|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 18, 2014 17:14:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the info on the paintings, Rich
Any idea when the "small mound" came into being? Note that there is something that could be taken as a small mound on the Lungkwitz work just before the first cottonwood on the left. Could it be?
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jul 18, 2014 19:22:55 GMT -5
I wonder what kind of enclosure if any Mr. Dwyer's Memorial for Gillespie and the Alamo defenders had? From Lungkwitz painting there is no evidence, that I can see, that anything was there. If I read the accounts correctly, the site where the remains were buried was unmarked but remembered by Antonio Perez. According to Charles Merritt Barnes, "The location [of one of the pyres] was confirmed by Perez, who states that when he was a little boy and used to play on the Alameda he was frequently shown the same spot as the place where the bodies of the Alamo heroes were burned. Perez goes further than Diaz and says that for many years there was a small mound there under which he was told the charred bones that the fire did not consume were buried by some humane person, who had to do so secretly, and that he was familiar with the spot as the burial place of Bowie and Crockett. Perez states that about thirty years ago these bones were exhumed and placed in the old City Cemetery, the first one located on Powder House Hill..." [Hansen, p. 531] I wonder why would Dwyer dedicate part of his land for Gillespie in 1847 and not have any markings or some type of perimeter. I am convinced this lot was chosen because it was the location of the north pyre (Alameda) but it is just odd that it would not have some type of markings for at least Gillespie or Walker before being moved to Odd Fellow’s cemetery.
San Antonio City Council minutes 4 Jan 1848:
Mr. Smith offered the following Resolution J A-350 At a meeting of t be Citizens of the City of San Antonio had on the evening ( ) It was resolved that the remains of the Capt. S.H. Walker should be Interred by the side of the lamented Cap' R. A. Gillespie with civil & military Honors, therefore in order to assist in honoring the remains Be it resolved by the Mayor and Alderman of this City of San Antonio in common Council assembled that we will as a body, join our fellow citizens in the funeral ceremonies to be had in honor of the late Capt. S. H. Walkers remains on this Saturday the 8th of January next and that the Board will meet at the Council House at the hour that will be designated by the Chief Marshal for the forming of the procession, and proceed and take the place that will be assigned for us in the Programme of the proceedings of the day. On the motion of Mr. Callaghan the resolution was adopted.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 20, 2014 9:05:44 GMT -5
I've just plotted out a best-guess of the location of the Alameda funeral pyres based on the interview accounts in Charles Merritt Barnes 1911 article, using the Ludlow House and Springfield (Herff) House as location anchors. Checking this information against the River Center Mall archaeological dig (that turned up nothing but provided specific site information), I figure these are both within 200 feet of where they might have been. The Alameda from bridge to bridge was slightly over 1,000 feet long.
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jul 21, 2014 17:29:58 GMT -5
I wonder what kind of enclosure if any Mr. Dwyer's Memorial for Gillespie and the Alamo defenders had? From Lungkwitz painting there is no evidence, that I can see, that anything was there. The lack of visible indicators of the Walker/Gillespie graves in the Lungkwitz painting does not mean the graves were never marked. I think we need to consider the real possibility that the Lungkwitz painting of the Alameda does not show evidence of grave sites because it was painted after Walker and Gillespie were moved to the Odd Fellow cemetery on Powder House hill on April 21, 1856. Earlier in this thread Rich said it was a painting of the Alameda in 1856. I've spoken with Frank Faulkner, librarian of the Texana/Genealogy Department at the San Antonio Public Library where the original painting is housed, and he acknowledged that the library is unclear on the painting's exact age. I was told, but have not confirmed it by visual inspection, that one of the two obelisks in the Walker/Gillespie grave site in Odd Fellows cemetery today, though very weathered, has the names of both men inscribed on it. If that is true, it would suggest that particular obelisk served the purpose of marking the site of both graves along the Alameda before being relocated. I believe the painting is probably from 1857 or late 1856.
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jul 21, 2014 20:52:08 GMT -5
Yes, I agree the painting was done after the removal of Gillespie and Walker. Also, I am sure there had to be some kind of markings at some point otherwise why create this memorial? Now is anyone else convinced, besides me, that this memorial site was also the location of the funeral pyre (north)? By the way, good old Goodman also wanted to put a hurt to Seguin’s friend Mr. Dwyer.
My conjecture of a stone wall marking the exact location of the memorial ground and enclosing the funeral pyre outline from my model.
