Origin of Waltz in Mexico Story

[Gregory E. Davis]

Gentleman; I do not recall which post it was in but someone was recently inquiring about the origin of the story pertaining to Waltz and Wiser meeting Peralta in Mexico. May I suggest for those who want a STARTING PLACE to research this story try the following newspaper article. Arizona Silver Belt (Miami, Arizona) Daily; October 24, l924. Page 3, Cols. 1-7. Lost Mines of Arizona, The Lost Dutchman Mine by Charles M. Clark, President of the Arizona Pioneers' Association (Now the Arizona Historical Society in Tucson, Arizona). Also of interest might be this additional article mentioning a trip by Andrew and Jacob Starrar into Mexico in the mid 1860's. As you may recall, Andrew and Jacob were neighbors of Waltz. Early oral history being passed down by the old timers can sometimes get distorted. I don't know for sure but there may be a connection between the two stories. Who knows? You make your own judgment. Arizona Daily Gazette, (Phoenix, Arizona), March 21, l893. Page 5, Col. 2.; Another Star Eclipsed.

[S.C.]

Mr. Davis brings up a good point. Time twists details. And it seems that anytime the name "Jacob" is mentioned there is confusion. It is easy to see how the Starrars (there was a Jacob...) could get confused with Waltz. Germans... Jacobs... It could easily all blend together in one's mind. Perhaps the story of the Starrars going to Mexico blended with the already existant details of Waltz - and thus, the story element in the legend of Waltz and a partner going to Mexico. It could as well be a misunderstanding of another story going around - that being the Lost German Mine (sometimes referred to as "Jacobs and Ludi"). However, though the Clark stories known to exist certainly imply a body of knowledge unique (to a point) from the standard Waltz/LDM tale, it is hard to say when his version originated.

Milton Rose in his manuscript "Rainbow's End" says there was another - earlier - version of the story of Clark's in print in 1878 or so that mentions the names of the prospectors as being Jacobs and Ludi. In fact, Rose's document has the text of that article. However, it appears that Rose got the publication and/or date of printing wrong as his source has not been verified. If that was the case, and there was such a story, then Clark consciously removed the names Jacobs and Ludi in later versions of the tale.

So, who knows what happens when "time" is involved. Facts certainly can be twisted or blended to form new elements. And, by association (though perhaps incorrectly) these are meshed with Waltz and the LDM.

[Joe Ribaudo]

S.C.,

The only way for your "twisted or..... blended.....elements" scenario to work, would be to discount Jim Bark's account of his conversation with Rhiney Petrasch. Bark's notes seem clear enough, so he either lied about what Rhiney told him, Rhiney lied to him, or one or the other had dementia.

While anything is possible, I will stick to the story of the guy who was actually there when Waltz told the tale. There seems to be little reason for Rhiney to lie to Bark. Although it is possible he made up the story of what happened in Mexico, for the life of me, I can see no motive for such an elaborate fabrication.

As we move away from the story of the man who actually knew the Dutchman, in time and detail, your "twisted" and "blended" theory gets legs.

Julia Thomas and Rhinehart Petrasch were the only two people who had a real chance to find Waltz's mine by design. They are the ones who dealt with "the man". Everyone else has dealt with the "story". As you watch the current authors change one word of that story at a time (sometimes huge chunck of words), imagine what it would have been like to hear it directly from Julia and Rhiney.

I will take Bark's account of what they said, as the closest to "pristine" that you can get. That does not mean that important information has not been presented over the years, it just keeps it all in perspective. In Search and Rescue, when we loose a track, we always go back to the last real track the person left. Don't want to end up following someone else's tracks.

Just rambling here, so pay no mind. I like the thread. Glad to see some of the "old timers" returning.

Respectfully,

Joe

[S.C.]

Joe,

I doubt the theory is mine alone. And, in any case, it was a generalization.

However, I do not think Bark or Rhiney lied. BUT... Rhiney could have been mistaken about dates, people, and places. I think - for example - Waltz spoke of a loose "alliance" with an individual in the past (like in Prescott - or even California) and somehow Rhiney misunderstood and it became a partnership involved in the Superstitions.

There is good stuff in what Rhiney said. And in what Thomas said. However, they are human and I just believed they misunderstood some of the things Waltz talked about.

There are reasons for that. Rhiney didn't pay attention. Waltz spoke the Swabian dialect of German. And most of all, some of the things attributed to Waltz just cannot be historically possible.

[Joe Ribaudo]

S.C.,

I know that you have some really good sources back there, but I was wondering how you know that Waltz spoke the Swabian dialect? I don't believe that really has any bearing on his discussions with Julia Thomas or Petrasch, as Waltz spoke English quite well, or so it seems.

There were a great many dialects within the Germanic tribes, perhaps hundreds. Why do you believe Julia and the boy had any trouble understanding Waltz? At what point in the history of LDM lore does that "fact" pop up?

I don't really know the answers to those questions, but I am pretty sure that you do. It would be interesting to hear those answers. If you are saving that information for a book or article, I can understand why you would decline to answer at this time. As for finding the LDM, I doubt it could move anyone an inch closer.

I like your tie-in to Prescott. Was Waltz there at the right time?

Thanks for the replies.

Respectfully,

Joe

[S.C.]

Joe,

Sorry it has taken awhile to reply to issues you mentioned. But, Tom Glover discusses the Swabian connection in his first book.

