Alamo Defenders Descendants Lawsuit

,NO.
__________________
ALAMO DEFENDERS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DESCENDANTS ASSOCIATION and §
LEE WHITE
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, §
MARK WOLFE, AS EXECUTIVE §
DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS §
HISTORICAL COMMISSION, IN HIS §
OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY, THE §
TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE, §
GEORGE P. BUSH, COMMISSIONER §
OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE §
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS IN HIS §
OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY, §
ALAMO TRUST, INC. and DOUGLASS §
MCDONALD CEO OF THE ALAMO §
TRUST IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY §
ONLY §
Defendant. § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
Alamo Defenders Descendants Association and Lee White, Plaintiffs, file its Verified
Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, and
petitions this Court complaining of the Texas Historical Commission, Mark Wolfe, as Executive
Director of the Texas Historical Commission in his Official Capacity only, the Texas General Land
Office, George P. Bush, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas in his
Official Capacity only, Alamo Trust, Inc. and Douglass McDonald, CEO of the Alamo Trust in
his Official Capacity only and respectfully shows the following:
Page 1 of 14
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Plaintiffs intend that Level 3 discovery be conducted pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 190.2.
II. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Alamo Defenders Descendants Association (hereinafter “ADDA”) is a Texas
nonprofit corporation composed of members that are direct descendants or lateral descendants of
the Alamo Defenders who were present inside the Alamo from February 23rd through March 6th,
1836 in service of the Provisional Government of Texas. Heroes of the Alamo include the soldiers,
couriers, scouts, and non-combatants (survivors) sustaining the Alamo during this historical time.
Lee White is the president and founder of the ADDA. The ADDA is located at: 393 C Road,
Sutherland Springs, TX 78161-4714.
2. Plaintiff Lee White is the Chair of ADDA, a direct lineal descendant of Alamo Defender
Gordon C. Jennings, and is an individual residing in San Antonio, Texas, Bexar County.
3. Defendant Alamo Trust, Inc., a Texas nonprofit corporation, which may be served with
citation at its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., located at 206 E. 9th Street, Suite
1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
4. Defendant Douglass W. McDonald, is sued in his official capacity as CEO of the Alamo
Trust, is an individual and may be served by delivering, in person, the citation to 206 E. 9th Street,
Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
5. Defendant Texas General Land Office is an administrative agency of the State of Texas.
Service of process may be accomplished by personal delivery of the citation to Commissioner
George P. Bush, at 1700 N. Congress Ave., Suite 935, Austin, Texas 78701-1495.
Page 2 of 14
6. Defendant George P. Bush is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas
General Land Office. Service upon Commissioner Bush may be accomplished by personal delivery
of citation to him, at 1700 N. Congress Ave., Suite 935, Austin, Texas 78701-1495.
7. Defendant Texas Historical Commission is an administrative agency of the State of Texas
and may be served by delivering, in person, the citation to its chairman John L. Nau, III or its
executive director Mark Wolfe at 1511 Colorado Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
8. Defendant Mark Wolfe is sued in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas
Historical Commission, is an individual and may be served by delivering, in person, the citation at
1511 Colorado Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
10. Venue is proper in Travis County pursuant to Section 15.002 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code because the principal offices of the Texas Historical Commission and General
Land Office are located in Travis County, Texas.
IV. FACTS
11. This case stems from the initiative by the City of San Antonio, Alamo Trust, Inc. and the
Texas General Land Office (“GLO”) to redevelop Alamo Plaza and the surrounding area,
including the San Antonio de Valero Mission (“Alamo”), officially known as the Alamo
Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter, “Alamo Plan”).
12. As a part of the process to redevelop the Alamo, the grounds surrounding the Alamo will
be transformed by the extensive construction that is required by the Alamo Plan. The Alamo Plan
calls for the construction of a museum, the lowering of the grade of the existing plaza, moving the
Page 3 of 14
Alamo Cenotaph, reconstructing the cannon ramps from the 1836 battle, planting over 100 trees
and adding concrete sidewalks and various other renovations.
13. As a result of the major construction, Plaintiffs became concerned as the Alamo and the
grounds surrounding it contains a historically documented mission cemetery that includes the first
families of San Antonio and the physical remains of many ancestors of the Plaintiffs, who are
Battle of the Alamo Defenders. In fact, the burial book of the Mission San Antonio de Valero
contains over 1300 entries, including presidial soldiers, Mission Indians, and a former provincial
Governor of Texas. Physical remains of the Alamo Defenders have been discovered on site
beginning in the 1850s, when the United States Army first cleared the Alamo Chapel of debris,
and as recently as 1979, when archaeologists discovered the severed head of an Alamo Defender.
See affidavits of archaeologists Herbert G. Uecker and Richard Lynn Range, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively.
14. The Texas Historical Commission (THC) has recognized the existence of the Cemetery at
the Alamo. The THC has assigned it the Cemetery ID Number BX-229 and lists it on their Atlas
of Texas under the name “Cemetery on the grounds of the Alamo”. It is described therein as:
“By Commission action on May 10, 2019: The Texas Historical Commission recognizes a
Historic Texas Cemetery within the area of a rectangle bounded by a line running from a
point at the southwest corner of E. Houston Street and Alamo Plaza, then running along
the west side of Alamo Plaza to a point where it would intersect with the alignment of E.
Crockett Street, then running east along the north side of E. Crockett Street to a point where
it would intersect with a straight line adjacent to the rear wall of the Alamo Chapel, then
running along that line north to a point on the south side of Houston Street, and then running
along the south side of Houston Street to the point of beginning. This designation is not
intended to affect the allowed uses of this property and does not constitute the designation
of an Unknown or Abandoned Cemetery under the Health and Safety Code. It is an
acknowledgement that, based on archival information only and in the absence of any
visible evidence on the surface or any evidence of intact human remains outside of the
perimeter of the Alamo Chapel, the area described is deemed worthy of recognition as a
Historic Texas Cemetery under Commission Rule 22.6.”
15. On or about April 6, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted an Application for Unknown or Abandoned
Page 4 of 14
Cemetery for the Mission San Antonio de Valero Cemetery (“Application”) See application
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “C.”
16. On or about June 4, 2019 and June 7, 2019, the Texas Historical Commission Board
considered the application and received letters from the Defendants, asking the THC Commission
to deny Plaintiffs’ application for the reason that “there is no Cemetery on the Alamo property”.
See letter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “D.” The Plaintiffs filed a
response to the Alamo Trust Inc.’s letter. See attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
Exhibit “E.” Despite overwhelming archival and archaeological evidence of the Alamo Cemetery,
the Commissioners voted to not approve the Application at that time and stated: “The Cemetery
shall remain unverified until new archaeological evidence of burials is found”. Thereafter,
construction at the Alamo commenced.
17. Sure enough, on or about August 14, 2019, human remains were found at the site. See
reports attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibits “F” and “G” respectively. This
new archaeological evidence confirms the existence of burials and the applicability of Texas
cemetery laws on the site. The Defendants have ignored the Texas Health and Safety Code which
sets out a specific procedure to be followed when human remains are found. Further, the
Defendants sat on the findings of the human remains just shy of two months and only released the
findings to the public via a news release only after a public information request was submitted to
the THC. Such concealment and lack of transparency by the Defendants support the Plaintiffs’
position that Court intervention is necessary to make sure the Defendants follow proper protocols,
procedures, and laws and allow participation of the Plaintiffs. Defendants Alamo Trust and GLO
have argued strenuously in the media and before the Texas Historical Commission that the
confirmation of a cemetery would result in additional costs for the project and this is their motive
Page 5 of 14
to conceal and deny the existence of the Cemetery at the Alamo. If it were not for the public
information request, neither the public nor any person for that matter would have ever known of
the finding of human remains, which may very well be Plaintiffs’ lineal ancestors. In fact,
Defendants are currently excavating the site using a backhoe and other heavy equipment, further
endangering the site.
18. In addition to the flagrant disregard of the cemetery located at the Alamo, at the heart of
the Alamo Plan is the relocation the Alamo Cenotaph, a marble and granite tomb officially titled
“The Spirit of Sacrifice” (hereinafter, “Cenotaph”). During the 1836 Battle, Alamo Defenders
were killed throughout the fortified mission. Some bodies are known to have been burned, but
many have been found in various locations throughout the Mission complex. Thus, the cemetery
encompasses the entire footprint of the 1836 fortification. See GPS-plotted survey plat created
according to the 1849 survey by Francois Giraud, City Surveyor of San Antonio, attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “H.” The Cenotaph was erected by the State of Texas
during the Texas Centennial (1936) celebrations to memorialize the ultimate sacrifice of the Alamo
Defenders, who gave their lives for liberty at the Battle of the Alamo (1836). The Alamo Plan will
relocate the tomb despite a deed restriction, a city ordinance, and the public promise by officials
in 1936 that the Cenotaph would be a permanent monument to the Heroes of the Alamo at its
present location.
19. The Cenotaph should not be disturbed because it is not capable of being moved without
being permanently destroyed. See affidavit of former Commissioner of the General Land Office,
Jerry E. Patterson, incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit “I”. See also the
Alamo Cenotaph Structural Assessment Report by David N. Gauthier, PE, incorporated by
reference and attached hereto as Exhibit “J”. In addition, the Cenotaph is a protected landmark
Page 6 of 14
under the Antiquities Code of Texas, has been recognized as a contributing structure to a
Nationally Registered Historic District (The Alamo Plaza Historic District), and has been
designated by the State of Texas during the 1936 Texas Centennial as an official State Historic
Landmark Marker Number 95, Atlas Number 5029000095.
20. Therefore, Plaintiffs file this petition asking for a temporary restraining order and
injunction to restrain the Defendants from proceeding with construction or demolition and moving
or relocating the Cenotaph until the State Law is followed.
V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Grounds for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief
21. A temporary restraining order serves to provide emergency relief and to preserve the status
quo until a hearing may be had on a temporary injunction See Texas Aeronautics Commission v.
Betts, 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 449, 469 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tex. 1971); Ex parte Pierce, 161 Tex. 524,
4 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 203, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2494, 342 S.W.2d 424, 426 (1961), cert. denied, 366
U.S. 928, 81 S. Ct. 1650, 6 L. Ed. 2d 388, 48 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2205 (1961). A temporary
restraining order may be granted without notice to the adverse party if it clearly appears from
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing held See Tex.
R. Civ. P. 680. The affidavit must be based on specific facts and may not be made on the basis of
information and belief See Ex parte Rodriguez, 568 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1978,
orig. proceeding). Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage before
notice can be served, and a hearing held if Defendant’s conduct described above is not enjoined.
22. There is no doubt that Plaintiffs’ ancestors are buried at the Alamo site. The Alamo
Page 7 of 14
Cenotaph, a funerary monument placed by the State of Texas in Alamo Plaza, lists the names of
the men who died at the Battle. Remains of Alamo Defenders have been discovered by
archaeologists, the United States Army, and several individuals over the past 150 years.
Defendants’ actions of ignoring the archival and archaeological evidence of burials and the Texas
Health and Safety protocols threatens the historic cemetery and denies lineal descendants their
lawful participation in the process. If the project is allowed to proceed to the exclusion of the
Plaintiffs, their ancestors’ graves will be forgotten and disrespected. Further, Plaintiffs have not
been and will not be notified in the future, when human remains are found, to determine the most
respectful and proper way per their religion and customs to re-inter or move the remains. The
current practices and procedures employed by Defendants’ exclude next-of-kin, lineal descendants
and interested parties, which is in violation of the Health and Safety Code.
23. As stated above, on or about August 14, 2019, human remains were found at the site. See
Exhibits “F” and “G” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Defendants not only
failed to follow the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Defendants sat on the findings of the human
remains just shy of two months and only released the findings to the public via a news release only
after a public information request was submitted to the THC. The Texas Legislature has adopted
laws to protect cemeteries and established a public policy that no improvements can be made atop
a cemetery. Such lack of transparency by the Defendants further supports the Plaintiffs’ position
that Court intervention is necessary to make sure the Defendants follow proper protocols,
procedures, and laws and allow participation of the Plaintiffs. If it were not for the public
information request, neither the public nor any person for that matter would have ever known of
the finding of human remains, which may very well be Plaintiffs’ lineal ancestors.
Page 8 of 14
24. Plaintiffs have presented clear evidence, through facts stated above which have been
verified by Plaintiff Lee White. Further, there is clear evidence of the facts as provided in the
attached exhibits that satisfies each of these factors. Not only have Plaintiffs raised the requisite
“questions going to the merits” of its claims as stated throughout this petition, they can also show
that it is, in fact, very likely they will succeed at trial on its claims. Accordingly, the Court should
grant the requested temporary restraining order and temporary injunction in this matter.
25. There is no harm to the Defendants to stop construction on the project at this early stage to
allow the Plaintiffs the opportunity to participate as next of kin and to be included as required
under the Texas Health and Safety Code. In addition, the boundaries of the cemetery need to be
recognized now by the THC as they have actually found evidence of human remains at the
construction site. This needs to be addressed before more major demolition and construction
begins. Since the project is in the initial stages, the Court can ensure that the project will proceed
taking into account the remains and the cemetery that is located at the site. Further, there is strong
public policy in favor of preserving cemeteries out of respect for the dead. See Texas Attorney
General Opinion JC -0235.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
Declaratory Judgment
a. Alamo Trust violated procedures and protocols under the Texas Health and Safety
Code.
26. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the above
paragraphs.
27. As demonstrated above, human remains were found at the site during the initial phase of
Page 9 of 14
construction. The Defendants failed to follow the Texas Health and Safety Code procedures and
protocols and actually waited just under two months to release to the public that remains were
found. The Defendants failed to follow procedures and violated State law. As such, the court
should declare that the Alamo Trust violated State law.
b. A cemetery exists at the Alamo site
28. As stated above, a substantial and justiciable controversy exists regarding the cemetery as
Defendants denied the application pending on whether or not human remains were found. Also,
as stated above, human remains were found on August 14, 2019. Texas Health and Safety Code §
711.010(a) ABANDONED, UNKNOWN, OR UNVERIFIED CEMETERY states clearly, “The
owner of property on which an unknown cemetery is discovered or on which an abandoned
cemetery is located may not construct improvements on the property in a manner that would
disturb the cemetery until the human remains interred in the cemetery are removed under a written
order issued by the state registrar or the state registrar's designee under Section 711.004(f) and
under an order of a district court as provided by this section, except as provided by Section
711.004(f-1). As such the THC has ample evidence that the cemetery exists and encompasses the
footprint of the 1836 fortified Mission as shown in the GPS-plotted survey plat created according
to the 1849 survey by Francois Giraud, City Surveyor of San Antonio, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as Exhibit “H.”
c. Unverified Cemetery under the Texas Health and Safety Code Section 711.0111
29. Section 711.0111 of the Texas Health and Safety Code includes a process for the Texas
Historical Commission to review evidence of unverified cemeteries. An unverified cemetery is
defined as “a location having some evidence of interment but in which the presence of one or more
unmarked graves has not been verified by the Texas Historical Commission or a person described
Page 10 of 14
by Section 711.0105 (a) a cemetery keeper, a licensed funeral director, a medical examiner, a
coroner, or a professional archeologist.
30. As stated above, a substantial and justiciable controversy exists regarding the cemetery as
Defendants denied the application pending on whether or not human remains were found. Also,
as stated above, remains were found on August 14, 2019. As such the THC has ample evidence
that the cemetery exists.
d. Cenotaph is protected under the Antiquities Code of Texas
31. The Cenotaph is protected under the Antiquities Code of Texas which prevents removal as
it has been declared a contributing structure to a Nationally Registered Historic District, the Alamo
Plaza Historic District, on July 13, 1977, and it has been designated by the State of Texas during
the 1936 Texas Centennial as an official State Historic Landmark, as Marker Number 95, Atlas
Number 5029000095. As such, the Cenotaph is protected and must not be moved, relocated,
altered, or destroyed.
32. Therefore, Plaintiffs request declaratory judgement for the Court to declare the proper
boundaries of the Cemetery as being the original boundary lines of the Alamo mission as it existed
in 1836, declare the entire Alamo mission an “UNVERIFIED CEMETERY” per Texas Health
and Safety Code Section 711 0111, and declare the Alamo Cenotaph to be protected under the
Antiquities Code of Texas which must not be relocated or moved.
33. Pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Plaintiffs request
the recovery of all costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees incurred by them in the
preparation and prosecution of this action.
34. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, at the statutory
rate or at such other rate as is set by this Court.
Page 11 of 14
VIII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
35. The Plaintiffs have retained the law firm whose name is subscribed to this petition to
represent the Plaintiffs in this action and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for necessary
services. Plaintiffs request the recovery of all costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees
incurred by them in the preparation and prosecution of this action.
PRAYER
36. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant their request for oral
hearing and upon posting of a bond by Plaintiffs in an amount deemed suitable by the Court: That
Defendants, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, confederates, and all persons in
active concert or participation with Defendants, be enjoined immediately and preliminarily, during
the pendency of this action:
a. from issuing or using any Antiquities Permits for the site without full compliance with
federal, state, and local laws, including in-depth and comprehensive archaeological
investigation as mandated by the Antiquities Code of Texas;
b. from operating under the existing human remains protocols;
c. from failing to perform DNA testing, when scientifically possible, on all current and
future human remains material discovered at any point hereto, with full timely
disclosure of the results to all interested parties;
d. from removing any funerary monuments, including the Alamo Cenotaph;
e. from performing any construction, site work demolition or proceeding with the project
without a cemetery management plan that complies with the Texas Health and Safety
Code, the Antiquities Code of Texas, and Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Texas
Administrative Code;
Page 12 of 14
f. from failing to comply with the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Antiquities Code of
Texas, and Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Texas Administrative Code;
g. from removing any human remains or associated funerary objects from the site;
h. granting Plaintiffs such other and further relief to which they may be entitled.
Plaintiffs further pray for an order against Defendants for the following:
a. Grant Plaintiffs the declaratory relief requested herein;

