Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums
BMc

SPANISH MINE MONUMENTS IN THE BRADSHAWS?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, grubstake said:

When  got out of the Army in 73 a few guys and me, went looking for the lost spring gold in Sycamore canyon in AZ. Grubstake

 

Did you find any outcrops carved into the shape of poodles, chiweenies, "Indians" or Pakistanis? Any markers spaced out at 1200 foot (league, meter, yard or rod) intervals? Any "window rocks" laid with adobe, mortar or bat guano? Were you following clues imagined by a popular author whose work is listed in the "religion and spirituality" section?

Tell us the story Grubby! What led you to Sycamore Can. in search of lost gold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stones laid in clay or mud are certainly not evidence of the Spanish and stones laid in some type of mortar is almost certainly not Spanish. What makes you think this was the work of the Spanish instead of someone else?" 

I agree with you Bob, in that there is obviously, no de facto correlation in re: the above. I don't know how these (altered) stone formations came into existence, nor do I postulate any independently provable theory that might reasonably be considered factual, (outside of Kenworthy's claims) The only correlation that I was advancing in the original post was that Kenworthy's research, as described in his publication, seemed worthy of consideration at the very time that I was presented with a visual of these so-called "monuments", and the photographs of similar objects in his book, along with methods of verification he offered, seemed eminently plausible because they matched what I was seeing on the ground.

To me, The" Mortar", looked exactly like it had been made from the finest El Toro powdered cement, with no visible aggregate; gray in appearance, smooth in texture,  and had been used in a small application where it was barely noticeable unless and until, it was viewed close up.

The one such example that I remember most distinctly, is: (On top of the second "Indian Head" photo where the tiny hole of light is visible) The mortared spot is to the left of the sky hole and is broader at the base; (a small, tapered volcanic cone shaped mass), that is lighter in color, when compared to the darker basalt type colored main structure of the formation itself. (Apologies for the low light/sundown conditions which prevents a clear visual) It resembled a small pedestal which served to support the rectangular shaped rock on top of it.

 How do we get from what we determine to be crude rock work to knowing who did it and exactly what it meant?

That is the burning question that I have been attempting to answer, (for my own edification), from the time I first ran across these formations. From the Library of Congress and other sources, I have researched as many of the Spanish Royal Cedulas/Decrees regarding Spanish mining and exploration, that I could find ,(in NM and AZ especially)  Through various historical documents. I have painstakingly read (and am continuing to read), translations from Spanish records, journals etc. (and publications created by historians going back to Bancroft, Bandelier, et al.) 

I have also studied more dated subject material (1825?), such as, "The Ordinances of the Mines of New Spain ( translated from the original Spanish ; with observations upon the mines and mining associations etc.") And numerous others . . . The list of reference material is virtually inexhaustible as I'm sure you know.  

The upshot is, (to your point,) Not a single word is mentioned about mine markers, not to mention Poodles, Chihuahuas etc. Nor, frankly did I expect to find any such reference(s)  I would suspect that any information of the kind would be restricted and tightly held for obvious (need to know) reasons. 

So where does that leave us? And where do we go from here? I referred to the monuments as a classic dichotomy of an anomaly, which I thought appropriate since there appears to be a dialectic juxtaposition (and dichotomy) between the historically in-explicit (absent Kenworthy;s doctrine), hand carved characteristics of the stone object(s), as opposed to the lack of any apparent historical references that we might reasonably expect to be able to rely upon as a resource/explanation on this topic.  (Unless the information exists in the historical archives in Spain where Kenworthy allegedly obtained much of his research material on the topic of mine monuments) Mordida?  Quien Sabe!

