The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Discuss anything related to the Lost Dutchman Mine in this form.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby don » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:08 am

and of course ,as you said,no way of knowing for sure if it was ruths skull or not...no way of knowing for sure if there were bullet holes in it or not..im not sure where that leaves us.
Don update your email address

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:09 pm

Don wrote:

thanks jim....heres a question...any idea from who or where the story came from that Ruth's skull was POSITIVELY identifid by Ruth's Dentist? If it came from Ely then that practically renders the rest of his(Ely's) story worthless


Hi Don,

Not necessarily…if I had to make a guess, I think the dentist story is somewhat true. I’ve never seen any affidavit, etc. from Ruth’s dentist. Something like that might exist. But that’s not why I believe the story. I’m pretty sure that the dentist story came from Erwin Ruth, to Northcut Ely, and then to Sims Ely. The reason I believe this, is Erwin used Northcut, who was in a high federal government position, to press for an inquest into the “murder” of Adolph Ruth. I know of one other time he brought up the dentist, it was in a letter to detective Dan Jones that Garry got from the family.

I think the reason the Ruth story got so much attention by LDM’ers (while other deaths in the mtns didn’t) is because most people believed Ruth had a genuine map to a Spanish and/or Mexican mine. So then it became a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

What I mean by this: People could use the Ruth story to bolster their own credibility, i.e. “I know the mine is in the western supes, and you should believe me because Ruth had a genuine map and was camped at Willow Springs.” Or: “Ruth was killed at Willow Springs and his body moved to keep people from looking there.” Or: “Ruth was actually looking for the Caverna con Casa at Angel Springs”. Or: “Ruth was killed near Iron Mountain and his body moved to keep people from looking there.” Or: “Ruth was killed on Peters Mesa and his body moved to keep people from looking there”. Just recently I saw a guy trying to imply Ruth was killed in his area of interest which happens to be north of the Salt and the Goldfield area. The game goes on and on. Personally, I’ve never seen anything from an official source (law enforcement document) that says where Ruth’s body was found.

Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:47 pm

Just re-reading this and had a few observations...Don, I agree that the entire LDM legend as we know it is pretty jumbled up now, perhaps impossibly so. There may have been some "tongue in cheek" use of the LDM and Ruth legends by people in Apache Junction to "drum up business" so to speak, but I for one think the net effect has been positive, especially when we consider the museum there and all the work that has been done, and freely made available, by Greg D. and others.

Another comment I had, the "silver" plate and the identification of a .44 or .45 caliber pistol being the murder weapon came from Sims Ely...in his book, he references a conversation he had with Hrdlicka in DC.
Jim R.

ThomasG
Greenhorn
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby ThomasG » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:03 am

RE: Hrdlicka,

I have been going over Hrdlicka’s conclusions re: Ruth with a couple of colleagues. I am becoming increasingly skeptical of Hrdlicka’s qualifications in forensic medicine or anthropology.

My reasons are:

i) The index to Hrdlicka’s papers does not indicate someone who had a great deal of either interest in forensic anthropology/pathology.

The titles of his papers indicate his interest in social and population dynamics as or different populations based on physical anthropology. e.g., skeletal remains of one group or population compared to another, such as Native Americans and Asians.

ii) Garry sent me some material that I had previously seen and most of which I have in my files. However, Garry’s presentation of the material in consecutive PDFs revealed something I had either missed or dismissed previously. I now read Hrdlicka’s reports – draft and final – with a more jaundice eye. Having the two files consecutively listed helped a great deal.

What initially struck me re-reading Hrdlicka’s draft is says he has: “examined many skulls with bullet holes found on battlefields.” But you can see where the word “many" was crossed out. In the final draft it reads “I have examined such wounds before and have examined skulls with bullet holes found on battlefields.”

I little doubt that he had seen and examined such wounds before. But, forensic anthropology was not his field. The more experience he had with bullet wounds the more weight to his conclusions re: the Ruth skull — or any other.

In science sample size is very significant. First, the more experience one has the stronger their conclusions in a given field. And experience usually correlates with experience.

