Subject: Dig for gold? Artillery?
Date: 04/25/2000
From: Carl Seiler
Browsing through the "Alamo" entry at the online version of Microsoft's Encarta encyclopedia, I ran into this statement:
"In 1995 excavators began digging on the grounds of the Alamo searching for gold, which James Bowie supposedly dropped down one of the Alamo wells before the deadly siege."
While rumors of gold from various sources abound, I was not aware that there were any excavations undertaken for the purposes of finding such gold. [This] sounds sort of off-the-wall to me. I was under the impression that most excavations in the past have primarily been for the purposes of investigation before the installation of utilities and other construction at the complex that disturbs the ground. Digging for the sole purpose of finding gold?
The unsigned Encarta article also says:
"Santa Anna deployed his troops around the structure and, when his artillery arrived, launched an intensive assault."
The above quote seems misleading to me. Although Santa Anna had some artillery on hand, doesn't current scholarship indicate that he ordered the attack on the compound before receiving his larger cannons, apparently hoping to defeat the garrison at the Alamo before the rebel reinforcements arrived(say, from La Bahía)?
Carl Seiler
Baton Rouge, LA
Actually, it was silver and not gold. The story of Bowie's silver mine and the Alamo treasure is just one of many Alamo legends that have sprung up over the years. One reason the story became so "well-known" is because it was part of an episode of "Unsolved Mysteries." The Alamo informs us that guests frequently ask about the dig.
You're correct in stating that archaeological investigations of Alamo Plaza are usually confined to periods when there is ground disturbance during construction. However, the 1995 "well dig" was an unusual event in that did not originate with the scientific or archaeological community. It was rather a private venture -- treasure hunting, pure and simple.
The treasure hunters based their dig on a copy of the Green B. Jameson map. No one knows what happened to the original nor can anyone attest to the accuracy of the copy. The only other indicator of a well anywhere in the main plaza is the Sánchez Navarro map, which places the well further to the west. At the very least, this project was an expensive gamble.
Not only was there no treasure to be found, but the entire operation became something of an embarrassment. The institution funding the archaeological report pulled their backing and the report, though written, was never completed.(We had planned to publish the incomplete report, but it was difficult to follow and offered little of interest.)
With the aid of sophisticated ground-sounding radar, the archaeologists-for-hire were able to locate three roughly circular anomalies in the area identified by the Jameson map. The excavation took place over the larger of the anomalies, but it was soon discovered that this was little more than a trash pit dating back to the mission period. The other aberrations turned out to be radar echoes of a nearby 20th century metal lamppost. The dig did yield some modest data from the mission period, but very little on the 1836 battle. There were reports of a Mexican soldier's shako plate being found, but it turned out to be a rusted part from a Model-A Ford.
Concerning artillery, you're correct. Santa Anna started the siege with howitzers and light guns, which he redeployed throughout the siege as his lines tightened. The larger caliber artillery was due to arrive with General Gaona around March 11. Therefore, Santa Anna launched his assault before the guns arrived.
Subject: Long Barracks
Date: 05/02/ 2000
From: Charles J. Erion
What was the reasoning for removing the second level of the "Long Barracks" in the early 20th Century if it was a part of the total Alamo?
Has there been any discussion about restoring its second level? I understand there had been some defensive measures on the first floor in many of the rooms with "cowhide and earth barriers." Could [such] a room be recreated? And what about the hospital? How large a room was this?
Thanks, Charles J. Erion
Nevada City, CA
Reason had very little to do with the destruction of the upper floor of the structure. In 1912, preservation was not as great a concern as was progress. If not for the valiant efforts of women such as Adina de Zavala and Clara Driscoll, the entire compound might have been razed and replaced with modern office buildings. However, there were valid safety concerns for the removal of the upper floor. Apparently, when the Hugo and Schmeltzer Building was demolished(ca. 1890), the gaudy mercantile facade was removed leaving the underlying rock wall structure exposed to the elements. This allowed rain to seep into the mortar joints and deep cracks developed in the wall. There was an eminent danger of the wall toppling, so the upper floor was removed. The lower floor lay open and exposed for nearly 50 years before it was covered.