b. Award Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees;
c. Award Plaintiffs costs of court;
d. Award Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest, and;
e. Award such further relief, both special and general, legal and equitable, to which
Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE MARTINEZ DE VARA

LAW FIRM PLLC
PO Box 377
Von Ormy, Texas 78073
(210) 622-0323
(210) 622-4021 facsimile
By: /s/: Adrian A. Spears, II

ART MARTINEZ DE VARA
State Bar No. 24060230
art@mdv-law.com
ADRIAN A. SPEARS, II
adrian@aspearslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Page 13 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Verified Petition and Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction was served according to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, in the manner specified below on November 12, 2019.
Ken Paxton via facsimile to 512-320-0167

Administrative Law Division
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
/s/: Adrian A. Spears, II
Page 14 of 14
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Instructions for Filing Notice of Unverified Cemetery
to the Texas Historical Commission
On September 1, 2017, Section 711.0111 of the Texas Health and Safety Code was amended to include a
process for the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to review evidence of unverified cemeteries.
An unverified cemetery is defined as “a location having some evidence of interment but in which the
presence of one or more unmarked graves has not been verified by the Texas Historical Commission or a
person described by Section 711.0105 (a) a cemetery keeper, a licensed funeral director, a medical
examiner, a coroner, or a professional archeologist.
Sec. 711.0111. NOTICE OF UNVERIFIED CEMETERY. (a) A person who discovers an

unverified cemetery shall file notice and evidence of the discovery with the Texas Historical
Commission on a form provided by the Texas Historical Commission, and shall concurrently provide a
copy of the notice to the landowner on record in the county appraisal district on whose land the
unverified cemetery is located.
(b) The landowner described by Subsection (a) may send a response or comments to the Texas
Historical Commission concerning the notice not later than the 30th day after the date the notice is
filed.
(c) The Texas Historical Commission shall evaluate the notice of the unverified cemetery, the evidence
submitted with the notice, and the response of the landowner, if any, and shall determine whether there
is sufficient evidence of the existence of a cemetery.
(d) If the Texas Historical Commission determines that there is sufficient evidence that a cemetery
exists, the Texas Historical Commission shall file notice of the existence of the cemetery under the
provisions of Section 711.0111.
Exhibit "C"
Checklist for filing notice with the Texas Historical Commission
Please submit notice of an unverified cemetery to the Texas Historical Commission and concurrently to the
landowner on record and include the following information. See Example Letter, attached.
❑ Provide your contact information including mailing address, email address, and additional
contact information (phone number and/or email address).
❑ Provide the current landowner’s name and mailing address, as listed in the county appraisal
district of the county in which the unverified cemetery is located. If known, provide any
additional contact information that you may have (phone number and/or email address).
❑ Provide driving directions from the nearest community, including mileage and/or the 911
address for the unverified cemetery, if known, and GPS coordinates (i.e., 34.26758 -
95.123654), if known.
❑ Provide the legal description for the land occupied by the unverified cemetery (provide survey
and abstract numbers and a description). This may be found in the county appraisal district of
the county in which the unverified cemetery is located.
❑ Provide a listing of evidence: Physical elements might include potential graves marked only by
stone, burial depressions, evidence resulting from inadvertent excavations, fencing, and/or
commonly used grave plantings (iris, crepe myrtle). Documentary evidence might include a
deed, family or community history, oral history, etc.
❑ Attach several location maps, which may include an annotated aerial image (Google map), a
portion of USGS topographic map, and/or a hand drawn map, etc. Map(s) may be annotated
to provide extent of evidence or alleged location of the cemetery.
❑ Attach other evidence such deeds, photographs, historic map(s), oral history transcription, etc.
❑ Attach a copy of the landowner letter (see sample, attached).
Mail the notice to the landowner and concurrently to the Texas Historical Commission at:
Pat Mercado-Allinger Email: archeology@thc.texas.gov

Archeology Division
Texas Historical Commission For more information, call THC’s Archeology
PO Box 12276 Program at 512. 463.6096
Austin, TX 78711-2276 or
the Archeological Reviewer for your region
FORM - NOTICE OF UNVERIFIED CEMETERY
Submitted to the Texas Historical Commission
Your contact information

Your Name: Lee Spencer White
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
Other contact information: -0609 alamo.lee@hotmail.com
Current landowner’s contact information
State of Texas
PO Box 29928
Austin, TX 78229-0928
General Land Office

1700 N. Congress Ave., 8th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
City of San Antonio

100 Military Plaza
San Antonio, TX 78205
TCW Boardwalk Properties LTD & TCW Gulfdale 10821 Properties LTD
4040 Broadway St., Suite 315
San Antonio, TX 78209-6375
State of Texas
PO Box 2599
Austin, TX 78229-2599
Carolyn E W Rodriguez
Nora LW Curran
205 Cloverleaf Ave.
Emily Morgan LLC

5847 San Felipe St., Ste 4650
Houston, TX 77057-3277
TCW Third Street Properties & TCW Management LLC

4040 Broadway St., Suite 315
United States Government

Union Square Bldg
10101 Reunion Pl.
________________________________________________________________________________
The Cemetery is located (describe the location, including GPS information, if available):
The cemetery includes the area inside the walls of the San Antonio de Valero Mission (the Alamo) at the time of the
Siege of Bexar (1835) and the Battle of the Alamo (1836).
Physical Address of cemetery: 300 Alamo Plaza, San Antonio, Texas 78205
Driving directions to cemetery from the nearest town: Drive south on IH-35 from New Braunfels, Texas. At exit
158B, take ramp right onto I-37. At exit 141A off I-37, take ramp right toward Commerce St/Downtown. Turn
right onto E. Commerce Street, then turn right onto Alamo Plaza.
GPS Coordinates: 29.4260° N , 98.4861° W
The legal description for the land occupied by the Cemetery is (provide survey and abstract numbers and a
description):
NCB 115 BLK LOT ALL OF BLK & P-100(.209AC)

NCB 425 Blk 23, Lot 7,9,11,13,15,16 & S IRR PT of 5
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot 2 & Alley
-1030 BCAD Alamo Plaza
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot 3 EXC S 32.37 ft of E IRR 5.43
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot SE IRR 7.69 of 4 & P-101
NCB 552 Blk Lot A6, A8 & A9
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot S 50 ft of W23 ft of 1
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot S 45.8 ft of 4
NCB 424 Blk 22 P-100
NCB 424 Blk 22 Lot N IRR 27.04’ of 4
NCB 424 22 Lot E IRR 25.8 ft of 1
NCB 552 Lot A7 & S E IRR 9.5 ft of 3
Abstract No. 5053 from original title, but cemetery exists prior to the Republic of Texas and encompasses the area
inside the walls of the 1836 Alamo compound.
Provide a list of evidence:
Evidence of a cemetery at San Antonio de Valero Mission is extensive and includes 1377 burials noted in
the Alamo Book of Burials that was compiled by the missionary friars of Mission San Antonio de Valero between
1707 and 1783. (See John Ogden Leal, Burials of Mission San Francisco de Solano, San Antonio de Valero [The Alamo],
1703-1782, San Antonio: 1978). These mission-era burials were conducted inside the Mission chapel and outside.
Several colonial maps show the location of the Mission Valero cemetery, including the Menchaca map of 1764 (See
https://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~1071~101670002:Mapa-d-e-l-Presidio-d-e--
San-Antoni) . The Mission Valero records at Our Lady of the Lake University includes a 1746 document where the
mission friars are debating locations for non-baptized Indians, the conclusion is that they must be buried outside
the mission complex. (See Iruegas, Sergio and Melinda, Overview Report Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Texas
Cemetery Designation Application Supporting Documentation Bexar County, Texas, San Antonio: 2019). This is direct proof
of burials outside the mission walls. The basis of this application incorporates the Mission era cemeteries, but also
includes the burials of soldiers who died following the Siege of Bexar and during the Battle of the Alamo but prior
to its taking by the Mexican Army. Following the Siege of Bexar a hospital for the wounded was established at the
Alamo compound by Chief Surgeon Amos Pollard. (See Amos Pollard,
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpo08). Fourteen Texians were reported in the hospital prior to
the Battle of the Alamo, of these two were mortally wounded, Lt. John Cook and George Alexander. Seven more
were listed as dangerously wounded, 11 as severely wounded and three as slightly wounded. (See List of the Wounded
During the Storm of Bexar, December 5 – 10, 1835, Texas State Library and Archives Commission,
http://tsl.texas.gov/treasures/bexar/republic/wounded.html) . Pollard died defending the hospital and its
wounded soldiers during the Battle of the Alamo. The wounded and sick men were hospitalized in what today is
called the Long Barracks. Those who died were buried at an unknown location within the compound. Several men
died while under siege during the battle of the Alamo from disease and other causes as indicated on the List of the
Wounded During the Storm of Bexar, December 5 – 10, 1835 previously cited. They were buried inside the compound in
an unknown location. Edward Everett, who served as a clerk in the United States Army’s Quartermaster
Department in 1847 recalled in his memoirs discovering bodies of the Alamo defenders when the Chapel was
cleared of debris, “we had debris cleared away from the interior [of the Alamo Chapel] in which process several
skeletons and other relics of the siege were found.” (See Edward Everett, “A Narrative of Military Experience and
in Several Capacities”, Transactions of the he Historical Society of Quincey, Illinois, 1905.)
In 1979, Ann Fox conducted excavations for the reconstruction of the north wall of the Alamo complex.
The excavation encountered a human skull that was posited to be from a Battle of the Alamo participant because it
was found “within the fill of the defense trench.” (See Jack D. Eaton, Excavations at the Alamo Shrine (Mission San
Antonio de Valero), UTSA Center for Archeological Research: 1980) Several other discoveries of Alamo defenders
have occurred over the years. Among the earliest is a newspaper article entitled “David Crockett’s Skeleton” dated
September 17, 1883, claiming “The bones were dug up from the Alamo by a laborer.” The exact location is not
stated. Another newspaper articles entitled “Human Bones of Alamo Defenders Unearthed”, dated June 26, 1908
from the El Paso Herald states, “A number of bones which are believed to be parts of the skeletons of heroes who
found for Texas independence during the struggle at the Alamo, have been unearthed on the site of the artesian well
which colonel C.C. Gibbs is having drilled on Avenue D, opposite the post-office.” An Austin American article
dated January 6, 1937 is entitled “D.A.R. Goes into Session after Bones of Defenders of Alamo are Unearthed.”
The article states that “Workman discovered the remains while excavating in the Alamo grounds. The bones,
including a hip joint, several arm and leg bones and part of three skulls, were recovered by Miss Ruth Small
daughter of Mrs. Leita Small, custodian of the shrine.”
Other such accounts include “Bones Found Near Wall of Alamo Believed Remains of Defender Who Lost Life
in Siege 98 Years Ago” San Antonio Express (San Antonio, Texas), July 17, 1934; “Church to Rebury Post Office
Bones” San Antonio Express News (San Antonio, TX), August 9, 1935; “Pioneer Says Bones Were Texas Heroes.”
San Antonio Express News (San Antonio, TX), February 18, 1936; “Alamo Yields Human Relics” R.O. Crist. San
Antonio Light (San Antonio, Texas), January 5, 1937; “Researcher Speculates Skill Found Near Alamo Casualty of
1836 Battle” San Antonio Express News, September 1, 1935. Applicant does not assert the validity of all of these
claims, these accounts are clear evidence that remains of Alamo defenders have been uncovered within the Alamo
compound footprint of 1836 and were distinguished by their discoverers from indigenous and colonial remains by
the associated funerary items and clothing. The applicant claims all the area inside the Alamo compound during the
1836 battle as a cemetery for those Alamo Defenders who died and were buried prior to the taking of the Alamo by
the Mexican Army. The applicant also includes the Alamo Chapel and the mission-era cemeteries both inside and
outside of the compound walls.
Lee Spencer White
President, Alamo Defenders Descendants Association
1200 Big Bend
Fredericksburg, TX 78624
State of Texas
PO Box 29928
Austin, TX 78229-0928
May 8, 2019
Re: Notice of Unverified Cemetery
Dear State of Texas,
Pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code Sec. 711.0111. FILING RECORD OF
UNVERIFIED CEMETERY: (a) A person who discovers an unverified cemetery shall file
notice and evidence of the discovery with the Texas Historical Commission on a form provided
by the Texas Historical Commission, and shall concurrently provide a copy of the notice to the
landowner on record in the county appraisal district on whose land the unverified cemetery is
located.
(b) The landowner described by Subsection (a) may send a response or comments to the Texas
Historical Commission concerning the notice not later than the 30th day after the date the notice
is filed.
(c) The Texas Historical Commission shall evaluate the notice of the unverified cemetery, the
evidence submitted with the notice, and the response of the landowner, if any, and shall
determine whether there is sufficient evidence of the existence of a cemetery.
(d) If the Texas Historical Commission determines that there is sufficient evidence that a
cemetery exists, the Texas Historical Commission shall file notice of the existence of the
cemetery under the provisions of Section 711.0111.
Respectfully,
Lee Spencer White