As an academic it seems strange to me that he apparently felt compelled to cross out the word “many” when it would have strengthened his conclusions. That he seems to have purposely downgraded the sample size is curious. The greater the sample size/experience the more weight one would give to his conclusions. So why the downgrade?

Further, when Hrdilcka says he had examined skulls from battlefields with bullet wounds what did he examine them for? Race? Age? Forensic pathology? Cataloguing types of projectile wounds — grape shot versus a bullet? Etc.

iii) Thanks to Jim I found the info. on Hrdlicka’s time in Paris-- (National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs, Volume XXIII Twelfth Memoir, Biographical Memoir of Ales Hrdlicka 1869-1943, by Adolph H. Schultz). But it raises even more questions for me. Schultz reports:

"At his own expense he went to Paris early in 1896 and for four months he studied anthropology under Manouvrier, physiology under Bouchard and medico-legal subjects under Brouardel, besides attending clinics at various hospitals. He also travelled to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, and England to inspect medical and anthropological institutions.”

The way I read it is that Hrdlicka studied for four months with or under three different people — Manouvier, Bouchard and Brouaedel, and he traveled to four countries from France — Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, and England, inspecting medical and anthropological institutions, while attending various clinics and various hospitals in France. I seriously doubt that he had any in-depth training with Manouvier, Bouchard or Brouaedel. Best casing it, I should think that he would have been lucky to get in a couple or three of consecutive weeks with any one person.

T

novice
Expert
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby novice » Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:24 am

Damn those pesky details! :)

Rereading the passage; “skulls with bullet holes found on battlefields”, I suddenly realized. I have been entertaining a. bad assumption from the beginning. I had always assumed that Dr. Hrdlicka was serving in some capacity during World War I and was physically present on the battlefield. I know Thomas hinted at possible Civil War battlefields but I thought he just misspoke.

Dr. Hrdlicka amassed a collection of thousands of human skulls over his career and I now suspect he somehow obtained skulls, from possibly various battlefields, some of which exhibited head wounds.

Thomas,

Since you are digging into Hrdlicka’s background, did he ever serve in any conflict? I still may be off the tracks and I would appreciate your thoughts and sources on how he viewed or obtained skulls from battlefields. Also which battlefields. (Civil War, Spanish American, etc.)

Garry

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5445
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:30 am

novice wrote:Damn those pesky details! :)

Rereading the passage; “skulls with bullet holes found on battlefields”, I suddenly realized. I have been entertaining a. bad assumption from the beginning. I had always assumed that Dr. Hrdlicka was serving in some capacity during World War I and was physically present on the battlefield. I know Thomas hinted at possible Civil War battlefields but I thought he just misspoke.

Dr. Hrdlicka amassed a collection of thousands of human skulls over his career and I now suspect he somehow obtained skulls, from possibly various battlefields, some of which exhibited head wounds.

Thomas,

Since you are digging into Hrdlicka’s background, did he ever serve in any conflict? I still may be off the tracks and I would appreciate your thoughts and sources on how he viewed or obtained skulls from battlefields. Also which battlefields. (Civil War, Spanish American, etc.)

Garry


Guys,

Don't know where my information on Hrdlicka is squireled away, but I did research his qualifications and history some time ago. I came away from that search convinced that he was more than qualified to examine and give opinions on the skull of Adolph Ruth.

"Beginning with much of the skeletal collection of the Army Medical Museum, which had been transferred to the Smithsonian in 1898 before he was appointed there, Hrdlicka amassed a bone collection that included, among many other specimens, the Huntington collection, casts of fossil remains of man, and a large and diverse North American collection. He also gathered a large collection of human brains. Over three hundred publications resulted from his study of this material, his field work, and his study of specimens in other museums. In addition, he was involved in many other activities. For United States government agencies, he provided services ranging from examinations of human remains for law enforcement officials to providing information and opinions concerning national origins and traits that were needed to interpret laws and form foreign policy. During World War II, he also advised government officials on policies to be pursued with certain national groups following the war."

