Right now this forum is divided into LDM Discussions, Superstition Mountain Journal and Info About New Forum. I wonder how other members might feel about combining the Superstition Mountain Journal part with the main forum – LDM Discussions?
I don’t know about others, but I tend to miss items not posted to the LDM Discussions section, or at least not read them or find them as often. Plus, as we all know the threads of our discussions tend to wander and can encompass a wide area beyond the original topic.
Checking out the Superstition Mountain Journal section recently I came across some interesting postings that I think may not have received the attention they merit. Where I think if they had been posted in the LDM Discussion section they might have had a wider audience and more discussion.
I am posting some of these in separate posting for some more discussion.
Combining the LDM and SMJ sections of the forum?
Examples...
Here are some examples of postings in the SMJ section that might have received a wider response?
Greg Davis wrote in reply to a posting by Azmula:
“Azmula: I must confess that I have deliberately avoided stories pertaining to the Stone Map controversy. There are so many theorizes developing as to what they represent that it's become a quandary equal to, or greater than, the Legend of the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine. …… Even at that, those who were involved at the time put out a number of misleading stories to the general public to hide the truth since there were actively using the maps in there own treasure quest. Maybe some day we will do a Stone Map article if one can be put together from an objective point of view.”
Wiz then wrote:
“ second Azmula's call for a stone map article. Whether you believe they are real or fake, they have certainly become an integral part of the Superstition Mountain story. An article telling the stories of the different searchers, another outlining various interpretations that have been used and their results, another outlining arguments pro and con regarding their genuineness,... it seems like there's quite a bit of potential material, even without taking a position on the matter.”
Interesting quandary for Greg and the Journal – a topic many, many are fascinated with, but one so mired in unknowns and b*ll s**t that how does the Society respond in its Journal. Just getting officially involved, as in recognizing it as an historical topic might damage reputation or standing?
………………..
Emanon 2 wrote:
“Does The Superstition Mountain Journal/Editor(s) give any credit to any one who donates such important historical information. ……. If the photos, maps letters and various other documents are the originials that I have thoroughly examined are authentic items, then WHO donated them to the SMHJ, and for WHAT reason? I am interested in any response from whom ever is knowledgable about this request. I, will anxiously await any replies... let the Truth be known…..”
SC responded:
“I believe many individuals donated those items. They were individuals such as Al Reser, Clay Worst, Richard Peck, etc., etc. etc. No mystery. Mr. Davis has known just about everybody - and just about everybody has in one way or another donated items.”
Emanon 2 replied:
“Dear SC, In reply to your answer... I can assure you that none of the persons that you have named are the ones who submitted the Bark Notes and or donated them to the SMHJ. I, hope that you are not offended if I disagree with you on this matter... I would like to hear from Mr.Davis….”
Two good questions, does the Superstition Mountain Historical Society give credit to those who donate? And what is the history, or as art people say the provenance, of the items collected by and for the Society? Was a certain map created by Crazy Jake to con someone? Is a certain manuscript the original? Is it the whole manuscript or only part? Where did it come from? The provenance (I just heard this word on a television documentary, and I like it as it says more than just “history”) of an item is often the single most important documentation of something.
Greg Davis wrote in reply to a posting by Azmula:
“Azmula: I must confess that I have deliberately avoided stories pertaining to the Stone Map controversy. There are so many theorizes developing as to what they represent that it's become a quandary equal to, or greater than, the Legend of the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine. …… Even at that, those who were involved at the time put out a number of misleading stories to the general public to hide the truth since there were actively using the maps in there own treasure quest. Maybe some day we will do a Stone Map article if one can be put together from an objective point of view.”
Wiz then wrote:
“ second Azmula's call for a stone map article. Whether you believe they are real or fake, they have certainly become an integral part of the Superstition Mountain story. An article telling the stories of the different searchers, another outlining various interpretations that have been used and their results, another outlining arguments pro and con regarding their genuineness,... it seems like there's quite a bit of potential material, even without taking a position on the matter.”
Interesting quandary for Greg and the Journal – a topic many, many are fascinated with, but one so mired in unknowns and b*ll s**t that how does the Society respond in its Journal. Just getting officially involved, as in recognizing it as an historical topic might damage reputation or standing?
………………..
Emanon 2 wrote:
“Does The Superstition Mountain Journal/Editor(s) give any credit to any one who donates such important historical information. ……. If the photos, maps letters and various other documents are the originials that I have thoroughly examined are authentic items, then WHO donated them to the SMHJ, and for WHAT reason? I am interested in any response from whom ever is knowledgable about this request. I, will anxiously await any replies... let the Truth be known…..”
SC responded:
“I believe many individuals donated those items. They were individuals such as Al Reser, Clay Worst, Richard Peck, etc., etc. etc. No mystery. Mr. Davis has known just about everybody - and just about everybody has in one way or another donated items.”
Emanon 2 replied:
“Dear SC, In reply to your answer... I can assure you that none of the persons that you have named are the ones who submitted the Bark Notes and or donated them to the SMHJ. I, hope that you are not offended if I disagree with you on this matter... I would like to hear from Mr.Davis….”
Two good questions, does the Superstition Mountain Historical Society give credit to those who donate? And what is the history, or as art people say the provenance, of the items collected by and for the Society? Was a certain map created by Crazy Jake to con someone? Is a certain manuscript the original? Is it the whole manuscript or only part? Where did it come from? The provenance (I just heard this word on a television documentary, and I like it as it says more than just “history”) of an item is often the single most important documentation of something.