Not sure if this link will work. l but I will try anyway.
onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=48F1C3130D3FA1ED!166&authkey=!ACR8u2NogA0VIR4&v=3&ithint=photo%2c.jpg
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 21, 2014 21:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jul 22, 2014 10:48:56 GMT -5
From on-site visits with Perez, Diaz, Esparza and other old timers, C.M. Barnes placed the north pyre in the east yard of the Ludlow House with a northwest to southeast orientation and extending slightly into the street. Comparing Barnes description to the deed records and the 1984/85 Rivercenter Mall archaeological dig report, my calculations place the Gillespie plot deeded by Dwyer immediately west of and adjacent to the pyre site. If Edward is correct and the Gillespie plot was intended to include the pyre site, then it would mean Perez, Diaz, Esparza and others mistakenly identified ground 60 to 70 feet east of where the pyre was located. If, on the other hand, they were correct, then Dwyer respected the integrity of the pyre site and placed Gillespie beside it. (It wasn't until after Dwyer's death and the relocation of Walker's and Gillespie's remains that the subject property along the Alameda was sold off.) As to the existence of the conjectured wall around the site, there is absolutely no evidence that it ever existed, no matter how reasonable the idea seems. It would have been a great benchmark for reference by others but no writings or illustrations have yet been uncovered that mention it.
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jul 22, 2014 14:44:59 GMT -5
Thanks for fixing my link. I cannot post any pics to this this forum it gives me and error hence the link. I guess you can cut and paste the original link and it will also work.
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jul 22, 2014 14:58:21 GMT -5
From on-site visits with Perez, Diaz, Esparza and other old timers, C.M. Barnes placed the north pyre in the east yard of the Ludlow House with a northwest to southeast orientation and extending slightly into the street. Comparing Barnes description to the deed records and the 1984/85 Rivercenter Mall archaeological dig report, my calculations place the Gillespie plot deeded by Dwyer immediately west of and adjacent to the pyre site. If Edward is correct and the Gillespie plot was intended to include the pyre site, then it would mean Perez, Diaz, Esparza and others mistakenly identified ground 60 to 70 feet east of where the pyre was located. If, on the other hand, they were correct, then Dwyer respected the integrity of the pyre site and placed Gillespie beside it. (It wasn't until after Dwyer's death and the relocation of Walker's and Gillespie's remains that the subject property along the Alameda was sold off.) As to the existence of the conjectured wall around the site, there is absolutely no evidence that it ever existed, no matter how reasonable the idea seems. It would have been a great benchmark for reference by others but no writings or illustrations have yet been uncovered that mention it. I have not yet read the report but this question comes to mind. Did they physically measure the distance or eyeball as kids or adults and referenced it years later when the Ludlow structure was built? What reference points did they use when the Ludlow structure was not there? After the memorial was moved the area seemed to be ‘natural’ looking via Lungkwitz painting. Mr. Dwyer stated that a fence could be erected of iron or wood railings or a wall of wood or stone but he left it up to the city to decide and build. I personally chose the Stone Wall and had my virtual workers build it. Darn I just got the invoice for their work, not cheap. LOL
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jul 22, 2014 15:11:16 GMT -5
LOL! Left to the City to decide? Well there's your answer. The City administrators are demonstrated lousy stewards of history. To them it probably was one more piece of land given to the City for the City to maintain at its expense. Does that sound cynical?
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jul 22, 2014 16:13:40 GMT -5
Edward, I think your point about the ability of eyewitnesses to identify a site after so many decades of urban development is a valid one. Studies have shown that the influence of age, demand, false assumptions and leading questions can affect eyewitness testimony (see Elizabeth Loftus et al). Essentially, the studies demonstrate that memory is not a factual recording of an event and that memories can become distorted by other information which occurs after the event. It is entirely possible that during interviews with his elderly subjects in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Charles Merritt Barnes went into the interviews with his own false assumptions and the questions he posed to these men were subtly loaded with implications that altered their memories. That’s why we always look for corroborating testimony. But unless my memory is bad (quite possible considering my age), the only testimonies we have concerning the Alameda pyre locations came from men interviewed and written about by Barnes. Perhaps you’re on to something. Perhaps that could explain why the Rivercenter Mall dig yielded no conclusive proof that the site investigated had at one time been a funeral pyre of Alamo defender bodies.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 22, 2014 16:20:39 GMT -5
Edward, The forum is out of space for images but you can use Photobucket and the img tag. *Not any more! See note below:* 2017 Edit: Photobucket no longer allows you to embed photos into third party sites (like this one) without paying a ridiculous annual subscription fee $400. This image is now hosted on my MS OneDrive storage.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 22, 2014 23:06:17 GMT -5
I personally chose the Stone Wall and had my virtual workers build it. Darn I just got the invoice for their work, not cheap. LOL You mean.......... I could charge money for what I do???
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jul 23, 2014 11:37:09 GMT -5
Edward, The forum is out of space for images but you can use Photobucket and the img tag. Thanks, I created an account.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 23, 2014 15:07:52 GMT -5
Edward, The forum is out of space for images but you can use Photobucket and the img tag. Thanks, I created an account. And I probably won't.
|
|