As I have stated before, you can find all of the information you seek from the Smithsonian, just as I did.

Good luck,

Joe

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5445
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:35 am

You will notice that there are no set parameters for the appearance of head wounds.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sk ... &FORM=IGRE

Once again, Good luck,

Joe

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:14 pm

Seconding Joe, I believe there may be reason for caution in throwing out Hrdlicka's conclusions just yet. While there is always some room for questioning the qualifications of any individual, but so far everything I've read in the forensics realm gives great credit to Hrdlicka for his early efforts in the field.

For example I've read how he was involved in the first cooperation between the FBI and the National Museum's anthropology department, and he cultivated young doctors that showed interest in forensics. Off the top of my head, I think two of his protege's that he employed on his staff went on to become prominent in the field. He showed a lifelong interest and involvement in forensics, and generally hadn't been given much attention historically simply because the overwhelming amount of his published work concerned other subjects.

From what I've been able to dig up (just in the preliminary stages of investigating Hrdlicka) he did forensic consultation with law enforcement agencies for many years, and seemed to be instrumental in "standing up" this capability in the US. I think this may have been the purpose of his trip in 1896, as it appears he focused on European forensics capabilities and visited early crime labs to see how they operated and the techniques used. I have a bunch of documents on Hrdlicka that I will post to the internet (too much to email to everyone). I will try to get those docs up within the next day or two, and will email you guys with the http address so everything will be available to you. Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:24 pm

Garry,

Hrdlicka never served in a military capacity, but at this early stage I can see a few smoking guns in how he may have seen skulls from battlefields:

1. He was instrumental in taking charge of medical specimens (skeletal) from the Army Medical Museum and transferring them to the National Museum
2. Many of the indigenous skeletons he worked on had damage from violent conflict (war clubs, etc)
3. There were mass exhumations in Europe around the time of his trip overseas in 1896, and it's very likely many of those exhumations occurred on battlefields...not certain of that yet, but still digging. Many of those exhumations were carried out by the people he met and studied with, for the express purpose of forensics study, and the role insects play in human decomposition (among other things)...

That's just off the top of my head. I will get those documents up asap. Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

don
Part Timer
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby don » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:11 am

going off topic somewhat but as for hrdlickas personality,i remember reading about his "practises" in alaska where many considered him to be vain,childlike and arrogant during the period when he rode roughshod over the descendants wishes regarding the skeletons he exhumed/collected from burial grounds....i believe he was also accused of breaking the law while indulging in his "activities". none of that however makes him any less or any more capable of coming to a conclusion regarding the skull prseumed to be ruth's. but one wonders how anyone could draw anything conclusive from Hrdlickas statement re Ruths supposed skull....the man (hrdlicka)wasnt even sure HIMSELF ! as evidenced by the number of "probabley's, "possibly's", "in all likelihoods" ,"reasonable certainty" in his report,not to mention the 3(?) different firearms that MIGHT have fired the bullet (s) ,IF indeed the holes in the skull were caused by a bullet(s) in the first place.....take his statement/report into a court of law as a means of convicting a suspected murderer and i have little doubt you would be laughed out of court. as i see it hrdlicka's report ,replete as it is with uncertainties, in HIS words not mine is of no practical use or value as regards determining whether ruths death was by natural or un natural causes. it has use and value to only 1 body of people...that body of people being those who have an axe to grind and wish to put forward the theory or fact that Ruth was killed deliberately and with malice for financial gain.
Don update your email address

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5445
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:00 am