Examples #2
Aurum wrote:
“The SMHS should give credit to John and his family for any original information which derived from Jim Bark's collection, regardless of whom may have given the Society a copy of the Bark notes.
Without the original hand written work, the complete accuracy of the copied notes will always be suspect. This is a fact of life which has to be dealt with by everyone involved. The Jim Bark notes are not public records or municipal documents open to the general public. They are personal papers and the sole possession of the family of Jim Bark. The Bark, Cox, Sears and Spangler families do not owe anyone or any organization the personal possessions or property of their respective families .
This fact really chaps the hide of a lot of folks both within and without the SMHS. The typical response of people runs from outright jealousy to contempt to a thoughtful reflection of the material that has been shared and passed along.
I have read the Bark notes copies (not the original work). All I can say is I take them with a guarded cautiousness and let my intuition and common sense be my guide. That is the best advice I can give to anyone else who may read them or any other material concerning the lost mine for that matter.
Greg Davis is a tireless researcher and has amassed a large collection of public records and personal family material associated with the history of the Superstition Mountains. I have always had a question of where Mr. Davis's personal collection leaves off and the SMHS collection begins. I believe the SMHS and Journal should give credit to the individual(s) who donated personal material to the Society and from whose collection the material originated. This would avoid confusion and would allow the reader of the material the knowledge of how, when and where the material originated.”
I have quote Aurum’s posting in full as it addresses what I feel are some very important points: Information held privately is not public information. And publishing it or trading it about, etc. does rub a lot of people the wrong way, very badly the wrong way. Now if someone starts sharing their information or family history, records etc. voluntarily and then the material gets passed to others that is a different matter. I am talking about when family information has been gathered without the family’s permission. Then there is the point Aurum raised about “where Mr. Davis's personal collection leaves off and the SMHS collection begins”? A good question. Are they the same or different? If someone donates something to who or what are they donating it?
As for the Bark Notes, I am no expert on them all I can say is that to the best of my knowledge the owners of the Notes have never given them voluntarily to anyone for public use. In Corbin’s last book she lists Al Reser as the source of the Notes she published. Mr. Reser may have had a copy and it may have come from John Spangler, but he would not have owned the copyright.
Peter wrote:
“Due to this, it is often difficult, if not impossible to chase down the origins of some of the older documentation. It would not surprise me if a fair amount of the collection's origin has simply been lost over time.”
Peter, my guess is that most “the collection’s origin” has not been lost, from what I hear Mr. Davis is too careful a collector for that.
“The SMHS should give credit to John and his family for any original information which derived from Jim Bark's collection, regardless of whom may have given the Society a copy of the Bark notes.
Without the original hand written work, the complete accuracy of the copied notes will always be suspect. This is a fact of life which has to be dealt with by everyone involved. The Jim Bark notes are not public records or municipal documents open to the general public. They are personal papers and the sole possession of the family of Jim Bark. The Bark, Cox, Sears and Spangler families do not owe anyone or any organization the personal possessions or property of their respective families .
This fact really chaps the hide of a lot of folks both within and without the SMHS. The typical response of people runs from outright jealousy to contempt to a thoughtful reflection of the material that has been shared and passed along.
I have read the Bark notes copies (not the original work). All I can say is I take them with a guarded cautiousness and let my intuition and common sense be my guide. That is the best advice I can give to anyone else who may read them or any other material concerning the lost mine for that matter.
Greg Davis is a tireless researcher and has amassed a large collection of public records and personal family material associated with the history of the Superstition Mountains. I have always had a question of where Mr. Davis's personal collection leaves off and the SMHS collection begins. I believe the SMHS and Journal should give credit to the individual(s) who donated personal material to the Society and from whose collection the material originated. This would avoid confusion and would allow the reader of the material the knowledge of how, when and where the material originated.”
I have quote Aurum’s posting in full as it addresses what I feel are some very important points: Information held privately is not public information. And publishing it or trading it about, etc. does rub a lot of people the wrong way, very badly the wrong way. Now if someone starts sharing their information or family history, records etc. voluntarily and then the material gets passed to others that is a different matter. I am talking about when family information has been gathered without the family’s permission. Then there is the point Aurum raised about “where Mr. Davis's personal collection leaves off and the SMHS collection begins”? A good question. Are they the same or different? If someone donates something to who or what are they donating it?
As for the Bark Notes, I am no expert on them all I can say is that to the best of my knowledge the owners of the Notes have never given them voluntarily to anyone for public use. In Corbin’s last book she lists Al Reser as the source of the Notes she published. Mr. Reser may have had a copy and it may have come from John Spangler, but he would not have owned the copyright.
Peter wrote:
“Due to this, it is often difficult, if not impossible to chase down the origins of some of the older documentation. It would not surprise me if a fair amount of the collection's origin has simply been lost over time.”
Peter, my guess is that most “the collection’s origin” has not been lost, from what I hear Mr. Davis is too careful a collector for that.
-
Gregory E. Davis
- Part Timer
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 11:19 am
- Location: Tempe, Arizona
Rosebud: The intent of the Superstition Mountain Journal site was to provide a place where interested parties could provide inputs to the editorial staff of the Superstition Mountain Journal: These would be comments pertaining to improving the journal, stories you would like to see published, comments in general about the journal and its publication progress, ETC: It is NOT a site for debates. That is for the LDM Discussion site of the Forum. See my recent post May 4, 2003 at the Superstition Mountain Journal sit. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis