Post by marklemon on Feb 14, 2009 0:45:43 GMT -5
Well, I can answer that, but it'll take a while.
First, I'm not capriciously picking and choosing favorites as you imply. But we must first admit that with Jameson, we are dealing with a copy, and with Labastida, we have the original. We know that the Jameson plat is not an original map drawn by Jameson himself, but a copy from the latter part of the 19th century, which is based on the 1849 Giraud plat. SO we have to be very, very careful what features we just "accept" from either of the two Jameson plat copies. I feel that the key to the map is more reliable, as it is a much more straight forward thing to copy words on a page, than it is to copy a detailed map, with many features. Errors are almost bound to be made. This being said, even IF the map is a faithful copy of the original by Jameson, he called the acequia running into the compound through the gap at the north end of the Granary, a proposed feature, not something which was actually completed.
Now, as for Labastida, you will find no blind defender of him in me. I never at any time in my life called the Labastida map "correct." That's just not something I'd do. I fully realize that he made many, many mistakes, and a long and I'm sure wearisome series of posts last year between myself and Jake Ivey about the pros and cons of Labastida's map bears this out.
What I am willing to say about Labastida is that, as Jake says all the time, every time an Alamo site is dug, where Labastida says there is a feature, it is found. This is not the same thing as saying that he drew the feature proportionally correct, however, as you point out, there are serious comparative size errors in his map. But that's not the same thing as saying what he drew did not exist.