However, that does appear to be where this is going.The recorded reports of the history of mining and related issues in NM and AZ that were deposited in Santa Fe during the time period in question, might well have been able to provide some insightful answers, but it is alleged that those records were destroyed during the Pueblo revolt of 1680. So, we would seem to be S.O.L. at this point (without Kenworthy's source material now said to be in possession of his son)

I remain firmly convinced that the stone formations present a prima facie (and curious) anomaly) and I also firmly believe that there is further substance to be explored on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard a story, about a guy, that found gold in a spring, he fixed up a bunch of truck tires, with the stuff he needed , food, amping stuff, and wrapped the tires full of it, and roll them off the canon edge, Supposed  to be lost spanish gold.we found a little gold, but not what he was talking about. Grubstake

  • well done 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BMc said:

"Stones laid in clay or mud are certainly not evidence of the Spanish and stones laid in some type of mortar is almost certainly not Spanish. What makes you think this was the work of the Spanish instead of someone else?" 

I agree with you Bob, in that there is obviously, no de facto correlation in re: the above. I don't know how these (altered) stone formations came into existence, nor do I postulate any independently provable theory that might reasonably be considered factual, (outside of Kenworthy's claims) The only correlation that I was advancing in the original post was that Kenworthy's research, as described in his publication, seemed worthy of consideration at the very time that I was presented with a visual of these so-called "monuments", and the photographs of similar objects in his book, along with methods of verification he offered, seemed eminently plausible because they matched what I was seeing on the ground.

To me, The" Mortar", looked exactly like it had been made from the finest El Toro powdered cement, with no visible aggregate; gray in appearance, smooth in texture,  and had been used in a small application where it was barely noticeable unless and until, it was viewed close up.

The one such example that I remember most distinctly, is: (On top of the second "Indian Head" photo where the tiny hole of light is visible) The mortared spot is to the left of the sky hole and is broader at the base; (a small, tapered volcanic cone shaped mass), that is lighter in color, when compared to the darker basalt type colored main structure of the formation itself. (Apologies for the low light/sundown conditions which prevents a clear visual) It resembled a small pedestal which served to support the rectangular shaped rock on top of it.

 How do we get from what we determine to be crude rock work to knowing who did it and exactly what it meant?

That is the burning question that I have been attempting to answer, (for my own edification), from the time I first ran across these formations. From the Library of Congress and other sources, I have researched as many of the Spanish Royal Cedulas/Decrees regarding Spanish mining and exploration, that I could find ,(in NM and AZ especially)  Through various historical documents. I have painstakingly read (and am continuing to read), translations from Spanish records, journals etc. (and publications created by historians going back to Bancroft, Bandelier, et al.) 

I have also studied more dated subject material (1825?), such as, "The Ordinances of the Mines of New Spain ( translated from the original Spanish ; with observations upon the mines and mining associations etc.") And numerous others . . . The list of reference material is virtually inexhaustible as I'm sure you know.  

The upshot is, (to your point,) Not a single word is mentioned about mine markers, not to mention Poodles, Chihuahuas etc. Nor, frankly did I expect to find any such reference(s)  I would suspect that any information of the kind would be restricted and tightly held for obvious (need to know) reasons. 

So where does that leave us? And where do we go from here? I referred to the monuments as a classic dichotomy of an anomaly, which I thought appropriate since there appears to be a dialectic juxtaposition (and dichotomy) between the historically in-explicit (absent Kenworthy;s doctrine), hand carved characteristics of the stone object(s), as opposed to the lack of any apparent historical references that we might reasonably expect to be able to rely upon as a resource/explanation on this topic.  (Unless the information exists in the historical archives in Spain where Kenworthy allegedly obtained much of his research material on the topic of mine monuments) Mordida?  Quien Sabe!

However, that does appear to be where this is going.The recorded reports of the history of mining and related issues in NM and AZ that were deposited in Santa Fe during the time period in question, might well have been able to provide some insightful answers, but it is alleged that those records were destroyed during the Pueblo revolt of 1680. So, we would seem to be S.O.L. at this point (without Kenworthy's source material now said to be in possession of his son)

I remain firmly convinced that the stone formations present a prima facie (and curious) anomaly) and I also firmly believe that there is further substance to be explored on this issue.