don wrote:going off topic somewhat but as for hrdlickas personality,i remember reading about his "practises" in alaska where many considered him to be vain,childlike and arrogant during the period when he rode roughshod over the descendants wishes regarding the skeletons he exhumed/collected from burial grounds....i believe he was also accused of breaking the law while indulging in his "activities". none of that however makes him any less or any more capable of coming to a conclusion regarding the skull prseumed to be ruth's. but one wonders how anyone could draw anything conclusive from Hrdlickas statement re Ruths supposed skull....the man (hrdlicka)wasnt even sure HIMSELF ! as evidenced by the number of "probabley's, "possibly's", "in all likelihoods" ,"reasonable certainty" in his report,not to mention the 3(?) different firearms that MIGHT have fired the bullet (s) ,IF indeed the holes in the skull were caused by a bullet(s) in the first place.....take his statement/report into a court of law as a means of convicting a suspected murderer and i have little doubt you would be laughed out of court. as i see it hrdlicka's report ,replete as it is with uncertainties, in HIS words not mine is of no practical use or value as regards determining whether ruths death was by natural or un natural causes. it has use and value to only 1 body of people...that body of people being those who have an axe to grind and wish to put forward the theory or fact that Ruth was killed deliberately and with malice for financial gain.


Don,

We had this discussion years ago. At that time, I wrote that NO scientist, especially in Herdlicka's field, makes definitive statements on any conclusions they have reached after seeing the available evidence on any "finds" from the field. The reason for that is simple and logical. The next turn of a spade can change every situatilon by revealing never beforer seen evidence. They all leave some wriggle room in their theories, just for those unseen and unknown pieces of hidden evidence.

Hrdlicka was excoriated by many of his contempories, which is no different than what was done to everyone who challanged the accepted "facts",
or provided new evidence, backed up by their research. After examining his historical record, it seems obvious that he was at the top of the pecking order. At this point in time, I believe Dr. Glover has reached the top of the pecking order as the "go-too" LDM historian. I seldom disagree with his conclusions, unless he is quotilng a certain bad source. In this case it all comes down to a difference of opinion.

Take care,

Joe

don
Part Timer
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby don » Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:27 am

Joe,
Yes id forgotten the discussion from way back. but the facts/non facts/questionable facts remain the same ,as you say "the next turn of the shovel" or "wiggle room" etc really proves the point...if hrdlicka himself couldnt be 100% sure ,then theres no way the rest of us can be. if those holes werent bullet holes,and there are plausible possible alternatives for those holes in the skull which have been discussed here and elsewhere then much of the LDM plot falls apart....because if the ruth incident hadnt occurred and hadnt attracted such attention in an admittedly small circle of "fans", then its doubtful the legend would even be talked about these days ....it would have died a death 100 years ago. Ruth by dying,unwittingly kept the story alive...aided of course by newsmen,authors ,jack the lads, and of course the proverbial purveyors of b.s (some who spread the b.s knowingly,and some unknowingly, who just repeated and accepted what other folk (who didnt know either) told them....too many sets of brackets there i think, but anyway.
kind regards
Don update your email address

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5445
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:40 pm

don wrote:Joe,
Yes id forgotten the discussion from way back. but the facts/non facts/questionable facts remain the same ,as you say "the next turn of the shovel" or "wiggle room" etc really proves the point...if hrdlicka himself couldnt be 100% sure ,then theres no way the rest of us can be. if those holes werent bullet holes,and there are plausible possible alternatives for those holes in the skull which have been discussed here and elsewhere then much of the LDM plot falls apart....because if the ruth incident hadnt occurred and hadnt attracted such attention in an admittedly small circle of "fans", then its doubtful the legend would even be talked about these days ....it would have died a death 100 years ago. Ruth by dying,unwittingly kept the story alive...aided of course by newsmen,authors ,jack the lads, and of course the proverbial purveyors of b.s (some who spread the b.s knowingly,and some unknowingly, who just repeated and accepted what other folk (who didnt know either) told them....too many sets of brackets there i think, but anyway.
kind regards


Don,

All things considered, I just can't wrap my mind around Ruth making it to where his body did, without unseen hands propelling him there. Most of us don't know the entire story and probably never will.

Take care,

Joe

ThomasG
Greenhorn
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Ales Hrdlicka

Postby ThomasG » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:13 pm

To all:

Since Hrdlicka's findings re: the skull of Adolph Ruth seem to have interest I thought that perhaps a tread devoted to that topic might be appropriate.

With the input from Jim and Garry I have been able to dig a little deeper into the question of Hrdlicka’s qualifications as a forensic scientist. Jim refered me to an article by Ubelaker’s on Hardlicka. It is a biography written by an author paying respect to a pioneer of “forensic science”.