I think a recreation of a battle scene is unlikely. If you have visited the site, you know that it is now the Long Barracks Museum. The Alamo's goal is to provide a balanced interpretation of its history and not just that of the 1836 battle. Besides, recreation of a barricaded room would be impractical due to space limitations.
Concerning the hospital, the Compañía Volante built the first hospital before 1810[Ivey,Fox]. It was located in the upstairs of the convento. However, if you are talking about the hospital during the 1836 battle, then we will have to look at the ground floor rooms along the Southern wall. The rooms near the gate were where Bowie was kept after he became ill. To our knowledge, there were never any dimensions mentioned in regard to the actual size of the rooms and archaeological study of the area has yielded no such precise measurements.
Subject: Facade Dimensions
Date: 05/25/ 2000
From: Ricardo Barrios
[I'm] desperately searching for the Alamo front facade dimensions.
Ricardo Barrios
Houston, TX
Happy to help. Here are the dimensions as given by the Department of the Interior from a Historic American Building Survey. A word of warning, these are big downloads.
|
I was very pleased to see the article by Jake Ivey on the Alamo religious statues at the ADP website: a fine piece of research!
The following may be of interest. It is from Joséph Milton Nance, Attack and Counter-Attack: The Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1842 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964), pp. 460-1 [The context is the gathering of Texan volunteers at Béxar in October 1842 for what would become the Somervell Expedition]:
"For the want of something to do the men in small groups visited the historic sites--the missions, the Alamo, the springs above town . . . and the beautiful scenery about and above them, and other places of interest--sometimes they carved their names on the edifices, or broke or cut off pieces of beautiful carving as souvenirs. Bill Bates from San Augustine fixed a purchase [i.e., gained a foothold] to enable him to reach the two little images, representing angels, carved in bold relief on each side of the main entrance to the Alamo, and 'with his hack knife cut off the two heads of these images and carried them away.' There were many souvenir hunters among the Texans on the frontier. Other pieces of wood (carvings or otherwise) were taken from the Alamo and converted into pipes. Harvey Adams cut a picture of 'the whole Alamo' on a large pipe, the wood having been taken from one of the two large statues lying prostrate on the ground in front of the Alamo, but which at one time had stood on each side of the front arch facing west."
For his quotations, Nance cites Harvey Alexander Adams, "[Journal of an] Expedition Against the Southwest," entry of Oct. 19, 1842, typescript, Archives Collection, University of Texas Library, of original diary in possession of Miss Ophelia Gilmore of Austin.
I'm not sure if Harvey Alexander Adams was the source for the assertion that the statues were made of wood, or if Nance surmised as much, since pipes were being made from the statues.
Regards,
Tom Kailbourn
What can you tell me about General Cos' stay at the Alamo in December of 1835? What changes were made during his time there?
Charles J. Erion
Nevada City, CA
Col. Domingo de Ugartechea, assisted by Col. José María Mendoza, directed the construction of the defenses of the Alamo in the period from October 12 to November 3, using the troops of the Morelos Infantry Battalion and the Alamo de Parras and Béxar cavalry companies. During that time virtually all the defenses of the Alamo used by the Texans in 1836 were built. Only a few changes to the defensive structure can be attributed to the Texans, and most of these are simple cannon movements (the 18-pounder that Ugartechea put up on top of the church battery was put in the southwest corner battery, and three cannon took its place in the church, for example). The Texans attempted some trenching along the north wall, but never finished it. Cos himself was actually in the Alamo only something like two days, when he was forced out of Béxar and made it into the Alamo, only to surrender on December 10.
Jake Ivey, Archaeological Consultant
Alamo de Parras
After Santa Anna wrote his dispatch to Mexico City explaining the outcome of the battle of the Alamo on March 6th, what did he do and how long did he stay in San Antonio before moving onto the rest of Texas?
Charles J. Erion
Nevada City, CA
As Filisola noted: "The Army, after the capture of the Alamo, had remained in Béxar to recoup the losses that they had."(page 205, Woolsey Translation).