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

Here is my point. If the "mortar" is truly limed mortar it is definitely not Spanish. While they had that technology it was not used in the new world for a long time and only in the case of big projects like a cathedral. Mortar was not even used in Santa Fe until the third cathedral was built. It took a bunch of men, infrastructure and materials to make mortar. 

A marker way outside of the known range of the Spanish would certainly not have Spanish mortar. Cementatious mortar would prove that the stones were laid long after the Spanish. 

Another point to think about. Records of the conquest were not kept in Santa Fe. Santa Fe was a far flung outpost of a few adobes until long after the Pueblo Revolt. Records were kept in Chihuahua Mx. And yes, even back then it was called Chihuahua City. Not Poodle City. (Sorry Mac I could not resist.).

No doubt any records perished in Santa Fe during the revolt. Those were counts of people and poultry and livestock and the like. Chihuahua City and points south were where Spanish Government happened. And then Seville Spain. Santa Fe was the very farthest outpost from the crown. It was completely surrounded by hostile territory controlled by natives that the Spanish always struggled to parlay with. It was a fortified city surrounded by Genizaro villages that was completely isolated from the rest of the world. In many respects it still is.

The records of mining activity were simply not kept in Santa Fe until long after the Pueblo Revolt. That is when it was the center of Spanish Government in the area. After the revolt there was little mining. The Conquest ended and the COLONIZATION began. There was very little mining being done by the Spanish during that time anywhere in what is now the southwestern United States. The focus was on conversion and colonization.

Kenworthy is blending his story with the true story of the records being burned in Santa Fe by the territorial Governor Otero during the harsh winter of 1898. The records burned were the Genizaros deeds to the land grants. Not the records of Spanish mines.

So there is much to think about here. I honestly doubt this is Spanish and I just don't see anything out of the ordinary with the outcrop at all. And if there is a mortared stone there somewhere it would seem to me that would be someone long after the Spanish days. 

I have not read this particular book but I have read several Kenworthy books. They are in the "religious and spiritual" section for a good reason. You need a whole lot of faith and you must really BELIEVE to make the connection to his theories. Much is based on fact but there are always huge leaps in logic. And he is never afraid to twist two real stories into one new one... Like the story that the Spanish records were stored in Santa Fe and burned in the revolt.

You just can't base logic on a claim like that because we know different from knowing the history of Santa Fe, the Spanish conquest (the period in which there would have been "lost Spanish mines"), the Pueblo Revolt (the time when most "Spanish treasures" were created), and later the Reconquista and subsequent colonization period. 

And in all the records we have we know they navigated the land across the globe just like the navigated the sea. And they marked trails and gave verbal descriptions of the routes in journals. No doubt they left cairns, marks and symbols because we see them all over New Mexico all the way to the very end of the trail at Ohkay Owingeh just north of Santa Fe. What we don't see, anywhere, is Spanish markings and symbols anything like what Kenworthy describes and you have presented. And that is a big jump for me to make as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read this particular book but I have read several Kenworthy books. They are in the "religious and spiritual" section for a good reason. You need a whole lot of faith and you must really BELIEVE to make the connection to his theories. Much is based on fact but there are always huge leaps in logic. And he is never afraid to twist two real stories into one new one... Like the story that the Spanish records were stored in Santa Fe and burned in the revolt.

Thanks Bob, I appreciate the civility in the tone of your response and comments. I didn't mean to throw you a red herring but the speculation regarding the Spanish records in Santa Fe was not taken from Kenworthy's publication, it came from another source. I certainly do not defend as gospel anything that Kenworthy wrote, even the mine monument descriptions themselves outside of what I witnessed for myself. The more research I do, the more I suspect that there is (or is not, depending on points of view), more to the subject than meets the eye. It is revealing to note that, especially in the past, historians often tended to disagree on matters concerning when and where certain Spanish Explorers traveled, including the routes of travel etc., particularly in the Southwestern U.S., and there are/were many illuminating reasons for that as we discover when we take the time to research these issues ourselves. To be continued, I'm sure.

Thanks again,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hair on your back is starting to lay down a bit Mac. I'm not sure how to process that.