Swabian German was Waltz's language of preference. Emil and Julia spoke Swabian. Rhiney did not. He could understand - but it was difficult. Probably like someone who speaks modern English trying to listen to someone who speaks in "Shakespearian."

Even in the Bark and Ely books, Rhiney admitted that Waltz accused him of not paying attention.

Yes. Waltz would have been in Prescott at the right time. He was one of the first ones there. Historic facts are interesting: Partners. Mining claims. Mexicans. And I believe even maybe a Peralta or two (though not the "right" one). Indian attacks. Deaths. People going and getting supplies from far away places. Coming back and finding dead people. Hmmmm... sound familiar?

And.. you are right. In the long run - none of this will help anyone find the LDM. But, I mention it just because it is interesting.

[Gregory E. Davis]

Joe Ribaudo; Please drop me an Email regarding this Saturday. [email protected] Thank you Greg Davis

[Thomas Glover]

I wonder. Perhaps if one looks at the question from the other way around … Make the assumption that Rhinehart never confused any of his information, and that Bark told it all and told it accurately.

Compare and contrast with:

In Rhinehart's time in Phoenix/Arizona there was a legend about two Germans in Mexico and a Mexican mine in Arizona that became a lost mine (Lost German Mine).

One of the Germans was named Jacob.

When the Petrashes arrived and while Rhinehart first lived in Phoenix there was a prominent/well known German who had come up from Mexico with his brother. The two were involved in mining and knew Jacob Waltz well. These were the Starar Brothers: Jacob and Andrew.

The Starar brother who was in Phoenix in Rhinehart's time was Jacob Starar.

There was another German named Jacob, Jacob Waltz, who seems to have told Rhinehart he had a secret Mexican Mine.

What this last Jacob, Jacob Waltz, told Rhinehart he told him in a German dialect that Rhinehart did not fully understand.

Rhinehart's original/closest companion in the search for Waltz's mine was a woman, Julia Thomas, who had visions/revelations about the mine after Waltz's death.

Rhinehart then told the story to Jim Bark as he remembered it.

Bark seems to have written it down (at least in his manuscript) years after Rhinehart told him.

Bark’s known recollection of the story is from a manuscript Bark intended to publish for the general public.

Is the following conclusion a certainty? Or, probable?

Rhinehart never confused any of the three Jacobs, Mexican adventures, Mexican families or mines, or new Julia vision clues?

And, Bark, told all and told it accurately while still hunting the mine. Correct?

[S.C.]

I think it is doubtful that Bark told it all. At least not in that manuscript.

The "Notes" were just discussed on the "Holmes Manuscript" topic thread. It is known that Ely probably had editorial "help" from his publisher to get it into the form that finally saw print. This then implies - to a point - that perhaps his "exact" words did not see publication. The question was then, how accurate are Bark's words then in the various copies of the "Notes" going around? Well, I think they are pretty much intact. I have seen several versions of the Bark Notes from different sources. And they are all pretty faithful to each other. Because of the "authority" held with the words, the copiers made a point of accurately copying them. However, it is true that Bark's manuscript was intended for public consumption one day. So, I doubt it would have included all he knew. And, perhaps could have taken a liberty or two to tell a good story. Bark obviously had a body of knowledge about the LDM but he did not put it all down in a document that would one day be published.

But, getting to back to the origin of the LDM legend, I think Rhinehart and Julia both could have made some innocent assumptions and blended things together as suggested. It makes sense to me. It has been wondered if it was Bicknell who made the assumption the Germans of the Lost German Mine story and Waltz were one and the same story. That it started with him. Because of what appears in the Bark Notes, I think it originated with Petrasch and Thomas. And, Bicknell simply wrote what they told him. Perhaps it confirmed something he too was believed.

All the individuals were human. I think it is not out of the question for erroneous assumptions to be made or to have misconceptions and not know they were misconceptions. It is far more believable than the opposite as Thomas Glover suggests - that there were no mistakes and everything was accurate.

[Joe Ribaudo]

S.C.,

There are only fifteen clues to the mines location in Bark's notes, that he claims came from Jacob Waltz. That would be through Julia or Reiney.
It might be interesting to see how many of those "clues" are matched in the Holmes' manuscript, and how many more are added. That would be fairly easy to do, but it is not something I have looked into yet.

There are a few other "clues" that are less obvious, but come from the same sources. That would be Julia, Reiney and Bark. Admittedly there is one other fairly important clue that comes from outside that circle, but probably originated from Julia.

Each year I move closer to the ravine I think holds the answer to what Waltz had, but have never really felt the need to make it a priority. Perhaps next year we will have to make that climb. Historically it is of great interest to me, but I have always had "other fish to fry". Still do.

For me, there are only a few puzzles that hold as much interest as the legends of the Superstition Mountains. One that consumes a bit of time would be the "Beale Cipher". Good luck to anyone who gets wound up in that little mystery. Perhaps that would be something for Lou to put his talents to work on.

Respectfully,

Joe

[Joe Ribaudo]

Speaking of Lou Layton, did anyone else purchase his book? If so, another opinion or two would be interesting. I like to think I keep an open mind about such things, but we seldom see our own shortcomings.
Perhaps someone else has a different opinion, and I (for one) would like to see it. It may be that the silence from the rest of the forum is due to people taking more time with his theories than I did.

Respectfully,

Joe