I, too, have noticed the "silence." I think there are a variety of reasons for a slow-down in activity. However, I tend to think certain topics generate more interest than others and sometimes the topics get talked to death. There is just not much more anyone has to say about them. Or want to say about them. As a result, there seem to be topics that are "politically correct" and some are not... Sometimes posts are made and just don't generate much response. And others do.
So, I would like to submit a new topic. Perhaps someone might have a comment or some information. Perhaps not.
One of my "specialities" or primary "interests" in the LDM realm has been the evolution of the tale. It is pretty evident that in only a few years after Waltz's death the story grew to mythic proportions. Is the myth correct - reflecting history? Not hardly. The tale of Jacob Waltz was a simple tale that for a variety of reasons, by a variety of people, was molded into a much larger tale. This could be because Julia Thomas and Rhiney Petrasch "embellished" a simple tale to make it more interesting. Or their memories waivered. Or early journalists like P.C. Bicknell meshed the simple Waltz tale with another exisiting tale or tales because it was thought they were one in the same - such as the Lost German Mine story. We just will never know. However, there are elements that can be examined that run parallel to the development of the tale as a whole. And perhaps we can make some sense out certain bits and pieces of the tale as it grew.
One such issue is Jacob Waltz's partner. This is the mythical partner Jacob Weiser - sometimes referred to as Weisner. History indicates it is extremely unlike there was such an individual. It could be the notion of a partner had a basis in something Waltz told Thomas or Petrasch - and with time - warped into something else. This brings me to my open question to the forum. How did the Jacob Weiser element evolve?
The earliest reference in print of Waltz directly or indirectly have a "partner" of any kind is PC Bicknells' 1894 newspaper article "A Mythical Mine." There is a reference to a partner. But no name was given. After that, the next reference is Bicknell again in the famous 1895 San Francisco Chronicle article about Old Yacob Waltz and his "lost" mine. That article gives the partner a name - Jacob. No last name. Just Jacob. After that, the earliest reference - in print - I know of that fleshes out Waltz's "partner" and identifies his last name is a 1931 newspaper article by Ernest Douglas entitled "Hunting 37 Lost Mines" printed in the Arizona Daily Sun.
Douglas obviously got that name somewhere. Perhaps it was only from existing oral tradition. (Which is more than likely the case.) Or perhaps there is some earlier reference in an article that was printed somewhere. Does anyone have any insight into this issue? Was there any earlier printed references to Jacob Weiser's full name before this 1931 article? If not, where did it come from? And who made the association?
I simply cannot believe it is as simplistic as Robert Blair states in his book - that it came as an "invention" from Thomas Weedin because Weedin had a real-life partner himself in mining enterprises - a man named C.B. Weiser. There are references, of course, to "Weiser" in Jim Bark's "Notes" - written circa 1913/4 to 1938. However, that manuscript was not common knowledge nor completed at the time Douglas wrote his article.
The Origin of the Jacob Weiser Element of the LDM Legend
A Partner
LDM, that was an interesting post. I agree. It might be futile to try to search for a particular "name" during that time frame. However, my understanding of historic fact is that as far as the Lost Dutchman goes, it is doubtful Jacob Waltz had a partner. That is, someone other than his nephew who briefly could have been considered a partner. The "partner" concept as related in most tellings of the tale is hard to substantiate regardless of the name involved.
I do believe, though, that a lot of the things Waltz related to Julia Thomas and Rhiney Petrasch were garbled with time. Waltz very well could have been discussing a partner - a partner from earlier times - like Wickenberg or even California. And Julia and Rhiney misunderstood - or forgot - what he was talking about. The same with an Indian attack. He could have talked about one from earlier times and with the passage of time, Julia and/or Rhiney somehow associated it with the mine and events in the Superstitions.
I do believe, though, that a lot of the things Waltz related to Julia Thomas and Rhiney Petrasch were garbled with time. Waltz very well could have been discussing a partner - a partner from earlier times - like Wickenberg or even California. And Julia and Rhiney misunderstood - or forgot - what he was talking about. The same with an Indian attack. He could have talked about one from earlier times and with the passage of time, Julia and/or Rhiney somehow associated it with the mine and events in the Superstitions.