It was published by the National Academy of Sciences — “A Biographical Memoir of Ales Hrdlicka, 1869-1943”. It was presented to the Academy at the autumn meeting in 1944. The article is 4,000 plus words. It cites over 100 references and sources. The point is it is a serious article about Hrdlicka and his work, his contributions to forensic science and in the integration of anthropological science with the legal system

Having finished the Ubelaker article it raises more questions for me than it answers. It also leaves me questioning Hrdlicka’s forensic abilities more than ever.

First, it seems that term forensic and medico-legal were used differently back then. It does not seem to be what we would think of today as forensic science.

On pgs 727-729 Ubelaker has a section entitled “Consultation and Testimony on Forensic Matters”. This section has in chronological order Hrdlicka’s findings/involvement in “forensic science” and contributions to the integration of physical anthropology into the legal system.

It lists in chronological sequence Hrdlicka’s contributions. To wit:

1896 Hrdlicka testifies re: epilepsy and insanity in a jury trial.
1910 He identifies skeletal material as not being from a missing man, but from an Indian of great antiquity.
1910 He is asked while in Peru he examined remains thought to be those of Pizzaro. Hrdlicka thought the remains were not likely to be Pixxaro. He then identifies remains in a criminal case as not recent but of an Indian of great antiquity. The suspected murderer is released.
1914 He testifies re” blood types/status” of Chippewa Indians.
1915 He testifies (essentially) on the status of the Chippewa.
1920 Special assistant to the Attorney General wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Smithsonian that all sides in the Chippewa matter accepted Hrdlicka’s conclusions.
1932 Hrdlicka receives Ruth skull and makes his determination(s).

Note that while Hrdlicka had had medico-legal experience prior to the Ruth affair, none of it involved anything concerning wounds — or what we today are forensic medicine. It was all medico-legal.

Hrdicka does appear to have been a pioneer in the sense of bringing scientific testimony and method to the law enforcement and the courtroom concerning skeletal remains. e.g., modern or ancient.

After 1932 the pattern is much the same:

1936 (FBI) Earliest entry in “available FBI files: re: Hrdlicka. He presented testimony on the racial status of the Japanese.
1936 (FBI) Jacksonville office (FBI?) contacted the Smithsonian, inquiry apparently handed off to Hrdlicka. Content of inquiry not known.
1937 (FBI) A memorandum sent from D. C. office to the Director of the FBI re: Hrdlicka’s biography and professional accomplishments.
1938 (FBI) Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Hrdlicka thanking him for examining human remains fro Arkansas.
1938 (FBI) Hrdlicka identifies bone as not human, but the foot of a small bear.
1940 (FBI) Hrdlicka presented analysis of the skeleton an aged white man. He notes stature comments on muscularity, etc. and notes evidence of gunshot trauma. U=In the temples were two small holes evidently made by small caliber, but powerful bullet.
1940 (FBI) This is rather confusing in Ubelaker’s article. Likely because it seems the records he had access to were confusing. Apparently a total of three skulls were examined by Hrdlicka. Why is a good question. Only conclusion info. is one skull was of and American Indian female.
1943 (FBI) A lengthy memorandum to the Director on Hrdlicka’s help in consulting. That Hrdlicka has alway been very helpful.
1943 (FBI) Letter to the director of the Smithsonian acknowledging Hrdlick’a “splendid assistance” in the study of animal and human remains submitted to the Phoenix office concerning investigation of a crime on an Indian reservation.

Latter in 1943 Hrdlicka died.

What stands out is that Hrdlicka seems to have had next to no experience in what, we today, would call forensic science — let alone bullet wounds.

And it seems (although some of the FBI files are “unclear”) that after the Ruth affair Hrdlicka’s main contributions were of skeletal remains, e.g., whether bones were human or bear.

While Hrdlicka says he had experience with bullet wounds in skeletal material as early as 1932 questions remain. IF he did was his expertise in the ethnicity of the victim? Or whether the victim (bones) was human or otherwise.