President
Alamo Defenders Descendants Association
NCB 552 Blk Lot A6, A8 & A9

NCB 115 BLK LOT ALL OF BLK & P-100(.209AC)
Exhibit "D"
PO Box 377 Ph. 210.622.0323
13940 Benton City Rd. www.mdv-law.com Fax: 210-622-4021
Von Ormy, Texas 78073 info@mdv-law.com
July 12, 2019
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Mark Wolfe
Executive Director
Texas Historical Commission
P.O. Box 12276
Austin, Texas 78711-2276
Email: Mark.Wolfe@thc.texas.gov
Re: Unverified Cemetery Notice: San Antonio de Valero Mission/Siege of Bexar/Battle of the
Alamo
Dear Mr. Wolfe:

Please consider this brief as a reply to the responses filed by the Texas General Land Office
(“GLO”), the Alamo Trust and the City of San Antonio to the unverified cemetery application filed
May 9, 2019, by the Alamo Defenders Descendants Association (“Applicant”) to the Texas
Historical Commission (“THC”).
A. Summary
The GLO uses novel arguments in its attempt to dissuade this Commission from granting the
application as follows: (1) The GLO argues that the THC contracted away its legislative mandate
to designate cemeteries to the GLO as the GLO is responsible for all aspects of the Alamo.
Page | 1
Exhibit "E"
However, the THC cannot delegate its legislative mandate as the Texas Constitution vests
"legislative power" in the Legislature. See TEX. CONST. art. III, § 1. Only the legislature may
delegate legislative powers. (2) The GLO argues that the Alamo Complex and the Plaza are not
considered cemeteries and provides its own interpretations of definitions of “cemetery”, “grave”,
“yard” and “graveyard” and attempts to add a specific time frame for interment that goes beyond
common sense and reason and are not founded in any legal authority. Specifically, the GLO argues
that for a cemetery to exist present or future interment is required. In other words, the GLO
believes that once a cemetery stops interment or does not have plans for future interment then the
cemetery ceases to exist. Such interpretation is not supported by law and would result in numerous
other cemeteries across the State losing their statutory protections as cemeteries. (3) The GLO
also argues that the applicant lacks physical evidence of remains. However, the applicant attaches
to this reply ample evidence that remains are present at the cemetery location. (4) The GLO argues
that the Designation of a historic cemetery is only symbolic and of no meaning, but fails to
recognize that in order to be designated a Historic Texas Cemetery it must first, in fact, be a
cemetery. The GLO argues that approving the application would halt the Alamo Plan, as it would
amount to a taking of private property. The presence of a cemetery at the Alamo Complex is a
well-known historical fact that should have been addressed in the Alamo Plan. The GLO/Alamo
Trust’s failure to properly plan or perform due diligence should not be held against the Applicant.
Furthermore, the Applicant will show that case law supports that a cemetery designation does not
deny or take any property rights and would not amount to a regulatory taking.
The Applicant requests that this reply be distributed to all Commission members and relevant THC
staff members.
Page | 2
I. The Texas Historical Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the unverified
cemetery application, not the GLO.
The Texas General Land Office (“GLO”) argues that all authority granted to other agencies
regarding the Alamo Complex is vested in the GLO under Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 31.451(b).
However, that statute specifically regards the preservation and maintenance of the Alamo and its
grounds. Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 31.451 (a) states: “the Alamo complex is under the jurisdiction of
the land office. The land office is responsible for the preservation, maintenance, and restoration of
the Alamo complex and its contents and the protection of the historical and architectural integrity
of the exterior, interior, and grounds of the Alamo complex.” The GLO reliance on this section to
usurp the Texas Historical Commission (“THC”) authority is clearly misplaced as the application
before the THC deals with an unverified cemetery application, which the State of Texas has
granted exclusive authority to the THC for procedures, deliberation and final authority. Put
simply, the application pending with the THC has nothing to do with preservation or maintenance
of the Alamo and or its grounds. The application is to determine the existence of a cemetery which
sole authority stems from the Health and Safety Code § 711.0111. In fact, any dealings with issues
regarding cemeteries, death and disposition of the body falls under the purview of the Health and
Safety Code Title 8 (Subts A-C) only. Specifically, the Health and Safety Code outlines the
procedures and due process concerns regarding not only the health and safety concerns regarding
bodies and cemeteries but also any due process concerns for the deceased relatives and surrounding
properties. Specifically, the Health and Safety Code requires notice to landowners, hearing
deadlines and specifically designates the THC to be the fact finder and final authority for the
designation of a cemetery. See Health and Safety Code § 711.0111. The GLO interpretation is not
only misplaced but reckless as they are not equipped to deal with issues of cemetery concerns nor
Page | 3
health and safety issues surrounding such a sensitive subject, nor could they be an impartial judge.
Further, there are clear due process considerations and protocols that are outlined in the Health
and Safety Code that are lacking in the Natural Resources Code. In other words, if the Legislature
wanted the GLO to assume control of designation of cemeteries and disposition of bodies then all
the procedural hurdles associated with such sensitive matters would have been specifically
addressed in the legislation granting the GLO authority over the Alamo. Further, if you look at
the mandate for the GLO to enter into an MOU with the City of San Antonio nothing in that section
transfers or delegates duties under the Health and Safety Code regarding bodies and cemeteries to
the GLO. The mandate to the GLO is clear under Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 31.450(b) The land office
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the City of San Antonio to coordinate the
planning and development of improvements to the Alamo complex and the area immediately
surrounding the complex. Nothing in the application today deals with development and
improvements to the Alamo. The application today is to determine the existence of a cemetery
only pursuant to the Health and Safety Code § 711.0111.
Further, the GLO argues that in June 2012 the GLO and the THC entered into an MOU
wherein the THC would only continue to carry out powers and duties related to archeological and
architectural permit reviews. First, as stated above, the application for the THC has nothing to do
with building improvements and maintenance as it is an application for a cemetery designation
under Health and Safety Code § 711.0111. Second, even if the MOU delegates the powers and
duties conferred to the THC regarding designation of cemeteries, such delegation is an
unconstitutional delegation of a legislative authority. Specifically, the Texas Constitution vests
“legislative power” in the Legislature. See TEX. CONST. art. III, § 1. Only the legislature may
delegate legislative powers. See FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 873,
Page | 4
2000 Tex. LEXIS 61, *10-11, 43 Tex. Sup. J. 835. In this case, the Legislature delegated specific
duties to the THC regarding cemeteries under Health and Safety Code § 711.0111 and the THC
cannot step into the shoes of the Texas Legislature and contract away such duties to another agency
by an MOU.
II. The Alamo Complex and Alamo Plaza are Considered Cemeteries Under the Law
A. Physical Evidence
The GLO argues that the Applicant has provided no evidence of interment and points to
various diagrams purporting to show utilities installed within the area as proof. However, such
theory is flawed and intellectually dishonest as there have been ample evidence of interments.
An Overview Report of Mission San Antonio de Valero dated March 31, 2019 (“Alamo
Study”) is attached to this response containing the specific archival and archeological evidence of
the hundreds of interments at the Alamo Complex mentioned herein and others. See Alamo Study
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A.” Included in the study are
archaeological evidence of Alamo Defender burials encountered in the Alamo Chapel by the US
Army in 1848. In 1878, burials were unearthed in the Alamo Church. Four burials were
encountered at the corner of Alamo Street and Crocket Street in February of 1920. In 1934, the
Federal Works Projects Administration (“WPA”) encountered burials in front of the Alamo Chapel
while planting shrubs. In 1935, 37 individual burials were encountered at the southeast corner of
the United States Post Office, these included funerary objects such as rosaries. In 1979, a human
skull was unearthed while archaeologists excavated for reconstruction of the North Wall of the
Alamo Complex. The archaeological report concluded that the skull belonged to “a possible
participant of the Battle of the Alamo,” because it was found within the fill of the defensive trench.
Page | 5
Among the archival evidence provided in the attached Alamo Study includes a cemetery
shown in the 1764 Menchaca map. The Mission San Antonio de Valero Libro de Entierros, or
Book of Burials, indicates that 954 individuals were interred in the mission’s historic cemetery
from January 22, 1724 through June 4, 1782. Previous research indicates the mission friars
established three to four burial grounds in front of the chapel, according to the Alamo Plaza Study
Committee, and the historic 1836 Sanchez-Navarro Map shows a cemetery outside the chapel.
Contemporary ecclesiastical records document the interments of unbaptized individuals outside
the cemetery wall.
The THC has on several occasions acknowledged burials at the Alamo Cemetery. On May
31, 1994, THC’s Executive Director, Curtis Tunnell wrote: (See Alamo Study Appendix A-THC
Ex. Dir. Curtis Tunnell May 31, 1994).
“I have never doubted that hundreds of individuals were buried in and around
mission San Antonio de Valero during its long history records kept during the Spanish
certainly confirm this. Although many burials may have been disturbed or destroyed during
intervening years, I would preferred to see those remaining, left undisturbed.
As recently as October 18, 2018, the THC archaeology staff acknowledged the
archaeological evidence of internments at the Alamo Complex (See Alamo Study Appendix A—
THC letter dated October 18, 2018 to Ramon Vasquez, Executive Director AITSCM). The signed
THC letter stated,
“The THC is aware that previous investigations have located human remains within
and beyond these boundaries, and the THC agrees that the potential to encounter human
remains within the [Alamo Redevelopment] Project area should be a primary concern for
the Project.”
The “Alamo Cemetery” was recorded by THC staff as Cemetery ID BXC299, as recently
as 2005. On July 3, 2019, the THC recorded a Declaration of Dedication for the Alamo Cemetery
Page | 6
in the Real Property Records of Bexar County. See Declaration of Dedication attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as Exhibit “D.”
B. Health and Safety Code Definitions
In addition, the GLO is putting forward a novel and absurd interpretation of the Health and
Safety Code definition of a cemetery. Specifically, the GLO argues that for a property to be
considered a cemetery it must be currently used for new interments. Such an interpretation is
puzzling at best and would actually have far reaching detrimental consequences as there are many
cemeteries that are at max capacity and are no longer accepting current interments. Put simply,
the GLO is trying to say that once cemeteries stop interring bodies then they are no longer a
cemetery. Texas Courts agree that when construing statutes, the plain meaning of the text is the
best expression of legislative intent unless a different meaning is apparent from the context or the
plain meaning leads to absurd or nonsensical results.” See Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407,
411 (Tex. 2011); see Colorado Cnty. v. Staff, No. 15-0912, 2017 WL 461363, at *6, 510 S.W.3d
435, 444, 2017 Tex. LEXIS 124, *15 (Tex. 2017). In this case the Health and Safety Code’s plain
meaning is obvious, a cemetery is a place used for interment and “interment” includes the
continued presence of past burials. To interpret that plain meaning to require that interments be
ongoing would lead to an absurd result. Common sense dictates that cemeteries are used to
permanently hold remains once interred. Second, the GLO argues, based upon their interpretation
of the statute, that there is no “intent” to inter in the future. Applicant concedes that there may be
no current intent to inter new burials, but it also notes that reinternments have occurred as recently
as 2016. Following the discovery of human remains during archaeological digs near the Crocket
Building in 2016, the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation re-interred the found remains with a formal
reinternment ceremony at the Alamo Complex. In 1995, the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation again
Page | 7
reinterred remains inside the Alamo Chapel that were discovered during archeological digs in the
walls of the Alamo Chapel. As remains are found in the future, such remains are likely to be
studied and reinterred on site as they have been in recent years. The GLO’s denial of a cemetery
based upon an illogical definition that present interments must be occurring if not supported and
even if accepted fails considering the high possibility of future reinternments.
The GLO further tries to distinguish a cemetery as requiring a formal “yard” more
specifically, a “graveyard” that they admit to being synonymous with a cemetery and argues that
the remains have to be an organized physical substance according to the “Marriam-Webster
dictionary” and cannot contain disarticulated remains. There is clear evidence that Mission San
Antonio de Valero contains a formal graveyard. It is depicted on contemporaneous maps, such as
the 1764 Menchaca map and the 1836 Sanchez-Navarro map (See Alamo Study attached hereto as
Exhibit “A.”). The cemetery is referenced in the August 6, 1746 letter of Father Asisclos Valverde,
of Mission San Antonio de Valero, when he discussed burying unbaptized Indians outside of the
cemetery wall due to the consecrated status of the cemetery. The cemetery and its boundaries were
recognized by the THC in its Declaration of Dedication recorded in Document No. 20190127792
of the Real Property Records of Bexar County, Texas. See Declaration of Dedication attached
hereto as Exhibit “D”. Also, every other Spanish Colonial mission in the Southwest contains a
graveyard.
The GLO further argues that remains that have been found have been removed from the
site, but such known removals are only a very small percentage of the burials known from archival
research. This assertion also discounts the known reinternments at the Alamo Complex. In
Attorney General Opinion No. 92-45, the Attorney General provides the public policy for
protecting sites such as the Alamo Cemetery, which contains American Indian burials, as well as,
Page | 8
Alamo Defenders (See Attorney General Opinion attached hereto and incorporated by reference
as Exhibit “C.”):
“The Antiquities Code of Texas, chapter 191 of the Natural Resources Code,
declares a public policy in favor of and public interest in the location, protection, and
preservation of certain sites including but not limited to prehistoric and historical American
Indian or aboriginal campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites, archeological sites of every
character.”
Furthermore, the GLO’s assertion that disarticulated elements do not represent human
remains is solely supported by a selective dictionary citation and ignores Texas law which asserts
the opposite position. Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code, entitled “Inquests Upon Dead Bodies”
clearly includes disarticulated remains (“bodies and body parts”) in its definition of burials. This
chapter governs when human remains, whether articulated or disarticulated, are discovered
anywhere in Texas, including at the Alamo Complex.
Ignoring the numerous archeological findings, the Mission Book of Burials, the Alamo
Cenotaph and other markers at the Alamo Complex, the Alamo Trust and City of San Antonio
argue for denial of the Applicant’s application because “there are no physical markers which would
indicate there are any burial sites on any of the Subject Properties.” This historic discrimination
has been used in the past to justify unequal treatment of American Indian burial sites, which often
lack traditional American/European grave markers, and was declared unconstitutional in a March
17, 1988 Attorney General Opinion (See Attorney General Opinion attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as Exhibit “B.”):
“The policy rationale of [Texas Penal Code] §31.03(e)(4)(B) is to prevent persons