Don't you dare start being civil. I won't have anyone to wrestle with except Dakota Slim and he isn't much sport. Clay isn't any fun anymore either. He's like an ol' stick in the mud these days. 

This place is going to the dogs I'm telling you. 

:)

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, grubstake said:

When  got out of the Army in 73 a few guys and me, went looking for the lost spring gold in Sycamore canyon in AZ. Grubstake

 

I have a friend in Prescott, who says years ago his buddy found a conquistador's helmet in Sycamore canyon.  h.t.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very posible. Grubstake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I think the hair on your back is starting to lay down a bit Mac. I'm not sure how to process that.

Don't you dare start being civil. I won't have anyone to wrestle with except Dakota Slim and he isn't much sport. Clay isn't any fun anymore either. He's like an ol' stick in the mud these days. 

This place is going to the dogs I'm telling you. 

:)

 

 

 

Don't worry Bob, a charm offensive is only designed to catch someone off guard, and it's usually only effective for a short time. I don't think Clay's sleeping, he's probably bored, but he seems to catch fire pretty quickly when he wants to. We may find out here shortly.  Oh by the way, the main thrust of the Kenworthy book has to do with Spanish mine workings. He claims that the miners worked mostly in the temperate months and sealed up the mines during the heat of the summer and sometimes had to close them down because of Indian activity. To me, that makes more sense than tales of buried "treasure".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pretty much see what you're searching for, maybe it is or maybe not. I know or have seen comments from Arabs who claim that other Arabs in the past, came to North American and found old Mosque ruins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 1:33 PM, BMc said:

I have not read this particular book but I have read several Kenworthy books. They are in the "religious and spiritual" section for a good reason. You need a whole lot of faith and you must really BELIEVE to make the connection to his theories. Much is based on fact but there are always huge leaps in logic. And he is never afraid to twist two real stories into one new one... Like the story that the Spanish records were stored in Santa Fe and burned in the revolt.

Thanks Bob, I appreciate the civility in the tone of your response and comments. I didn't mean to throw you a red herring but the speculation regarding the Spanish records in Santa Fe was not taken from Kenworthy's publication, it came from another source. I certainly do not defend as gospel anything that Kenworthy wrote, even the mine monument descriptions themselves outside of what I witnessed for myself. The more research I do, the more I suspect that there is (or is not, depending on points of view), more to the subject than meets the eye. It is revealing to note that, especially in the past, historians often tended to disagree on matters concerning when and where certain Spanish Explorers traveled, including the routes of travel etc., particularly in the Southwestern U.S., and there are/were many illuminating reasons for that as we discover when we take the time to research these issues ourselves. To be continued, I'm sure.

Thanks again,

 

Coronado’s Campsite Discovered! (by metal detector enthusiast)!
 "In 1540 Spanish Conquistador Don Francisco Vasquez de Coronado arrived (in what is now NM) by way of Mexico in search of the fabled Cibola, or Seven Cities of Gold. He claimed the area as the “Kingdom of New Mexico,” a part of the larger empire known as New Spain" Coronado also wandered through the Panhandle area of Texas and into Kansas searching for the mythical land of Quivira, also (reportedly), a city of gold"

 "Coronado’s exact route has long been a matter of debate (and dispute) among Historians and Archaeologist Experts" The following article describes the discovery and pinpointing of the exact location of a Coronado campsite in Texas by a metal detector hobbyist and "establishes that the previous estimations of Coronado's route of travel, was off by about 100 miles or more"
ARTICLE: (Copied, edited and condensed from publication(s) dated August 15, 2004 by the
West Texas Historical Association and from The Christian Science Monitor Science and Technology dated April 24, 1995.)