One thing does seem clear. In Hrdlicka’s day the term forensic science in a legal context meant something different then than today.

I still do not find much that shows demonstrable expertise for Hrdlicka in wounds, including bullet wounds, especially prior to the Ruth affair.

Thomas

PS: In my first book I referenced Civil War skeletal material as examples of such for Hrdlicka. Garry asked what was my reference. I must confess that reference is lost in the mist of time. I know I consider it a sound reference at the time, but my recollection is it was given to me verbally in a discussion from a source I trusted. But it may have just been a passing comment on a possibility. Or it something I deduced. In any case in light of more research I would withdraw that comment.

Cubfan64
Expert
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:20 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Cubfan64 » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:27 am

Thomas,

Hrdlicka has a lengthy list of professional papers and articles written over his career, but I would have expected to see at least a few related to skull damage, gun shot wound recognition, etc... but I've seen nothing like that. I'm certain he saw bullet wounds to the skull during his research, but I hardly think that would qualify him as an expert.

I don't remember the specifics - how exactly did Hrdlicka get involved in looking at Ruth's skull? Was he a friend of the family or was the Ruth family pointed in his direction for some reason?

don
Part Timer
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby don » Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:01 pm

cubfan
to the best of my belief...erwin ruth ,disatisfied with the verdict of natural causes, wanted to push for a verdict or murder.he seems to have arranged for hrdlicka to examine the skull in the hope hrdlickas report would confirm the presence of bullet holes..im guessing hrdlicka would have been paid for so doing,which to the cynics amongst us might possibly open another can of worms.
Don update your email address

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:01 pm

From the Hrdlicka documents provided by Joe and Garry, and reading some of Hrdlicka’s work, it appears to me:

1. Odd Halseth mailed Ruth’s skull to Neil Judd in Wash DC, with instructions to contact both the Ruth family and Dr. Hrdlicka, for identification. Halseth and the doctors in Phoenix were unable to determine if the skull was Ruth’s.

2. Hrdlicka seems not only to have identified the skull as Ruth’s, using anthropometry, but added that he believed Ruth had been shot. It also appears, from the evidence we have, that anthropometry was the primary focus of Dr. Hrdlicka’s forensic work…not bullet wounds.

3. I agree with Don that the family was pushing for an inquest, and they believed Ruth might have been murdered. Whether Hrdlicka was paid by the Ruth family, I don’t know…whether or not Hrdlicka would have let that sway his assessment, I personally don’t think so, based on what I’ve seen. Everything I’ve seen or read by Hrdlicka seems to be forthright. But it’s possible.

4. I agree with Thomas, that Hrdlicka probably didn’t have forensic skills equivalent to what we see today. However, for his day it appears to me that he was at the least informed, if not readily familiar with forensic science. Basic as it was.

5. I believe Hrdlicka had access to skulls with gunshot wounds. Both through the Army Medical Museum and one instance I was able to find, on a battlefield between Mexican officials and Yaqui’s. Some of those Yaqui’s had been executed. Whether or not this qualifies him to state that Ruth had been shot, I don’t know. Whether or not he had additional access to other skulls with bullet wounds, I don’t know.

6. Being from that area, I’ve been told by people I have reason to believe, that Ruth most definitely was shot, there is no ambiguity here. This was long before the internet or forums had been invented. Perhaps this is coloring my assessment of Hrdlicka’s conclusions…i.e. I believe Ruth was shot, therefore I believe any scientific evidence to support this.

So there it is from my perspective. Perhaps we will learn more in the near future. Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5445
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:38 am

Jim,

Can't find anything you have written that I disagree with. For his time, Hrdlicka was the top dog.......as far as I have been able to tell. In that respect he had plenty of detractors as well. Pretty normal for people in his field. Everyone thought they were better.

Take care,

Joe

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:24 pm

Joe, I got that feeling too, like some people actually resented Hrdlicka having such a prestigious post.