from stealing and profiting from the final resting place of human beings. This rationale is
likely rooted in the traditional belief in the sanctity of one’s final resting place. To Indians,
Indian burial grounds are consecrated grounds imbued with the same sacred character as
graves in other societies. To hold otherwise, in my opinion, would be a denial of equality
of the law due to national origin, which is a violation of Article I, Section 3a of the Texas
Constitution.”
Page | 9
Attorney General Opinion No. 92-45 further explains that statutory definitions of graves
include those without markings (See Attorney General Opinion attached hereto and incorporated
by reference as Exhibit “C.”):
“You ask specifically whether the term “grave” applies “to marked or unmarked
human ‘burial’ sites, such as Indian burial grounds, and regardless of antiquity or ethnic
origin.” Because the Penal Code does not limit the term, section 31.03 applies to any grave,
regardless of antiquity, markings, or ethnicity of the corpse.”
C. Historic Texas Cemetery
The GLO further argues that the May 10, 2019 vote by the THC to designate a large portion
of the Alamo Complex and Plaza a “Historical Texas Cemetery” was only symbolic in nature and
of no authority. Logically, for a site to be designated a historic cemetery, it must first be a cemetery.
The GLO is acknowledging that the parts of the Alamo Complex were once was used as a cemetery
and contain interred remains, but also assert that they no longer do without any evidence to how
and when all remains were removed. The Texas Legislature established a Historic Texas Cemetery
designation to further a public purpose of recognition, protection and preservation of such sites.
The GLO’s position that despite the THC’s Texas Historical Cemetery designation, the Alamo
Cemetery should not even be afforded the protections of a common cemetery violates the spirit
and public policy behind such historical designations. If THC designations come to be generally
ignored by public agencies and private landowners, it would have a detrimental and threatening
effect on potentially all historic cemeteries and sites.
The THC Historical Texas Cemetery designation does carry legal authority as it is
statutorily authorized. The designation at the Alamo Cemetery was highly contested by the GLO
and Alamo Trust, whose claims (including a claim that no cemetery exists) were heard and vetted
and voted down by THC Commissioners. The Applicant concedes that the THC’s Historical Texas
Page | 10
Cemetery designation is an honorary designation, but notes that it is definitive evidence of the
cemetery’s existence, its boundaries, its historical importance to Texas and the need for it to have
the statutory protections provided for it by the State of Texas.
III. Finding of Cemetery Property on Alamo Plaza impact on the Alamo Plan
A. GLO Has No Authority to Designate a Cemetery
The GLO argues again that they have exclusive authority to make such determinations.
Applicant has previously responded to this assertion. (See Response “I” above).
The GLO also argues that the designation of a Cemetery would negatively impact the Alamo
Plan. This is not among the considerations provided by statute for this application. The fact that
the Alamo Complex lies atop a historic cemetery is a condition that predates the Alamo Plan, the
THC and even the State of Texas. Members of the Alamo Citizens Advisory Committee raised the
issue that a cemetery existed on the site during the development of the Alamo Plan (See
correspondence in the Alamo Study attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”) and should have been
addressed when developing the Alamo Plan. The fact that the GLO and Alamo Trust chose not to
consider the historic cemetery on its site should not be allowed as a defense or held against the
Applicant. State and local laws governing cemeteries must be followed, even by the GLO, most
especially this one which contains the remains of Mission Indians, the first settlers of Texas and
Alamo Defenders.
B. No Taking
The GLO also argues that designation of a cemetery would be a taking of private property
and cites the landmark case of Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, (1978) to
support its position that the designation of a cemetery would be a taking. The GLO interpretation
of the Penn Central case is misplaced. First, the Penn Central case had nothing to do with a
Page | 11
designation of a cemetery. The Penn Central case dealt with the City of New York designating
the Grand Central Terminal which was owned by Penn Central Transportation Co. as a historic
landmark which was opposed by the owner. Second, the Penn Central case actually supports the
Applicant’s position and sheds even more doubt on the GLO’s legal and statutory interpretations
in general.
Specifically, in the Penn Central case, after the Grand Central Terminal was designated a
historic landmark the owner, Penn Central, entered into a lease with UGP Properties, whereby
UGP was to construct a multi-story office building over the top of the Terminal. After the
Commission had rejected UGP’s plans for the building as destructive of the Terminal’s historic
and aesthetic features, UGP brought suit claiming that the application of the Landmarks Law had
“taken” their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and arbitrarily deprived them of their property without due process of law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Penn Central at 107. Specifically, UGP argued that
the airspace above the Terminal is a valuable property interest. They urged that the Landmarks
Law has deprived them of any gainful use of their “air rights” above the Terminal and that,
irrespective of the value of the remainder of their parcel, the city has “taken” their right to this
superjacent airspace, thus entitling them to “just compensation” measured by the fair market value
of these air rights. See Penn Central at 130.
The Supreme Court held that application of the Landmarks Preservation Law preventing
use of the air space above Grand Central Terminal did not effect a “taking” of private property by
the government without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
since (1) the law did not interfere with the present uses of the building, (2) the law did not
necessarily prohibit occupancy of any of the air space above the landmark building, since under
Page | 12
the procedures of the law, it was possible that some construction in the air space might be allowed,
and (3) the law did not deny all use of the owner’s preexisting air rights above the landmark
building. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, at 107.
After years of litigation and numerous case law, the current test for a regulatory takings is
as follows: A compensable regulatory taking occurs if a regulation does not (1) “substantially
advance a legitimate state interest,” (2) “denies landowners of all economically viable use of their
property,” or (3) “unreasonably interferes with [the] landowners’ rights to use and enjoy their
property.” Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 935 (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
1003, 1015-19, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 112 S. Ct. 2886 & n.8, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 112
S. Ct. 2886 (1992)); see also Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106, 100 S.
Ct. 2138 (1980).
In this case the designation of a cemetery would not rise to a taking as the cemetery is
currently located at the Alamo grounds and would in no way interfere with the present use of any
buildings belonging to private or non-governmental entities as discussed in the Penn Central case.
Second, there is no evidence that designating a cemetery would deny anyone all economically
viable use of the property and in no way would unreasonably interfere with the private landowner’s
rights to use and enjoy their property. Again, all neighboring buildings and businesses are
currently in place and are operating just fine and would not have to relocate or shut down by the
THC granting the application and designating a cemetery. The GLO claims that the cemetery
would somehow impede the Alamo Plan is simply not enough to rise to taking and there is no way
that any neighbors or private landowners would even be affected by the cemetery designation.
Ironically, the only entity that may have an issue with being sued for a taking would be the GLO
Page | 13
itself by implementing the “Alamo Plan” as it interferes with property rights and businesses
surrounding the Alamo and the Alamo Plaza.
Conclusion
In summary, the Applicant believes that all the issues raised by the GLO, Alamo Trust and
City of San Antonio in their letters of opposition have been addressed herein. The Alamo
Cemetery contains the remains of indigenous Texas, its first Old World settlers and the Alamo
Defenders. The Alamo Defenders Descendants Association urges the Texas Historical
Commission to approve its application, define the boundaries of this historic cemetery and grant
to those buried, the protections and recognition provided for them by the State of Texas. The
statutory protections provided by the Texas Legislature and entrusted to the Texas Historical
Commission for their administration were intended precisely for sites such as the Alamo Cemetery.
May God Bless Texas,
THE MARTINEZ DE VARA LAW FIRM, PLLC

PO Box 377
Von Ormy, Texas 78073
(210) 622-0323
(210) 622-4021 facsimile
By: Art Martinez de Vara
ART MARTINEZ DE VARA

State Bar No.24060230
martinezdevara@gmail.com
adrian@aspearslaw.com
Attorneys for the Alamo Defenders Descendants Association
Page | 14
cc:
Jenny McWilliams, Cemetery Preservation Coordinator, History Programs Division, Texas

Historical Commission by email to Jenny.McWilliams@thc.texas.gov
Pat Mercado-Allinger, Archeology Division, Texas Historical Commission by email to

archeology@thc.texas.gov
Page | 15
GTI Environmental, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Overview Report
Mission San Antonio de Valero
Historic Texas Cemetery Designation Application
Supporting Documentation
Bexar County, Texas
Prepared For:
American Indians of Texas at Spanish Colonial Mission
a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization established by
Tap-Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation
Prepared By:
Principal Investigator:
Sergio A. Iruegas, R.P.A.
Authors:
Sergio A. Iruegas, R.P.A.
Melinda Tate Iruegas
March 31, 2019
GTI Environmental, LLC Voice: 512-914-4842

226 Ridgehaven Place, Suite B Email: sergio@gtienvironmental.com
San Antonio, Texas 78209 Website: www.gtienvironmental.com
Exhibit "A"
ADDA 000001
Abstract
This document has been prepared as an Overview Report under the classes of
Cultural Resource Management Investigations (2.1.1) as promulgated by the Council of
Texas Archaeologists Guidelines for Cultural Resource Management Reports under the
auspices of the Texas Historical Commission (THC). As required by the Antiquities
Advisory Review Board of the THC, this Overview Report is intended as supporting
documentation for the delineation of the historic cemetery boundary presented in the
American Indians of Texas at Spanish Colonial Missions Historic Texas Cemetery
designation application for the Mission San Antonio de Valero. The presented
information reflects current knowledge and nature of the Historic Texas Cemetery
delineation based on the archaeological record of published reports, THC database
information, THC consultation letters, historic mission burial records, historic newspaper
articles, and the Office of the Attorney General Opinion letters. The overview report
presents information about the known archaeological data regarding the distribution of
human remains and funerary objects within the immediate surroundings of Mission San
Antonio de Valero (Alamo Compound). The methodology for assessing and delineating
historic cemetery boundaries is based on past precedent of THC recommendations for
other large historic cemeteries associated with other cultural groups and other Native
American cemeteries. Lastly, this Overview Report presents information that reflect the
current knowledge of unrecognized significance of Mission San Antonio de Valero’s
historic cemetery within the context of the mission’s historic cultural landscape and
historical narrative. Preserving historic cultural landscapes is a focus of THC’s Statewide
Plan under Goal-2, which is a significant juncture in time when Spain established
Mission San Antonio de Valero on May 1, 1718 along with the Villa de Béxar and the
Presidio de Béxar on May 5, 1718, which received a royal cedula on June 11, 1718. The
mission’s historic cultural landscape included agricultural land and pastoral lands, which
were essential for the birth of the cattle industry in the Provincia de Tejas and the Texas
connection with the American Revolutionary War effort.
According to the THC’s Atlas database, under the Antiquities Code of Texas the
THC has required comprehensive archival studies and archaeological historic cemetery
delineation investigations to fully address concerns regarding cemetery boundaries and
unforeseen adverse effects to human remains, funerary objects, and cultural material
assemblages. Such requirements were applied to the Texas State Cemetery, Allen
Parkway Village Cemetery, and Freedman’s Cemetery projects, to name a few Historic
Non-Aboriginal Cemeteries. To date, despite the numerous antiquities permitted
archaeological investigations in the Alamo Plaza area, an archeological site trinomial
number never has been assigned to this Historic Aboriginal Cemetery, and its’
significance has not been addressed for consideration regarding preservation, or
protection from Adverse Effects by development plans. It is GTI’s recommendation that
the THC’s Antiquities Advisory Board approve AITSCM’s Historic Texas Cemetery
application with a provisional boundary that can be verified, or expanded, upon the
completion of a comprehensive archival study and archaeological historic cemetery
delineation investigation carried out by the General Land Office of Texas and the City of
San Antonio “before breaking ground” in the Alamo Redevelopment Project area, in
accordance with the Antiquities Code of Texas.
AITSCM Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Texas Cemetery designation application ©2019 GTI Environmental, LLC ii
ADDA 000002
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4
Current Knowledge and Nature of Historic Texas Cemetery Delineation ........................10
Archaeological Data Regarding Distribution of Human Remains ....................................26
Significance of Mission San Antonio de Valero’s Historic Cemetery ..............................46
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................48
References ..........................................................................................................................50
Appendix A: Consultation Letters & Archival Records ....................................................54
List of Figures
Figure 1a: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................12

Figure 1b: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................13
Figure 1c: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................14
Figure 1d: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................15
Figure 1e: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................16
Figure 1f: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall .....................................17
Figure 1g: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................18
Figure 1h: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall ....................................19
Figure 2: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated March 17, 1988 page 1 ............21
Figure 3: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated March 17, 1988 page 2 ............22
Figure 4: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated September 4, 1994 page 1 ........23
Figure 5: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated September 4, 1994 page 2 ........24
Figure 6: 1836 Colonel Jose Sánchez -Navarro Map ........................................................27
Figure 7: San Antonio Evening News 14, Feb 1920 .........................................................29
Figure 8: 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Perry Castañeda Library Collection...........30
Figure 9: Undated Photograph Looking South at Alamo Shrine (1961 HABS)................30
Figure 10: 1931 San Antonio Light Aerial Blimp Photograph Looking North. ................31
Figure 11: McAllen Daily Press July 19, 1934 ..................................................................32
Figure 12: 1918 Old Federal Building and Alamo Plaza...................................................33
Figure 13: 1912 Alamo Plaza and Post Office...................................................................34
Figure 14: 1935 Alamo Plaza and Post Office Construction Area ....................................35
Figure 15: View of Alamo Plaza, Post Office (1961 HABS) ............................................36
Figure 16: 1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map ..................................................................37
Figure 17: 1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map Close-up...................................................38
Figure 18: Areas of Know or High Potential for Human Remains Anderson 2017:38 .....39
Figure 19: Previous Archaeological Investigations Anderson 2017: 201 .........................40
Figure 20: San Antonio Light 1883 ...................................................................................40
Figure 21: El Paso Herald June 26, 1908, Gibbs and Avenue D location. ........................41
Figure 22: 1912 Sanborn Map Gibbs Building. .................................................................42
Figure 23 The Austin American January 6, 1937 Alamo Grounds ...................................43
Figure 24: Topographic Map of Provisional Historic Cemetery Delineation Topo ..........44
Figure 25: Topographic Map of Provisional Historic Cemetery Delineation Aerial.........45
AITSCM Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Texas Cemetery designation application ©2019 GTI Environmental, LLC iii
ADDA 000003
Introduction
GTI Environmental, LLC (GTI) has prepared this document as an Overview