They were also waiting for the rest of the army to arrive in San Antonio. General Gaona arrived on March 8 with the larger artillery contingent and the Activo Queretaro and Guanajuato battalions. Filisola and Arago arrived on the ninth followed by Andrade on the 10th with the rest of the cavalry. On the 11th, Morales and two battalions were sent south to join Urrea: Sesma left for Gonzales and Tolsa's brigade arrived in San Antonio. On 24 March, Gaona headed up the Camino Real towards Bastrop with Nacogdoches as his final target.
Apparently, Santa Anna was in San Antonio on 28 March, because General Sesma received his orders from there. It appears that Santa Anna left San Antonio on 31 March and headed for Gonzales and then San Felipe. (See Casteñeda's, Mexican Side of the Texas Revolution, 1970 Graphic Ideas Edition, pages 70-73)
General Andrade was left in command at San Antonio. Subsequently, the Alamo became a Mexican base until his retreat from it on May 24, 1836. Before his departure, Andrade had the Alamo "completely dismantled, all the single walls were leveled, the fosse filled up, and the pickets torn up and burnt. All the artillery and ammunition that could be carried off has been thrown in the river." (Barnard, Journal, Biography Press Edition, 1984, pages 39-40).
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Col. Mendoza
Date: 05/12/2000
From: Robert L. Durham
In Green B. Jameson's "Index to the Plan of the Alamo," he mentions:
I'm assuming the redoubt he mentions was the one that ran from the chapel to the low barracks, but it doesn't really matter. Col. Mendoza was a Mexican officer wounded in the Siege/Battle of Béxar, who was left behind to recuperate when Cos went back to Mexico. Is it known what happened to him? Is it possible that he was still in the Alamo during the 1836 siege? Could there have been other wounded Mexican soldiers left behind, who could have been in the Alamo?
Robert L. Durham
Dayton, OH
That's curious — The officer who helped Domingo de Ugartechea with the construction of the defenses of the Alamo in October-November 1835 was Colonel José María Mendoza. Since Ugartechea was in some sense the commander of the local Compañía Volante del Alamo and Béxar Presidial units assigned to the Alamo, I assume that Mendoza was commander of the Morelos Infantry that also was stationed there and helped in the construction work. I'll check to see if Sánchez Navarro (who tells us some of the above, along with Sam Maverick) mentions this Mendoza being wounded. I think you're right, Bob, the long "redoubt" of stakes and dirt seems likely to be the stockade from the church to the low barracks, and the house Mendoza is in therefor could be either the south end of the convento or the "L" running north from the east end of the low barracks.
Jake Ivey, Archaeological Consultant
Alamo de Parras
The identity of Colonel Mendoza is an interesting side note. Looking at the monthly returns of the Permanente Battalion Morelos stationed at Béxar during the late fall of 1835, he is not found listed with the battalion staff(plana mayor). Colonel Nicholas Condelle was commander and Lieutenant Colonel Francisco Sandoval is second. The only other officers listed are the first adjutant, the second adjutant and the sub-adjutant, of which Mendoza is unnamed. This officer may have been on General Cos' personal plana mayor, much like Lieutenant Colonel José Sánchez-Navarro. He may have even been a zapadores officer assigned to Cos' staff.
Kevin R. Young
I was assuming that Medoza would be in the Morelos company, since Ugartechea was using them as labor for the construction of the defenses and Sánchez Navarro mentioned that Mendoza assisted him -- I figured the odds were that Mendoza would be the commander of the Morelos and co-director of the construction. However, looks like you've shown that isn't the case, so he must have been another officer under Cos. Ugartechea, of course, had been military commander in San Antonio before Cos's arrival, and apparently remained the commander of the cavalry, so although Mendoza was of equal rank, he would have been subordinate to Ugartechea. I guess the Morelos commander didn't get directly involved with the construction of the Alamo defenses, even though his people served as construction crew along with the Compañía Volante and Bexar cavalry.
Jake.