Having some personal confusion over the events taking place around the discovery of Ruth’s remains, who the people and organizations were, who did what when, etc…I put together a short timeline using Dr. Glover’s “Treasure Tales of the Superstitions” and a couple of Tom Kollenborn’s articles on Ruth. I was able to fill in some of the remaining “personal knowledge” gaps with a little research of my own. Once I made this timeline, there were a couple of things that stood out. Anyway, here it is:

1929 - City of Phoenix hired Odd S. Halseth as City Archaeologist. Also in 1929, Halseth meets Neil Judd, who he would later mail Ruth’s skull to, at the 1929 Pecos Conference. This was/is a conference for southwestern archaeologists. Neil Judd also worked with Halseth during the 1930 aerial survey of ancient Hohokam canals in Phoenix. Judd worked on several archaeological sites in Arizona over the years. He was the Curator of the National Museum’s Archaeology Dept. during the Ruth episode.

5/6 DEC 31 – Ritchie Lewis and Brownie Holmes lead riding/pack animals from Lewis’ Tempe location to First Water Ranch for week-long joint archaeological expedition in Superstitions. These animals and the hunting hounds taken on the expedition belonged to Lewis.

7 DEC 31 – Expedition departs First Water Ranch in the morning. Members are Harvey Mott, Editor, AZ Republic; Odd S. Halseth, Phoenix City Archaelogist; E.D. Newcomer, Photographer; George “Brownie” Holmes, Guide; Ritchie Lewis, Outfitter.

7 DEC 31 – By evening, expedition has reached Garden Valley and set up camp. It rained for two days. Archaeological exploration of Garden Valley not very successful due to heavy rains and mud. They stay in camp here on 8 and 9 DEC.

10 DEC 31 – Rain stopped. Expedition decides to break camp that morning and move on to Charlebois Canyon. Near the “Spanish Racetrack” skull is discovered by “Music”, one of Lewis’ hounds. E. D. Newcomer takes photos.

10 DEC 31 – Expedition camps overnight at Charlebois Spring. Skull hung in tree to protect it from predators. Expedition decides to return to Phoenix in the morning.

11 DEC 31 – Expedition departs Charlebois Spring for First Water Ranch. Later that day, Expedition reaches First Water Ranch. Mott, Halseth and Newcomer return to Phoenix.

12 DEC 31 – Dr. Orville H. Brown and Dr. James J. Lasalle examine skull and compare it to photos of Ruth. They believe it compares favorably. Dental surgeon Dr. Claude Moore examines skull and believes that the skull is from an aged white man who wore dentures.

12 DEC 31 – Arizona Republic reports skull thought to be Adolph Ruth’s is found.

13 DEC 31 - Halseth cables Science Service in Washington, DC. Science Service is a non-profit science newswire organization that was founded by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Museum (Smithsonian). While a separate entity, Science Service remains closely affiliated with the National Museum. Halseth is basically trying to sell the story to them, but also asks the Science Service to contact Ruth’s son, and Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, Curator of Physical Anthropology at the National Museum.

13 DEC 31 – Watson Davis, editor of the “Science News Letter” at the Science Service, (and later head of the Science Service), telegraphs back to Halseth. Watson basically turns down the Ruth story and explains they are only interested in any archaeological aspects of the expedition. Watson also tells Halseth that Ruth’s family has been contacted and that they would communicate with him.

14 DEC 31 – Halseth mails the skull to Neil Judd. Judd is a friend of Halseth’s, and is at this time the Curator of Archaeology at the National Museum.

16 DEC 31 – Halseth telegraphs Judd and explains that he has shipped the skull and to “deliver and notify him (Hrdlicka) immediately upon arrival.”

16 DEC 31 – Halseth writes a letter to Hrdlicka explaining what is going on and asks for haste in Hrdlicka’s opinion.

19 DEC 31 – Hrdlicka receives the skull and sends what looks like a telegram to Halseth: “Skull unquestionably that of an aged white man. Recent shot possible.”

5 JAN 32 – Jeff Adams (Ex-sheriff, part-time Deputy, Maricopa County), Ace Gardner (Deputy, Pinal County), Tex Barkley, Gabriel Robles, and Hosea Cline enter mountains in search of the rest of Ruth’s remains.