Report under the classes of Cultural Resource Management Investigations (2.1.1) as
promulgated by the Council of Texas Archaeologists Guidelines for Cultural Resource
Management Reports under the auspices of the Texas Historical Commission (THC). As
required by the Antiquities Advisory Review Board of the THC, this Overview Report is
intended as supporting documentation for the delineation of the historic cemetery
boundary presented in the American Indians of Texas at Spanish Colonial Missions
Historic Texas Cemetery designation application for the Mission San Antonio de Valero.
The presented information reflects current knowledge and nature of the Historic
Texas Cemetery delineation based on the archaeological record of published reports,
THC database information, THC consultation letters, historic mission burial records,
historic newspaper articles, and the Office of the Attorney General Opinion letters. Since
the late 1960s (Schuetz 1966, 1973; Greer 1967) through today (Anderson 2017),
archeologists have documented the presence of human remains associated with the
historic cemetery of Mission San Antonio de Valero within the chapel, plaza, and outside
the plaza within federal land, and private property. According to the THC’s database
information, the official State Antiquities Landmark designation for Mission San Antonio
de Valero does not include a cemetery as a contributing component of the site’s
significance, and the “Alamo Cemetery” was recorded by THC staff as Cemetery ID BX-
C299, as recently as 2005, which is not to be confused with an archaeological site
trinomial number. In THC consultation letters with AITSCM, dated October 18, 2018,
the THC archaeology staff acknowledge the historic cemetery boundary includes the
chapel, entire plaza, and outside the plaza perimeter. The THC archaeology staff
assessment was based on previous archaeology reports that tallied the mission’s historic
burial records, in which 954 individuals were interred in the mission’s historic cemetery
from January 22, 1724 through June 4, 1782; the burial records, however, were
maintained from through 1835 (Hard 1994:39). Popular belief is the mission padres
established one or more burial grounds in front of the chapel, and the historic 1836
Navarro Map (Hard 1994:42) shows a cemetery outside the chapel. Contemporary
ecclesiastical records, however, document the interments of unbaptized individuals
outside consecrated grounds, and there are numerous individuals buried outside of the
depicted cemetery. Historic newspaper articles support this conclusion with corroborating
evidence, which documented the discovery of human remains inside and outside Alamo
Plaza.
The THC Archaeology Division staff have always used the rule of thumb that for
every marked burial on the ground or in the burial records, there are at least three
unmarked burials outside the modern fenced boundary. When the U.S. Post Office was
constructed in the 1930s, workers exhumed well over 300 sets of human remains, some
of which dated to the historic period based on the presence of rosary beads (Hard
1994:49). Theoretically, the funerary objects were given to Mrs. Lieta Small, custodian of
the Alamo (Hard 1994:50), while the human remains were reinterred in San Fernando
AITSCM Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Texas Cemetery designation application ©2019 GTI Environmental, LLC 4
ADDA 000004
Cemetery Number 2, re-exhumed in 1994 for analysis and study, then reinterred at the
same cemetery (Hard 1994:50). Presumably, the university inventoried these human
remains, and the osteological studies were carried out in compliance with the Antiquities
Code of Texas and the Health and Safety Code in terms of the required consultation and
written consent with Next of Kin. The AITSCM and the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation
tribal community have consistently spoken on behalf of their ancestors.
In March 18, 1988, the Historic Aboriginal Cemetery issue at the Alamo was
paramount at the time the Alamo Plaza Master Plan was developed for the City of San
Antonio’s Department of Parks and Recreation (Perez 1988), which generated Texas
Attorney General Opinion Letters to the State Archaeologist at THC. At this time, the
THC State Archeologist promoted a Native American Cemetery bill in the Texas
legislature for the protection and preservation Prehistoric and Historic Aboriginal
Cemeteries; the bill died in committees. On March 17, 1988, however, the Texas
Attorney General gave an opinion that “Indian graves are protected from theft under
Texas law” under the penal code, and “To Indians, Indian burial grounds are consecrated
grounds imbued with the same sacred character as graves in other societies” (Victoria
Guerra, Assistant Attorney General letter dated March 17, 1988). By the time the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted on November 16, 1990,
the issue of Indian graves required another Texas Attorney General opinion regarding
subsection 31.03(e)(4)(B) of the penal code, specifically related to the term “grave” and
how it applies to marked and unmarked Indian burial grounds regardless of antiquity or
ethnic origin. While the opinion summary stated, “the term is not limited by definition in
the Penal Code and applies to any grave, regardless of ethnicity, antiquity, or markings”,
the opinion also noted, “that conviction of an offense under section 31.03 requires that
there be an identifiable living ‘owner’ of the property [grave and human remains] as of
the date of the alleged theft”.
The opinion continued by stating, “the Penal Code criminalizes the abuse of a
corps and the desecration of venerated objects, including places of burials”. On a final
note in the opinion, the Texas Attorney General referenced Chapter 711 of the Health and
Safety Code stating the code governs cemeteries (Rick Gilpin, Deputy Chief Opinion
Committee in letter dated September 4, 1992). The THC provides a weblink about
Cemetery Laws regarding the Penal Code under Title 2 General Principles of Criminal
Responsibility, Chapter 7 Criminal Responsibility for the Conduct of Another,
Subchapter A Complicity, and the THC emphasizes the Health and Safety Code Chapter
in general, which includes 711.052(a)(6)—the criminal penalty of removing remains
from a plot without complying with Section 711.004 and subsection 711.004(a)(5) the
requirement to obtain written consent from Next of Kin to remove human remains from a
burials. The Tribal Community of the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation are the Next of Kin
that are living today. Members of the Tribal Community can demonstrate their
genealogical descent back to early 18th-century mission birth and death records at a time
prior to the arrival of other tribal groups, like the Comanche and Apache. The oral
histories, genealogical record, Spanish Colonial written records, and archaeological
record makes the tribal community culturally affiliated direct lineal descendant associated
with their ancestors buried within the historic cemetery boundaries of Mission San
ADDA 000005
Antonio de Valero (Alamo). The Tribal Community still venerate their ancestors on an
annual basis at the Alamo, and they have been speaking for their ancestors prior to and
during planned development projects at the Alamo, such as the 1988 Alamo Plaza Master
Plan, the 1994 Alamo Plaza Study Committee Report and Recommendations to the City
Council [of San Antonio], and the most recent Alamo Redevelopment Master Plan.
The first two plans concluded there was a cemetery inside and in front of the
chapel, and the Coahuiltecan Bands at the mission were buried in as many as three to four
cemeteries overtime within the general vicinity of the Alamo (Alamo Plaza Study
Committee 1994:23). A general premise of these development plans is that construction
may encounter the ashes and human remains of Texas Heroes and some evidence of
intact or disturbed (disarticulated) human remains of mission Indians from the Spanish
Colonial Period. It should be noted that arguments in which disarticulated human remains
does not represent a cemetery are disrespectful to people of other ethnic origins, who
hold that the disarticulation of ancestral remains represents, either persistent Coahuiltecan
mortuary practices of removing ancestors remains for reburial at new living locations, or
the purposeful placement in the ground of individual body parts that fell off and died, like
a tooth, or the desecration of those original ancestral burials by past and recent legal and
illegal impacts. According to Coahuiltecan religious cosmology and mortuary practices,
all inanimate and animate objects have a life force with a life span, then dies, and is
buried where life ceased to exist, even something as small as a tooth (Ruecking 1953 and
1955). A pattern of has been documented where an isolated tooth was recovered at the
temporary location of Mission Valero (Nichols 2015:52–53), situated between Milam
Park and the San Antonio River, and the permanent Mission Valero location (Anderson
2017:123). Accordingly, the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation tribal community attaches
cultural and religious significance of the Alamo grounds, the Mission San Antonio de
Valero Historic Cultural Landscape, and within their Indian Tribal Lands.
The presence of so many sets of human remains in the general vicinity of the
Alamo is understandable when considering the historic context of how and when the
mission was established. According to the 1573 Ordinances of Discovery, New
Settlement, and Peace, the Spanish Governor-Military Commander and Presidente of the
Missionaries were required to consult and obtain the consent of the local tribal elders
regarding the temporary and permanent locations of the villa and missions. General Pedro
de Aguirre’s 1709 entrada records indicated there were over 500 people living in the
large Coahuiltecan Payaya Village (Tous 1930:5) at the San Antonio River. Ruecking
(1954:330) demonstrated that up to 80,000 native people lived in the northeastern Mexico
and south central Texas area in 1718. The archaeological record demonstrates the
Coahuiltecan people have lived in the greater Central and South Texas area over 16,000
years (Waters el al. 2018). Previous archaeological studies have not developed their
research designs from the Coahuiltecan, Spanish, and Tejano perspective that the 1718
native village had a long history, and the traditional tribal burial ground evolved overtime
from the prehistoric period through the Spanish Colonial Period, which explains why
there are so many sets of human remains in the general vicinity of the Alamo, some of
which display Archaic Period burial practices. Comprehensive archival studies and
archaeological historic cemetery delineation investigations have been commensurate and
ADDA 000006
guided other development plans throughout Texas. These types of studies have yet to be
completed at the Alamo, which is inconsistent with past precedent of these studies being
completed prior to development projects breaking ground for the preservation of other
cultural groups’ heritage.
The overview report presents information about the known archaeological data
regarding the distribution of human remains and funerary objects within the immediate
surroundings of Mission San Antonio de Valero (Alamo Compound). This report uses the
sources referenced in AITSCM’s initial Historic Texas Cemetery designation application.
Researchers have compiled specific references where human remains are mentioned in
the report and noted the locations of the human remains on a map. The methodology for
assessing and delineating historic cemetery boundaries is based on past precedent of THC
recommendations for other large historic cemeteries associated with other cultural groups
and other Native American cemeteries. In general, all evidence of for the existence of a
cemetery is noted on a map, which can be marked by formal and informal headstones,
footstones, fencing, depression in the ground, documented human remains, disarticulated
human remains, and even certain types of flowers clusters (Lilies and Irises), as well as
historic maps showing burial grounds. Qualified professional archaeologists with
demonstrated local expertise and familiarity with the archaeological periods, who are not
in violation of the Antiquities Code of Texas or the Health and Safety Code under
Chapter 711.052(a)(6), draw a dashed-line around the evidence of burials to indicate the
known written record extent of the cemetery. Consistent with past precedent established
by the THC, the professional archaeologist makes recommendations that the project
sponsor avoid the demarcated area within a 300 foot buffer. If avoidance is not possible,
formal excavation should determine the presence or absence of grave shafts or human
remains to verify the cemetery boundary dashed-line. Upon completion of the
archaeological historic cemetery delineation study, the dashed-line is verified or
expanded and demarcated with a solid line in the THC database to represent the
archaeologically confirmed historic cemetery boundaries.
In no other area of Texas has piecemeal multiple antiquities permits been issued
to address the presence of graves and human remains as an after the fact reactionary
process, such as at the Alamo, instead of the consistently applied proactive
comprehensive archival study and archaeological historic cemetery delineation study for
other cultural groups. In some cases, less experienced archaeologists have encountered
human remains not realizing THC federal project reviewers had recommended
comprehensive archival research in the past for projects that were later canceled, only for
the land to be used for other purposes. Such was the case of the recent Fort Bend
Independent School District where numerous multiple burials were encountered after the
archaeological investigation was completed and ground breaking inadvertently impacted
the human remains. THC did not allow the project to proceed until archival and
archaeological historic cemetery delineation studies were completed. The Texas State
Cemetery is an example where an unverified historic cemetery boundary was approved
by the THC’s Antiquities Advisory Board in a Historic Texas Cemetery designation
application. Later, comprehensive archival and archaeological studies confirmed the
historic cemetery boundary extended beyond the modern fenced boundary into the street
ADDA 000007
by the presence of unmarked burials and human remains, which was addressed as a single
comprehensive archaeological data recovery effort within the historic cemetery
redevelopment project.
Lastly, this Overview Report presents information that reflect the current
knowledge of unrecognized significance of Mission San Antonio de Valero’s historic
cemetery within the context of the mission’s historic cultural landscape and historical
narrative. Preserving historic cultural landscapes is a focus of THC’s Statewide Plan
under Goal-2, which is a significant juncture in time when Spain established Mission San
Antonio de Valero on May 1, 1718 along with the Villa de Béxar and the Presidio de
Béxar on May 5, 1718, which received a royal cedula on June 11, 1718 (Hoffman
1935:37). The mission’s historic cultural landscape included agricultural land and
pastoral lands, which were essential for the birth of the cattle industry in the Provincia de
Tejas and the Texas connection with the American Revolutionary War effort. While the
THC consultation letters with the Alamo Trust, Inc. envision the Alamo can be
considered as a network of Texas Revolution sites connecting with San Felipe, Goliad,
Washington on the Brazos, Gonzales, San Jacinto, and other related sites, Mission San
Antonio de Valero was also integral in contributing towards the 18,449 head of cattle for
the American Revolution, and the Alamo can be connected with other Spanish
settlements that contributed to the revolution, such as Mission Concepcion, Mission San
Jose, Mission San Juan, Mission Espada, Fuerte del Cibolo, Mission La Bahia, Ranchería
Grande, Mission Los Adaes (all in Texas), Appaloosa (in Louisiana), Pensacola, and St.
Agustin (in Florida). The National Significance of the Alamo in the context of the
American Revolution has yet to be fully realized and documented, and many of the
Rancheros were mixed Coahuiltecan and Spanish, some of whom may be buried in
Mission San Antonio de Valero’s historic cemetery boundary. Many of the Texas settlers
who came in 1836 intermarried with the Spanish and Tejano families, who were here
before, and their connection with the American Revolution and their stories have yet to
be told. Only Comprehensive archival studies can address the nationally significance
questions for Texas history.
assemblages for projects of a similar nature with large cemeteries within an urban setting.
Such requirements were applied to the Texas State Cemetery, Allen Parkway Village
Cemetery, and Freedman’s Cemetery projects, to name a few Historic Non-Aboriginal
Cemeteries. To date, despite the numerous antiquities permitted archaeological
investigations in the Alamo Plaza area, an archeological site trinomial number never has
been assigned to this Historic Aboriginal Cemetery, and its’ significance has not been
addressed for consideration regarding preservation, or protection from Adverse Effects
by development plans. It is GTI’s recommendation that the THC’s Antiquities Advisory
Board approve AITSCM’s Historic Texas Cemetery application with a provisional
boundary that can be verified, or expanded, upon the completion of a comprehensive
archival study and archaeological historic cemetery delineation investigation carried out
ADDA 000008
by the General Land Office of Texas and the City of San Antonio “before breaking
ground” in the Alamo Redevelopment Project area, in accordance with the Antiquities
Code of Texas and the Health and Safety Code under Chapter 711.004(a)(5).
ADDA 000009
Current Knowledge and Nature of Historic Texas Cemetery Delineation
The presented information reflects current knowledge and nature of the Historic
Texas Cemetery delineation based on the archaeological record of published reports,
THC database information, THC consultation letters, historic mission burial records,
historic newspaper articles, and the Office of the Attorney General Opinion letters. Since
the late 1960s (Schuetz 1966, 1973; Greer 1967) through today (Anderson 2017),
archeologists have documented the presence of human remains associated with the
historic cemetery of Mission San Antonio de Valero within the chapel, plaza, and outside
the plaza within federal land, and private property. According to the THC’s database
information, the official State Antiquities Landmark designation for Mission San Antonio
de Valero does not include a cemetery as a contributing component of the site’s
significance, and the “Alamo Cemetery” was recorded by THC staff as Cemetery ID BX-
C299, as recently as 2005. The THC’s cemetery record identification number is not to be
confused with an archaeological site trinomial number, which archaeological consultants
would include in the cultural resources management background review to project
sponsors. Despite the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation’s participation in the GLO and
COSA Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee, their concerns regarding the interrelationship
of graves and human remains between known cemetery areas were expressed in writing
to the committee, which were unanswered satisfactorily. The Tribal Community concerns
for their ancestors have been consistent over time. On May 31, 1994, Tribal Elder
Raymond Hernandez received a response from THC’s Executive Director, Curtis Tunnell
(Appendix A-THC Ex. Dir. Curtis Tunnell May 31, 1994).
“I have never doubted that hundreds of individuals were buried in

and around mission San Antonio the Valero during its long history
records kept during the Spanish. Certainly confirm this. Although
many burials may have been disturbed or destroyed during
intervening years, I would preferred to see those remaining, left
undisturbed.
For many reasons, I would preferred to see the streets crossing

