
    The only reports seem to point to the south and south east,Guatemala and the Yucatan, but the dates are not definitive.Somewhat later to the north,I believe.
    IMO,if the treasures remained within the capital and were hidden there by the Aztec during the period between Cortez's flight and return,it is reasonable to assume that virtually everything would have been discovered during the razing of Tenochtitlan.
    By 1628,the city looked like this....


    Juan Gómez de Trasmonte, 1628

    What may have been done with all such treasure.....who knows?
    I'm sure the Spanish government received all that was claimed to have been recovered,but many groups were probably involved in reducing Tenochtitlan to rubble,and rebuilding it as Mexico City.Some,perhaps a significant amount,may not have been reported at all.

    Regards:SH.
    Hell,you ain't never too old to look!

  15. #45
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1162 times

    Re: Location of Aztec Gold

    Quote Originally Posted by cactusjumper
    ....Anyone know when the "Aztec Treasure" story was first published, and by whom?

    Joe Ribaudo
    Most of these unsubstantiated treasure tales we're familiar with first appeared in western newspapers in the late 1800's as curiosities and adventure vignettes. The Montezuma's Treasure yarn appeared in a New Zealand newspaper as early as ca 1895 as near as I can tell, but the first USA account seems to be the alleged Freddy Crystal/Kanab, UT affair ca WWI. I'm not certain this event actually occurred, but many Aztec Treasure stories subsequently popped up in the books and magazines that became popular in the 1930's and later and have since morphed into the internet treasure forum phenomena, where anything goes, it seems. I do hold out the possibility that the Aztecs were familiar with rich mines in today's SW USA, but I haven't seen even a shred of evidence that they trekked a large treasure that far north following the Conquest.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







 

 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ancient aztec mining
,

aztec gold history

,
aztec gold in america
,
carre shinob location
,
how did aztecs mine and refine gold
,
was the aztec gold ever found
,
what happened to aztec gold
,
what happened to the aztec gold
,
where did the aztecs get their gold
,
where was aztec gold mined
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.3