8 JAN 32 – Search party locates Ruth’s skeleton on the eastern slope of Black Top Mesa.

10 JAN 32 – AZ Republic reports Ruth’s remains found.

11 JAN 32 – Jim Bark arrives in PHX, begins looking into Ruth matter. He is communicating with both Sims Ely and Northcutt Ely. Northcutt is a prominent attorney in Wash DC, and is serving as an executive assistant to Secretary of the Interior Wilbur. Northcutt is in contact with the Ruth Family.

12 JAN 32 – Sheriff’s Dept. ships Ruth’s personal effects back home to DC.

14 JAN 32 – Sheriff James R. McFadden writes letter to Earl Ruth regarding case.

19 JAN 32 – Jim Bark writes letter to Northcutt Ely, describing how Adams and Barkley followed Ruth’s map into a tributary canyon off Peters’ Canyon.

21 JAN 32 – Senator Carl Hayden (D-AZ) writes a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Lloyd Andrews, lobbying for an inquest into the Ruth matter. Sen. Hayden says Northcutt Ely and Erwin Ruth had shown up at his office with Hrdlicka’s affidavit.

25 JAN 32 – Jeff Adams writes letter to Sen. Hayden stating he believes Ruth died of natural causes, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

13 FEB 32 – Ruth’s remains shipped to Washington DC.

17 FEB 32 – Death certificate filed in Maricopa County for Adolph Ruth. Place of death, Superstition Mts, Maricopa Co.; Date of death, June 1931; Cause of Death, UNK; Accident, Suicide or Homicide, UNK.

The biggest thing that stands out to me now, is something people have been telling me all along…there never was any investigation. There was not time for one, at least not one of any substance. His personal effects were shipped off within 4 days of finding them (actually, only about 1 and a half working days, since the 4 days spanned a weekend), and his remains were shipped off after about 5 weeks. There may be something wrong with my days on this, as the death certificate was filed the next week. At any rate, for one reason or another, or maybe many reasons, it looks like they just washed their hands of it.

The other question I have is why was this all done in Maricopa County? Ruth’s camp, his skull, and the rest of his remains were all found in Pinal County. Strange.

Am I missing sources that show Pinal County’s participation in this? I’m aware they helped in the initial search in the summer of ’31, but from the time the skull and remains are found on, I don’t have anything on Pinal County being involved. Perhaps they were and I just don’t have the info.

Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:31 pm

Also, forgot to add, I also used as references the Halseth/Hrclicka correspondence provided by Garry. Joe, I think they're originally from your research at the Smithsonian? At any rate I forgot to add that to above post, thanks to you guys for sharing that info as well as Dr. Glover and Tom Kollenborn. Best regards, Jim
Jim R.

User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Legend of the Superstition Mountains

Postby Potbelly Jim » Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:53 pm

One other thing...it looks to me like someone typed up first drafts of Hrdlicka's letters and responses...after which, it also appears to me that he proofread them and made changes to them. The changes show that whoever made the changes, I'm assuming it was Hrdlicka, had training in proofreading and how to make changes that would be unambiguous to a clerk typist. I've had the same training and the changes look familiar to me and are consistent with how I would do it, but only after that training...The response Hrdlicka makes to Halseth on 19 DEC appears to be a draft of a telegram, which he made changes to. I quoted the words he added on to what appears to be a draft telegram:

"Recent shot possible."

After looking at this again, it looks to me like this edit was made with a "quill" pen (not a ball point or pencil). I still have pens like that today, the quill is steel or brass...that type of pen is what I'm talking about...the ink fades and leaves what looks like faint letters with an outline. At first I didn't notice it, but I think Hrdlicka had a comma between the word "recent" and "shot". So it appears to me he's saying, in the terse vernacular of "pay by the letter" telegrams: "Recent, shot possible." So he's answering the question Halseth asked (but was not answered in the wording of the draft), that the skull was recent, not ancient. Then he adds he believes Ruth was possibly shot with "shot possible".
Jim R.