Alamo Plaza closed permanently. This would reduce danger, noise,
and pollution for visitors and for the monument itself. It would also
be appropriate to add a great deal more interpretation of the rich
history of this landmark, including the presence of human burials
associated with the mission church.”
It should be noted that Curtis Tunnell worked on excavations at the Alamo in the 1970s,
and he had many years of experience encountering human remains associated with the
historic cemetery.
The Tribal Community reiterated the same concerns about their ancestors to the
THC on August 27, 2018. In THC consultation letters with AITSCM, dated October 18,
2018, the THC archaeology staff acknowledge the historic cemetery boundary includes
ADDA 000010
the chapel, entire plaza, and outside the plaza perimeter (Appendix A—THC letter dated
October 18, 2018 to Ramon Vasquez, Executive Director AITSCM). Specifically, Mark
Wolf and Patricia Mercado-Allinger consulted together with the project reviewer, Casey
Hansen. The signed THC letter stated,
“The THC is aware that previous investigations have located

human remains within and beyond these boundaries, and the THC
agrees that the potential to encounter human remains within the
[Alamo Redevelopment] Project area should be a primary concern
for the Project.”
In the same consultation letter, THC stated,
“Your further concerns regarding cemetery boundaries and

unforeseen adverse effects to human remains and archaeological
deposits cannot be fully addressed by THC until a comprehensive
archaeological and archival study has been completed. The THC
recommends that the Project should take all future and previous
archaeological investigations into consideration when designing
specific impacts to minimize any adverse effects.”
The tribal community has yet to be informed that such a comprehensive archival and
archaeological studies has been required for the Alamo Development Master Plan prior to
breaking ground, in accordance with the Antiquities Code of Texas.
In 2005, the THC developed an administrative record for the Alamo cemetery.
The THC archaeology staff assessment that the cemetery consisted of the chapel and
entire plaza was based on previous archaeology reports. One particular report tallied the
mission’s historic burial records, which was based on an avocational historian’s (John
Ogden Leal) translations of Spanish archival records during the 1970s. Previous
investigators tallied 954 individuals were interred in the mission’s historic cemetery from
January 22, 1724 through June 4, 1782. The earliest Mission San Antonio de Valero
burial records were not available in the 1970s, and the burial records were maintained
from through 1835 (Hard 1994:39). Previous research indicated the mission padres
established three to four burial grounds in front of the chapel, according to the Alamo
Plaza Study Committee Goal-2.b (1994:23), and the historic 1836 Navarro Map (Hard
1994:42) shows a cemetery outside the chapel. Contemporary ecclesiastical records,
however, document the interments of unbaptized individuals outside consecrated
grounds. Human remains have been found outside the plaza and in between proposed
clusters of burials. Therefore, there are numerous individuals buried outside of the
depicted cemetery on historic maps and outside the plaza boundary.
The seven page document was prepared by Father Asisclos Valverde, of Mission
San Antonio de Valero, on August 6, 1746. The document focused on an ecclesiastical
debate regarding the burial of unbaptized natives. The padres discuss the appropriateness
ADDA 000011
of burying people that did not practice a Catholic way of life in sanctified holy ground.
The deceased were buried outside the historic cemetery wall (Figure 1).
Figure 1a: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall
ADDA 000012
Figure 1b: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall
ADDA 000013
Figure 1c: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall

ADDA 000014
Figure 1d: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall

ADDA 000015
Figure 1e: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall

ADDA 000016
Figure 1f: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall
ADDA 000017
Figure 1g: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall

ADDA 000018
Figure 1h: Burial of Unbaptized Natives Outside Cemetery Wall
While none of the archaeological reports after 2005 depict the Alamo cemetery
boundary composed of the chapel and the entire plaza as THC staff have done, earlier
reports discussed historic newspaper articles about construction crews encountering
human remains during the early 20th-century. The historic newspaper articles are
corroborating evidence that supports THC’s conclusion that human remains have been
documented inside and outside Alamo Plaza. A more detailed discussion is provided
about the historic newspaper accounts in the next chapter entitled, Archaeological Data
Regarding Distribution of Human Remains.
The THC Archaeology Division staff have always used the rule of thumb that for
every marked burial on the ground or in the burial records, there are at least three
unmarked burials outside the modern fenced boundary. When the U.S. Post Office was
constructed in the 1930s, workers exhumed well over 300 sets of human remains, some
of which dated to the historic period based on the presence of rosary beads (Hard
1994:49). Theoretically, the funerary objects were given to Mrs. Lieta Small, custodian of
the Alamo (Hard 1994:50), while the human remains were reinterred in San Fernando
ADDA 000019
Cemetery Number 2, re-exhumed in 1994 for analysis and study, then reinterred at the
same cemetery (Hard 1994:50). Presumably, the university inventoried these human
remains, reported to the National Park Service Repatriation Office, and the osteological
studies were carried out in compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas and the Health
and Safety Code, in terms of the required consultation with the THC and written consent
from the Next of Kin. The AITSCM and the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation tribal
community have consistently spoken on behalf of their ancestors in this regard.
In March 18, 1988, the Historic Aboriginal Cemetery issue at the Alamo was
paramount at the time the Alamo Plaza Master Plan was developed for the City of San
Antonio’s Department of Parks and Recreation (Perez 1988). The THC’s concern for
threatened and endangered Native American graves and cemeteries generated Texas
Attorney General Opinion Letters to the State Archaeologist at THC. At this time, the
THC State Archeologist promoted a Native American Cemetery bill in the Texas
legislature for the protection and preservation Prehistoric and Historic Aboriginal
Cemeteries; the bill died in committees. On March 17, 1988, however, the Texas
Attorney General gave an opinion that “Indian graves are protected from theft under
Texas law” under the penal code, and “To Indians, Indian burial grounds are consecrated
grounds imbued with the same sacred character as graves in other societies” (Victoria
Guerra, Assistant Attorney General letter dated March 17, 1988; Figure 2 and Figure 3).
By the time the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted on
November 16, 1990, the issue of Indian graves required another Texas Attorney General
opinion regarding subsection 31.03(e)(4)(B) of the penal code, specifically related to the
term “grave” and how it applies to marked and unmarked Indian burial grounds
regardless of antiquity or ethnic origin. While the opinion summary stated, “the term is
not limited by definition in the Penal Code and applies to any grave, regardless of
ethnicity, antiquity, or markings”, the opinion also noted, “that conviction of an offense
under section 31.03 requires that there be an identifiable living ‘owner’ of the property
[grave and human remains] as of the date of the alleged theft”.
ADDA 000020
Figure 2: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated March 17, 1988 page 1
ADDA 000021
Figure 3: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated March 17, 1988 page 2
The opinion continued by stating, “the Penal Code criminalizes the abuse of a
corps and the desecration of venerated objects, including places of burials”. On a final
note in the opinion, the Texas Attorney General referenced Chapter 711 of the Health and
Safety Code stating the code governs cemeteries (Rick Gilpin, Deputy Chief Opinion
Committee in letter dated September 4, 1992; Figure 4 and Figure 5). The THC provides
a weblink about Cemetery Laws regarding the Penal Code under Title 2 General
Principles of Criminal Responsibility, Chapter 7 Criminal Responsibility for the Conduct
of Another, Subchapter A Complicity, and the THC emphasizes the Health and Safety
Code Chapter in general, which includes 711.052(a)(6)—the criminal penalty of
removing remains from a plot without complying with Section 711.004 and subsection
711.004(a)(5) the requirement to obtain written consent from Next of Kin to remove
human remains from a burials. The Tribal Community of the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan
Nation are the Next of Kin that are living today. Members of the Tribal Community can
demonstrate their genealogical descent back to early 18th-century mission birth and death
ADDA 000022
records at a time prior to the arrival of other tribal groups, like the Comanche and
Apache. The oral histories, genealogical record, Spanish Colonial written records, and
archaeological record makes the tribal community culturally affiliated direct lineal
descendant associated with their ancestors buried within the historic cemetery boundaries
of Mission San Antonio de Valero (Alamo). The Tribal Community still venerate their
ancestors on an annual basis at the Alamo, and they have been speaking for their
ancestors prior to and during planned development projects at the Alamo, such as the
1988 Alamo Plaza Master Plan, the 1994 Alamo Plaza Study Committee Report and
Recommendations to the City Council [of San Antonio], and the most recent Alamo
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Figure 4: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated September 4, 1994 page 1
ADDA 000023
Figure 5: Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter Dated September 4, 1994 page 2
The first two plans concluded there was a cemetery inside and in front of the
chapel, and the Coahuiltecan Bands at the mission were buried in as many as three to four
cemeteries overtime within the general vicinity of the Alamo (Alamo Plaza Study
Committee 1994:23). A general premise of these development plans is that construction
may encounter the ashes and human remains of Texas Heroes and some evidence of
intact or disturbed (disarticulated) human remains of mission Indians from the Spanish
ADDA 000024
Colonial Period. It should be noted that arguments in which disarticulated human remains
does not represent a cemetery are disrespectful to people of other ethnic origins, who
hold that the disarticulation of ancestral remains represents, either persistent Coahuiltecan
mortuary practices of removing ancestors remains for reburial at new living locations, or
the purposeful placement in the ground of individual body parts that fell off and died, like
a tooth, or the desecration of those original ancestral burials by past and recent legal and
2017:123). Accordingly, the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation tribal community attaches
cultural and religious significance of the Alamo grounds, the Mission San Antonio de
Valero Historic Cultural Landscape, and within their Indian Tribal Lands.
The presence of so many sets of human remains in the general vicinity of the
Alamo is understandable when considering the historic context of how and when the
mission was established. According to the 1573 Ordinances of Discovery, New
Settlement, and Peace, the Spanish Governor-Military Commander and Presidente of the
Missionaries were required to consult and obtain the consent of the local tribal elders
regarding the temporary and permanent locations of the villa and missions. General Pedro
de Aguirre’s 1709 entrada records indicated there were over 500 people living in the
large Coahuiltecan Payaya Village (Tous 1930:5) at the San Antonio River. Ruecking
(1954:330) demonstrated that up to 80,000 native people lived in the northeastern Mexico
and south central Texas area in 1718. The archaeological record demonstrates the
Coahuiltecan people have lived in the greater Central and South Texas area over 16,000
years (Waters el al. 2018). Previous archaeological studies have not developed their
research designs from the Coahuiltecan, Spanish, and Tejano perspective that the 1718
native village had a long history, and the traditional tribal burial ground evolved overtime
from the prehistoric period through the Spanish Colonial Period, which explains why
there are so many sets of human remains in the general vicinity of the Alamo, some of
which display Archaic Period burial practices. Comprehensive archival studies and
archaeological historic cemetery delineation investigations have been commensurate and
guided other development plans throughout Texas. These types of studies have yet to be
completed at the Alamo, which is inconsistent with past precedent of these studies being
completed prior to development projects breaking ground for the preservation of other
cultural groups’ heritage.
ADDA 000025
Archaeological Data Regarding Distribution of Human Remains
The overview report presents information about the known archaeological data
regarding the distribution of human remains and funerary objects within the immediate
surroundings of Mission San Antonio de Valero (Alamo Compound). This report uses the
sources referenced in AITSCM’s initial Historic Texas Cemetery designation application.
Researchers have compiled specific references where human remains are mentioned in
the report and noted the locations of the human remains on a map. The methodology for
assessing and delineating historic cemetery boundaries is based on past precedent of THC
recommendations for other large historic cemeteries associated with other cultural groups
and other Native American cemeteries. In general, all evidence of for the existence of a
cemetery is noted on a map, which can be marked by formal and informal headstones,
footstones, fencing, depression in the ground, documented human remains, disarticulated
human remains, and even certain types of flower clusters (Lilies and Irises), as well as
historic maps showing burial grounds. Qualified professional archaeologists with
demonstrated local expertise and familiarity with the archaeological periods, who are not
in violation of the Antiquities Code of Texas or the Health and Safety Code under
Chapter 711.052(a)(6), have drawn a dashed-line around the evidence of burials to
indicate the known written record extent of the cemetery. Consistent with past precedent
established by the THC, the professional archaeologist makes recommendations that the
project sponsor avoid the demarcated area within a 300 foot buffer. If avoidance is not
possible, the THC has required formal excavation to determine the presence or absence of
grave shafts or human remains to verify the cemetery boundary dashed-line (provisional
boundary). Upon completion of the archaeological historic cemetery delineation study,
the dashed-line can be verified or expanded and demarcated with a solid line in the THC
database to represent the archaeologically confirmed historic cemetery boundaries.
The Texas State Cemetery is an example where an unverified provisional historic

cemetery boundary was approved by the THC’s Antiquities Advisory Board in a Historic
Texas Cemetery designation application. Later, comprehensive archival and
archaeological studies confirmed the historic cemetery boundary extended beyond the
modern fenced boundary into the street based on the presence of unmarked burials and
human remains. The THC issued one antiquities permit for a single comprehensive
archaeological data recovery effort within the historic cemetery redevelopment project
for the Texas State Cemetery. Similarly, GTI proposes the following archaeological
records demonstrate a provisional historic cemetery boundary that the THC’s Antiquities
Advisory Board can approve and verify later in order to facilitate planning decisions.
The following archaeological reports and historic records comprise the

corroborating evidence for the existence of a historic cemetery within and outside the
Alamo chapel, plaza, and historic mission compound footprint.
Robert Hard and other researchers prepared a historical overview of Alamo Plaza and
Camposanto, which was prepared for the Department of Planning City of San Antonio.
ADDA 000026
The 1836 Colonel Jose Sánchez-Navarro Map illustrates two cemetery location (Figure
6) As stated in the report,
“The church and cemetery are both denoted by “C” on the