"A campsite of Francisco Vazquez de Coronado, the first European explorer to wander through West Texas, has been located south of Floydada, Texas in Blanco Canyon. (N/E of Lubbock)  An archaeological dig under the direction of Dr. Donald Blakeslee, Professor of Anthropology at Wichita State University in Kansas, is in progress. Dr. Blakeslee believes the site, located on privately owned property, is where Coronado camped for 2 weeks in 1541 before leading a small detachment in search of Quivira, in northeast Kansas"

"An encampment of 300 soldiers, 1,500 Indians and servants, 1,000 horses and thousands of other animals should have left a lot of detritus in two weeks. Dr. Blakeslee reminds us, though, that the Indian trail through the canyon has seen use for 11,000 years. His own dig has found metallic items linked to Indians, Comancheros, Ranald Mackenzie’s army, and pioneer settlers. Thus, a Spanish chain mail gauntlet plowed up in the 1960s in a Floyd County pasture, though persuasive, is not definitive proof of Coronado’s presence; other expeditions could have passed through the region. However, Dr. Blakeslee states that certain finds are uniquely indicative of the Coronado expedition. The most important are metal points from crossbow bolts. Coronado’s campaign is the only one known to have carried crossbows. The site in Blanco Canyon is called the Jimmy Owens site, to honor the Floydada municipal employee who discovered the site and spent much of his spare time exploring it with a metal detector. Of the 40 bolt points that have been recovered, Owens found most of them in only one afternoon, and many of those were found near the surface. Dr. Blakeslee had given a talk in the Panhandle region, stressing the search for Coronado and the idea that crossbow bolt points might be found. Jimmie Owens in Floydada, influenced by the talk, began his metal detector forays into Blanco Canyon and began turning up unusual copper and iron points. Owens, an avid metal-detector buff who first reported the metal points, described the canyon in his laconic style: "It's like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates down there. You never know what you're going to get."  Owens came forward with his points and Dr. Blakeslee confirmed that the points fit the general pattern of those from a confirmed Coronado encampment in Albuquerque. Unlike many collectors, Owens had the courage to come forward and show his material to archaeologists, which led to the recognition of the site.  Owens died a few years after the discovery, but was hailed as the key player, a metal-detector buff credited with being the first person to have located evidence, (crossbow points) resulting in positive confirmation of an additional Coronado camp site, and significantly altering the previously accepted Coronado exploration route. As a result,the site was was named for him. 

At the beginning of the dig, the archaeologists were being informed that the  crossbow points had been coming from about 10 inches down in the soil. In other words, If there was a site there, it was buried under sediment that had accumulated on the canyon floor. The problem was, NO artifacts were being found by the so called experts, the archaeologists! Astonishingly, the metal artifacts were only being found by the talented metal detector buffs (Owens and fellow Artiste')
At lunch, the concerned archaeologists pointed out that not a single archaeologist had witnessed a cross bow bolt head come out of the ground. Could the whole thing be a fraud? About that time Jimmy Owens came by with his metal detector, and went over an area where he had found a concentration of metal objects from various periods, and while we were standing there, he detected and dug up an iron awl of a type made in Europe and traded in the area, probably in the early 1800s. No doubt, there was a native village site in the canyon, and it clearly seemed to have been a gathering spot in ancient times. And, after another day or so, all suspicion was removed when the metal detector artistes starting turning up a few more copper crossbow bolt heads in the presence of the archaeologists. "Artiste" was no exaggeration. Amidst the many signals of ranch debris in the valley, Jimmy Owens could guess with some accuracy whether he had a bolt head, whether it was copper or iron, and how far down it was!

All of the recovered artifacts have been donated to the Floyd County Historical Museum. Date(s) of discovery 1993-1995.

It is revealing to note that, especially in the past, historians often tended to disagree on matters concerning when and where certain Spanish Explorers traveled, including the routes of travel etc., particularly in the Southwestern U.S., and there are/were many illuminating reasons for that as we discover when we take the time to research these issues ourselves.

How far off were the "experts" with regards to the history of Spanish exploration (and mining) in Arizona?

To be continued . . .
 

 

 

 

 

JIMMY OWENS PHOTO.PNG

CROSSBOW POINTS.PNG

CORNADO TRAVEL ROUTE.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...