Sánchez-Navarro map. The C in the cemetery is also accompanied
by a cross. The legend therefore describes the two Cs as “Iglesia
arruinada con cementerio: sobre un explanada que se formó en el
presbiterio de la misma, se colocó una bacteria alta de tres
cañones, llamándola Fortín de Cos” (Ruined church with cemetery:
on top of a platform which is formed in the presbytery in the same,
is located a high battery of three cannons, named Fortín de Cos)”
(Hard 1994:40)
Figure 6: 1836 Colonel Jose Sánchez -Navarro Map
ADDA 000027
As trained historical archaeologists, it is important to note that the document is an 1836

record of what Navarro saw above ground, and he illustrated the component on his map
at a later date. Based on subsequent evidence of human remains in archaeology reports
and historic newspaper account, Navarro did not realize the hidden history of the
Coahuiltecan burial ground. The Catholic mission cemetery was a component of the
overall evolutionary use of the burial ground by 18th-century missionaries and neophytes
and earlier prehistoric Coahuiltecan clans.
As required by the Antiquities Advisory Board, THC staff, Carlyn Hammons, worked
with AITSCM. Ms. Hammons provided “recommended lines of research to support HTC
designation for the Mission San Antonio Valero”. She stated, “staff feels that focusing on
the chapel has the greatest potential for a successful HTC designation. It appears this may
be the only location where the evidence can support the existence of an HTC-eligible
cemetery” (email dated February 15, 2019). Not realizing THC Archeology Division had
already provided consultation letters to AITSCM to the contrary, Ms. Hammons
referenced two 1890 comments by William Corner, which were discussed in Hard’s
report (1994:45-48) describing burials within the chapel. In particular, Ms. Hammons
referenced:
x 1890 William Corner burials found by soldiers will cleaning debris out of the old
structure in 1848
x second reference “A later report appears much more reliable, ‘in a later year,
March 28, 1878, other skeletons buried at an earlier and apparently more peaceful
period, were unearthed in the Church, and a beautifully carved baptismal font was
brought to light November 15, 1878” (Corner 1890:11; Hard 1994:45–48).
Ms. Hammons proposed research question more appropriate for a comprehensive

archival study. While she conjectures the human remains noted in 1890 may have been
removed, archaeological excavations in the chapel demonstrate the human remains are
still present in the chapel. Corners reference to human remains within the chapel supports
the delineation of the historic cemetery boundary to include the chapel.
Hammons (2019) does not mention the four burial found outside of the church at the
corner of Alamo Plaza and Crockett Street. Anderson (2018:103-104), illustrates overlays
of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps that skip from 1912 to 1951, and these maps do not
illustrate the location of garage where the burials were discovered and covered with
concrete in 1920. A historic newspaper article from the San Antonio Evening News,
dated Feb 14, 1920, described how workers found human remains while preparing the
garage floor. The remains were described as crumbling. The 1920’s article described
specifically that the jawbone, teeth, arm, hand, finger bones, and pelvis were intact and
intentionally buried (Figure 7). The 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map illustrated the
location of the garage where the human remains were recovered (Figure 8). Researchers
highlight the garage location with a red-line box. Ramon Vasquez, of AITSCM, provided
two images that illustrated the location of the garage and the areas planted in front of the
Alamo Shrine in shrubs and trees (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The first photo, from the 1961
ADDA 000028
HABS, illustrates a view looking south, and the photo is undated. The second photo
provides an aerial blimp-view taken by staff of the San Antonio Light in 1931.
Figure 7: San Antonio Evening News 14, Feb 1920
ADDA 000029
Figure 8: 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Perry Castañeda Library Collection
Figure 9: Undated Photograph Looking South at Alamo Shrine (1961 HABS)
ADDA 000030
Figure 10: 1931 San Antonio Light Aerial Blimp Photograph Looking North.
ADDA 000031
Hard (1994:48-49) discussed a San Antonio Express article, dated July 17, 1934, that
described finger bones of an individual were unearthed when WPA was planting shrubs
in front of the chapel. He correlates the location with Ivey’s (1992) first location of the
chapel. Ramon Vasquez provided a newspaper article from the McAllen Daily Press,
dated July 19, 1934, that corroborates the San Antonio Express article, but described the
location as alongside the old convent (Figure 11).
Figure 11: McAllen Daily Press July 19, 1934
Hard (1994:49-51) addressed the initial discovery of Native American burials that had
rosary beads as funerary objects, which were part of the burials at the southeast corner of
the old post office. The area had been dedicated to Theodore Roosevelt. It was initially
believed there were 37 individual burials at this location, which were removed. These
remains where reburied in the San Fernando Cemetery, in 1935. These burials were
exhumed by David Glassman of Southwest Texas State University, who examined the
human remains and reburied them at San Fernando Cemetery, in 1994. Glassman’s
(1994) analysis determined that there were at least 8 individuals possibly more, and that
there were adult males, females, sub-adults, which ranged from infants to adolescents.
The individuals were identified as Native American based on the frequency of shovel-
shaped incisor teeth. Ramon Vasquez provided additional photos from the 1961 HABS
documentation of the Alamo, as well as, other old newspaper images of the Alamo Plaza,
old post office, and construction area of the new post office (Figure 12 through Figure
15).
ADDA 000032
Figure 12: 1918 Old Federal Building and Alamo Plaza
ADDA 000033
Figure 13: 1912 Alamo Plaza and Post Office
ADDA 000034
Figure 14: 1935 Alamo Plaza and Post Office Construction Area
ADDA 000035
Figure 15: View of Alamo Plaza, Post Office (1961 HABS)
Hard (1994:54) discussed Ann Fox’s 1979 excavations for reconstruction of the
north wall, which encountered a human skull. She posited the human remain represented
“a possible participant of the Battle of the Alamo,” because it was found within the fill of
the defensive trench (Ivey and Fox 1997).
Presented below is other additional supporting documentation provided by Ramon

Vasquez and the American Indians of Texas at Spanish Colonial Missions. Vasquez
pointed out in the evidence AITSCM submitted for the existence of a cemetery that the
1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map depicted a cross within a box along the outside edge
of north compound wall of Mission San Antonio de Valero (Figure 16 and Figure 17).
Anderson (2017:38,201) based the conjectured compound north wall on Ivey’s research
locating the northwest corner of the compound wall near today’s Peacock Alley and
North Alamo Street. Anderson’s (2017:38,201) report included figures that illustrated
Ivey’s conjectured compound wall. The first illustration depicted areas of known or high
potential for human remains, and the second illustration documented the locations of
previous archaeological excavations (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Based on Ivey’s
documentation of the north wall and the 1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map, there is a
high probability additional human remains are present outside of the north wall. As
previously discussed, Our Lady of Lake University has a 1746 ecclesiastical document
where padres debated burial locations for non-baptized Natives, and that they must be
ADDA 000036
buried outside of the Mission Compound. This information extends the area of potential
burials beyond the areas proposed by Anderson (2017:38).
Figure 16: 1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map
ADDA 000037
Figure 17: 1764 Luis Antonio Menchaca Map Close-up
ADDA 000038
Figure 18: Areas with Know or High Potential for Human Remains Anderson 2017:38
ADDA 000039
Figure 19: Previous Archaeological Investigations Anderson 2017: 201
The San Antonio Light published a newspaper article entitled David Crockett’s
Skeleton dated September 17, 1883. The article stated that “Dr. West has some very
curious and interesting geological specimens, and we understand some petrescent. He has
a fine collection….But best of all the doctor believes he has the skeleton of David
Crockett, the Alamo hero. The bones were dug up from the Alamo by a laborer, who
saved them for him” (Figure 20). Although the exact location of the human remains is not
provided, the article indicates that the human remains were recovered from the Alamo.
Figure 20: San Antonio Light 1883
ADDA 000040
The next article in the collection provided by Ramon Vasquez was from the El Paso
Herald entitled Human Bones of Alamo Defenders Unearthed, which was dated June 26,
1908. The article stated, “A number of bones which are believed to be parts of the
skeletons of heroes who found for Texas independence during the struggle at the Alamo,
have been unearthed on the site of the artesian well which colonel C.C. Gibbs is having
drilled on Avenue D, opposite the post-office” (Figure 21). The 1912 Sanborn Fire Map
illustrated the location of the Gibbs building on Avenue D opposite the post office and
shows the location of a hose within the building (Figure 22).
Figure 21: El Paso Herald June 26, 1908, Gibbs and Avenue D location.
ADDA 000041
Figure 22: 1912 Sanborn Map Gibbs Building.
The Austin American published an article on January 6, 1937 entitled D.A.R.

Goes into Session after Bones of Defenders of Alamo are Unearthed (Figure 23). The
article described locational information, as well as, human remains from several
individuals. The article stated that “Workman discovered the remains while excavating in
the Alamo grounds. The bones, including a hip joint, several arm and leg bones and part
of three skulls, were recovered by Miss Ruth Small daughter of Mrs. Leita Small,
ADDA 000042
custodian of the shrine.” The 1931 San Antonio Light Aerial Blimp Photograph (see
figure 10), presented earlier, demonstrates how the area in front of the chapel was used
for parking spaces. Therefore, the “Alamo Grounds” would be within the area east of the
chapel and barracks.
Figure 23 The Austin American January 6, 1937 Alamo Grounds
Based on the available archaeology reports and historic newspaper articles that show and
describe the locations of human remains, GTI has prepared Provisional Historic
Cemetery Delineation topographic and aerial maps (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The maps
show the locations of where human remains have been found, which are corroborating
evidence for the historic cemetery delineation within a dashed-line, which indicates the
provisional quality of the outlined cemetery boundary. Each of the human remain
location are presented with source information data for review and correlation with
figures within this overview report.
ADDA 000043
Figure 24: Topographic Map of Provisional Historic Cemetery Delineation
ADDA 000044
Figure 25: Topographic Map of Provisional Historic Cemetery Delineation
ADDA 000045
Significance of Mission San Antonio de Valero’s Historic Cemetery
The Overview Report presents information that reflect the current knowledge of
unrecognized significance of Mission San Antonio de Valero’s historic cemetery within
the context of the mission’s historic cultural landscape and historical narrative.
Preserving historic cultural landscapes is a focus of THC’s Statewide Plan under Goal-2,
which is a significant juncture in time when Spain established Mission San Antonio de
Valero on May 1, 1718 along with the Villa de Béxar and the Presidio de Béxar on May
5, 1718, which received a royal cedula on June 11, 1718 (Hoffman 1935:37). The
mission’s historic cultural landscape included agricultural land and pastoral lands, which
were essential for the birth of the cattle industry in the Provincia de Tejas and the Texas
connection with the American Revolutionary War effort.
In 1778, the Marquez de Croix arrived in the Villa de Béxar to develop a Native
American policy for the protection of the cattle industry. The impetus for the policy was
the surreptitious agreement between Carlos III and the Continental Congress to provide
supplies of funds, arms, ammunition, soldiers, and 18,449 head of cattle for the American
Revolutionary War effort (Thonhoff 1981). The Spanish missions had agricultural lands
and pasturelands. Mission ranchos were located at the periphery of the pasturelands. The
local Coahuiltecan clans were sophisticated naturalists, and Spanish chroniclers
documented the area around San Pedro Springs had acequias by the time the Spanish
arrived in the San Antonio area. The local population and Spaniards constructed acequias
in the agricultural fields and pasturelands near the ranchos. The missions were located
along El Camino Real. Each of these components, along with the Alamo chapel, plaza,
and historic cemetery comprise Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Cultural
Landscape. By 1762, El Monte, or Monte Galvan, a Mission Valero rancho maintained a
consistent settlement pattern where a stone house and chapel were associated with the
mission rancho. Mission San Antonio de Valero’s “ranch extended from Salado Creek,
on the west, to Cibolo Creek, on the northeast, and possibly to Martinez Creek, in eastern
Bexar County” (NPS 2011:201). The historic cultural landscape is discernable and
identifiable in the archival record, and many elements of these components are
documented in the archaeological record. The archaeological data, however, has yet to be
synthesized from this research question. By understanding the nature of the historic
cultural landscape, researchers and citizens of Texas can gain a better understanding of
the ancestors buried within the historic cemetery boundary. A synthesis of the Mission
Valero burial records in the context of a comprehensive archival study, can facilitate the
GLO’s and the City of San Antonio’s good faith effort to identify the Next of Kin in
order to obtain their written consent to remove articulated and disarticulated human
remains.
While the THC consultation letters with the Alamo Trust, Inc. dated December 4,
2018 envision the Alamo can be considered as a network of Texas Revolution sites
connecting with San Felipe, Goliad, Washington on the Brazos, Gonzales, San Jacinto,
and other related sites, Mission San Antonio de Valero was also integral in contributing
towards the 18,449 head of cattle for the American Revolution (Appendix A), and the
ADDA 000046
Alamo can be connected with other Spanish settlements that contributed to the
revolution, such as Mission Concepcion, Mission San Jose, Mission San Juan, Mission
Espada, Fuerte del Cibolo, Mission La Bahia, Ranchería Grande, Mission Los Adaes (all
in Texas), Appaloosa (in Louisiana), Pensacola, and St. Agustin (in Florida). The
National Significance of the Alamo in the context of the American Revolution has yet to
be fully realized and documented, and many of the Rancheros were mixed Coahuiltecan
and Spanish, some of whom may be buried in Mission San Antonio de Valero’s historic
cemetery boundary. Many of the Texas settlers who came in 1836 intermarried with the
Spanish and Tejano families, who were here before, and their connection with the
American Revolution and their stories have yet to be told. Only comprehensive archival
studies can address the nationally significance questions for Texas history.
ADDA 000047
Conclusions and Recommendations
assemblages for projects of a similar nature with large cemeteries within an urban setting.
Such requirements were applied to the Texas State Cemetery, Allen Parkway Village
Cemetery, and Freedman’s Cemetery projects, to name a few Historic Non-Aboriginal
Cemeteries. To date, despite the numerous antiquities permitted archaeological
investigations in the Alamo Plaza area, an archeological site trinomial number never has
been assigned to this Historic Aboriginal Cemetery, and its’ significance has not been
addressed for consideration regarding preservation, or protection from Adverse Effects
by the Alamo Redevelopment Master Plan project sponsors.
The AITSCM submitted documents along with their Historic Texas Cemetery
designation application for the Mission San Antonio de Valero cemetery. GTI has
reviewed the documents, analyzed the archaeology reports, master plans, THC
consultation letters, historic newspaper articles, additional historic maps, and Texas
Attorney General Opinion letters. In particular, the previous archaeological investigation
reports and historic newspaper articles made specific references to the discovery and
location of human remains. GTI has collated the locations of human remains on aerial
and topographic maps. Commensurate with past precedent practices of defining
provisional historic cemetery delineation based on a dashed-line surrounding the known
locations of human remains within a cemetery context, GTI has revised AITSCM’s initial
historic cemetery delineation for the THC’s Antiquities Advisory Board consideration,
review, and approval. The limited archival research attained within this Overview Report
does not represent a comprehensive archival study. The Overview Report indicates the
potential to address important historic preservation issues yet to be incorporated into the
Alamo Redevelopment Master Plan, particularly related to Mission San Antonio de
Valero’s historic cemetery.
It should be noted that arguments in which disarticulated human remains does not
represent a cemetery are disrespectful to people of other ethnic origins, who hold that the
disarticulation of ancestral remains represents, either persistent Coahuiltecan mortuary
practices of removing ancestors remains for reburial at new living locations, or the
purposeful placement in the ground of individual body parts that fell off and died, like a
tooth, or the desecration of those original ancestral burials by past and recent legal and
2017:123). In the past, archaeologists have concluded the presence of a single tooth or a
ADDA 000048
human bone was indiscriminate, which implied lack of care and respect for the deceased.
In reality, there is not one ethnographic record that demonstrates the Coahuiltecan clans
indiscriminately discarded their loved ones bodies or bones. Accordingly, the Tap Pilam
Coahuiltecan Nation tribal community attaches cultural and religious significance of the
Alamo grounds, the Mission San Antonio de Valero Historic Cultural Landscape, and
within their Indian Tribal Lands.
It is GTI’s recommendation that the THC’s Antiquities Advisory Board approve

AITSCM’s Historic Texas Cemetery application with a provisional boundary that can be
verified, or expanded, upon the completion of a comprehensive archival study and
archaeological historic cemetery delineation investigation carried out by the General
Land Office of Texas and the City of San Antonio “before breaking ground” in the
Alamo Redevelopment Project area, in accordance with the Antiquities Code of Texas
and the Health and Safety Code under Chapter 711.004(a)(5).
GTI also recommends that the Antiquities Advisory Board direct:
1. the THC executive director and staff to require the Texas General Land
Office and the City of San Antonio to complete the comprehensive
archival and archaeological historic cemetery delineation studies prior to
any ground disturbance associated with the project development, as THC
has required for other Non-Aboriginal cultural groups’ historic cemeteries
in the past.
2. the Alamo Trust, Inc. human remains protocols be revised to include

requirements under the Health and Safety Code Chapter 711.004(a)(5),
which requires Alamo Trust, Inc. to make a good faith effort to identify
the Next of Kin and obtain written consent to remove human remains
(articulated or disarticulated) from their resting place.
3. THC staff to require that the comprehensive archaeological historic

cemetery delineation investigation be carried out by a qualified
professional historical archaeologist and investigative firm that has
demonstrated work experience in the earliest history of the Spanish
Colonial Period related to the missions, experience working lineal
descendant groups who trace their heritage to the settlement of San
Antonio, experience working with Coahuiltecan clans associated with the
Spanish Missions, knowledge of Spanish archival records, and who are
not in violation of the Antiquities Code of Texas, or the Health and Safety
Code under Chapter 711.052(a)(6), or NAGPRA Inventory Requirements,
or transporting human remains (whole or in part) across state lines for
unapproved analyses without consultation with the Texas Historical
Commission, appropriate federal agencies, Tribal representatives, and
descendant Next of Kin written consent.
ADDA 000049
References
Adams, Richard E. W. and Thomas R. Hester

1993 Letter to Dr. Fred Wendorf, Chairman, Texas Antiquities Committee, concerning
completion of excavations and Mission San Antonio de Valero. November 26.
Briggs, A. and Steve A. Tomka, Anne A. Fox, Antonia L. Figueroa, and Jennifer L.
Thompson
2008 Report on the Archaeological Investigations Conducted between 1992 and 1993 at
the Alamo Sales Museum (41BX6), Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Report
No. 388. ACT Permit No. 1033. Center for Archaeological Research, The
University of Texas at San Antonio.
Cox, I. Waynne
1994 The History and Development of Alamo Plaza. In A Historical Overview of Alamo
Plaza and Camposanto, R.J. Hard, ed., pp. 1-13. Special Report No. 20. Center for
Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Eaton, Jack D.
1980 Excavation at the Alamo Shrine (Mission San Antonio de Valero). Special Report
No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas San Antonio.
El Paso Herald
1908 Human Bones of Alamo Defenders Unearthed (El Paso, Texas), January 26, 1908.
Fox, Anne, A.
1977 Convento Unpublished report at CAR
1983 Excavation of the North Half of the Maverick Building. Unpublished Report.
1992 Archaeological Investigations in Alamo Plaza, San Antonio, Bexar County,

Texas, 1988 and 1989. Archaeological Survey Report No. 205. ACT Permit Nos.
704 and 799. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San
Antonio.
Fox, Anne A., Feris A. Bass, Jr. and Thomas R. Hester

1976 The Archaeology and History of Alamo Plaza. Archaeological Survey Report No.
16. ACT Permit No. 94. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of
Texas at San Antonio. Fox, Anne A., Marcie Renner, and Robert J. Hard 1997
Greer, John W.
1967 A Description of the Stratigraphy, Features, and Artifacts from an Archeological
Excavation at the Alamo. Archeological Program, Report 3. State Building
Commission, Austin.
ADDA 000050
Guderjan, Thomas H.
1995 Excavations at the Alamo (41BX6) 1995 “Alamo Well” Project. Draft submitted
to the Texas Antiquities Commission.
Habig, Marion A.
1968 The Alamo Chain of Missions: A History of San Antonio’s Five Oldest Missions.
Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago.
Hard, Robert, I. Waynne Cox, Anne A. fox, Elizabeth Cantu Newcomb, and Dave
Nickels
1994 A Historical Overview of Alamo Plaza and Camposanto, Prepared for the
Department of Planning city of San Antonio, Center for Archaeological Research,
The University of Texas at San Antonio Special Report, No. 20, San Antonio,
Texas.
Ivey, James E.
1980a Slide Show of West Wall Excavations. Report on File at UTSA-CAR
1980b Narration of Excavation. Report on File at UTSA-CAR
2005 Chapter 3: Excavations Beneath the Radio Shack and the Alamo Theatre. In
Excavations West of Alamo Plaza, San Antonio, Texas. Report on File at UTSA-
CAR
Ivey, James E. and Anne A. Fox

1997 Archaeological and Historical Investigations at the Alamo North Wall, San
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeology Survey Report No. 224. ACT Permit
No. 196. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San
Antonio.
Meissner, Barbara A.
1996 The Alamo Restoration and Conservation Project: Excavations at the South
Transept. Archaeological Survey Report No.245. Center for Archaeological
Research, University of Texas San Antonio.
Nichols, Kristi Miller

2015 Archaeological Investigations at 41BX1968, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas,
with a contribution by Steve A. Tomka, Raba Kistner Environmental, San
Antonio, Texas.
Osburn, Tiffany
2016 2015 Ground-penetrating Radar Survey at the Alamo, Bexar County, Texas. Texas
Historical Commission, Archeology Division.
Perez, Andrew
1998 Alamo Plaza Master Plan for Department of Parks and Recreation City of San
Antonio. Andrew Perez Associates, Architects, San Antonio, Texas.
ADDA 000051
Ruecking, Frederick H., Jr.

1954 Ceremonies of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern
Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 6(3):330-339.
San Antonio Evening News

1920 Half-Cremated Bodies Will Rest Beneath Busy Garage Floor. San Antonio
Evening News (San Antonio, TX), February 14, 1920.
San Antonio Express

1934 Bones Found Near Wall of Alamo Believed Remains of Defender Who Lost Life
in Siege 98 Years Ago. San Antonio Express (San Antonio, Texas), July 17, 1934
1935 Church to Rebury Post Office Bones San Antonio Express News (San Antonio,
TX), August 9, 1935
1936 Pioneer Says Bones Were Texas Heroes. San Antonio Express News (San
Antonio, TX), February 18, 1936.
Schuetz, Mardith K.
1966 Historic Background of the Mission San Antonio de Valero. Report No. 1. State
Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin.
1973 Archeological Investigations at Mission San Antonio de Valero, the Second Patio.
Manuscript on file, Office of the State Archeologist, Texas Historical
Commission, Austin.
1980 The Indians of the San Antonio Missions, 1718-1821. Doctoral Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Sorrow, William M.
1972 Archeological Salvage Excavations at the Alamo (Mission San Antonio de
Valero) 1970. Report No.4, Texas Archeological Salvage Project Research,
Austin.
The Austin American

1937 D.A.R. Goes Into Session After Bones of Defenders of Alamo Are Unearthed
(Austin, Texas), January 6, 1937
The San Antonio Light

1883 David Crockett’s Skeleton (San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas), September 17,
1883
1937 Alamo Yields Human Relics” R.O. Crist. San Antonio Light (San Antonio,
Texas), January 5, 1937
ADDA 000052
Tous, Gabriel Reverend T.O.R.

1930 The Espinosa-Olivares-Aguirre Expedition of 1709. Preliminary Studies of the
Texas Catholic Historical Society Volume I, Number III:1–14. Texas Knights of
Columbus Historical Commission.
Waters, Michael R., Joshua L. Keene, Steven L. Forman, Elton R. Prewitt, David L.
Carlson, and James E. Wiederhold
2018 Pre-Clovis Projectile Points at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas—Implications
for the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Science Advances (4)10:1–13
Zapata and McKenzie

2017 The 2006 UTSA Field School at Mission San Antonio de Valero (41BX6), the
Alamo, San Antonio, Bexar County, TX
No Author
1994 Alamo Plaza Study Committee. Report and Recommendations to City Council.
ADDA 000053
Appendix A: Consultation Letters & Archival Records
ADDA 000054
ADDA 000055
ADDA 000056
ADDA 000057
ADDA 000058
ADDA 000059
ADDA 000060
ADDA 000061
Bexar Archives e_bx_007703
Ranchero Cattle Contributions to American Revolutionary War
ADDA 000062
ADDA 000063
ADDA 000064
ADDA 000065
ADDA 000066
ADDA 000067
ADDA 000068
ADDA 000069
ADDA 000070
Exhibit "B"
ADDA 000071
ADDA 000072
Exhibit "C" ADDA 000073
ADDA 000074
Exhibit "D"
ADDA 000075
ADDA 000076
ADDA 000077
ADDA 000078
Daily Report for EU-05 Excavations_September 23, 2019
Rhiana Ward, Project Archaeologist
Brittany McClain, Project Bioarchaeologist
Exploratory investigations for EU-05 resumed on September 23, 2019 with Brittany McClain, Project
Bioarchaeologist, and Susan Sinderbox, Staff Bioarchaeologist completing the excavations. The Project
Tribal Monitor was also present throughout the efforts. Excavations were a continuation of Level 1 (19-
30 cmbd) that had commenced on August 14, 2019. Skeletal elements that had been left in situ from the
initial excavations (three bone/bone fragments) were mapped and removed prior to excavations
commencing.
Today’s excavations began at the southern end of the trench and worked north. Soils consisted of a loose
to semi-compact silty fill matrix with gravel and cobble inclusions. Additional bone and bone fragments
were observed during excavation, as well as during screening efforts. Any bone elements observed in situ
were mapped prior to removal. Two human teeth, one human metacarpal, and 10-15 additional human
bone fragments were collected by the close of today’s excavations. The human remains appeared to be
concentrated towards the southern end of the 2-x-2 unit, west of the pipe, but were still observed in a
wide-spread, mixed context. Additional materials observed during excavations included approximately 15
faunal bone/bone fragments, as well as a few pieces of glass fragments, wire nails, one ceramic sherd,
and building material.
Two unassociated bone fragments (not-yet determined as human or faunal) were left in situ at the end of
the day and will be excavated in the following level (Level 2 [30-40 cmbd]). Overall, no articulated
elements have been located and no singular area has been identified as a highly concentrated area
containing human remains. All bone and bone fragments removed from today’s excavation were stored
in the Alamo Collections Vault at the end of the work day.
Exhibit "F"
August 19, 2019
Written Notification and Recommendations Regarding Finds in Excavation Unit 05, Alamo Church
(41BX6); Texas Antiquities Committee Permit Number: 8713
The removal of the flagging stone and underlying concrete slab from the designated location of Excavation
Unit 5 (EU 05) on the north side of the Nave of the Alamo Church at 41BX6 were completed afterhours on
the evening of August 13, 2019. The morning of August 14, the RKI archaeologists began laying out the
unit, establishing the datum, and establishing starting elevations, while the RK Geotechnical team was
taking their soil moisture and compaction readings. A 4-inch diameter cast iron sewer-line could be seen
running roughly SW to NE across the excavation unit. A roughly 2-inch diameter metal water pipe was
present immediately to its east. Prior to the commencement of the excavations, only the very top of the
larger pipe was notable.
Excavations commenced by late morning and focused on the southern half of the unit. At approximately
1:30 pm, excavating archaeologist noted evidence of bone fragments in the middle of the southern
portion of the unit. At this point, only 5-6 centimeters (cm) of soil had been removed from the unit. The
Alamo Archaeologist (AA-Kristi Nichols), had arrived at the location a few minutes earlier to check on
progress. Since only a small portion of the bone was exposed, assessment of the find was not possible.
To examine the find in more detail, a small portion of the soil surrounding the bone was brushed aside to
expose more of the find. Once the top was exposed, the Alamo Archaeologist asked RKI archaeologists
to notify the Project Archaeologist (PA-Rhiana Ward) and the Tribal Monitor (TM-Bryant J. Celestine), who
were in a different part of the site. In the meantime, the portion of the unit containing the bone was
inconspicuously covered. While waiting, the Alamo Archaeologist noted the top of another possible bone
in the unit approximately 30-cm to the east of the initial find. Using a bamboo skewer, matrix from around
the bone was gently cleared to expose the outline of the find in an effort to determine if it was human or
a piece of faunal material. While in situ, the specimen also was examined by the Assistant Staff Osteologist
(ASO-Susan Sincerbox), who determined the material to be likely human; however, the in situ nature of
the initial finds made a thorough analysis difficult.
Visitors observing the area were attempting to inquire about what was happening at the moment. After
consulting with the TM and PA, the Alamo Archaeologist cleared the area of archaeologists, halted
excavations of the unit (approximately 2 PM), and covered the excavated area and exposed bone with
muslin. The excavation area unit was surrounded by six-foot fencing covered with a fabric that limited
visibility and also prevented any non-archaeological staff from entering the unit. The soils that had been
removed from the unit and were contained in 5-gallon-buckets were carefully screened to determine
whether additional possible remains may have been collected in the matrix. A highly worn tooth and
small bone fragments were noted and the TM, RKI PA, and Alamo Archaeologist bagged all the bone
recovered from the screen (with exception of rodent bones) in a muslin pouch and stored the pouch in
the Alamo’s environmentally controlled collections vault. All non-bone material caught in the screen also
was collected and bagged, labeled, and set apart from other spoils to identify them as associated the
bone.
The RKI PA contacted (approximately 2:30 PM) the Principal Investigator (PI-Steve A. Tomka) informing
him of the finding of potential human remains in EU 05. Immediately after this call, the PA contacted the
Senior Project Osteologist (SPO-Timothy B. Griffith) and asked that he visit the site the next morning and
Exhibit "G"
August 19, 2019
confirm the initial identifications. To limit public exposure, it was thought best to have the SPO examine
the in situ materials prior to the opening of the Church for visitors.
On the morning of August 15, 2019, the PI and the SPO arrived on site and confirmed that one of the in
situ bones was a human talus. The talus was located approximately 9-cm below the base of the concrete,
approximately 29.5-cm below datum (cmbd). The talus was approximately 15-cm west of an existing
sewer line that runs north/south in the eastern portion of the unit. Also, at approximately 9-cm below the
base of the concrete (29-cmbd), a metatarsal was identified (the second in situ find). The metatarsal was
located approximately 57-cm west of the existing sewer pipe. A third undefinable bone fragment that may
be human was observed by the osteologist further to the west of the two initial finds. All bones were left
in place and re-covered with the muslin cloth and a thin layer of sterile soil matrix for protection.
The SPO also conducted an examination of the bone fragments recovered during the screening. The SPO
identified the aforementioned tooth as a heavily worn, lower premolar. In addition, one distal phalange
of the foot fused with an intermediate phalange also was identified. Several other unidentifiable bone
fragments were also examined and identified as indeterminate due to their small size but potential human
given their association with the other clearly identified human remains. Finally, a number of bone
fragments derived from the screen, were determined to likely not represent human remains due to a
variety of characteristics including the thickness and density of the cortical bone and the diameter of the
bone fragments.
The Tribal Monitor was consulted and present throughout the duration of the identification process. All
handling, treatment, and temporary storage methods were in accordance with the protocol developed
with the Alamo Mission Archaeological Advisory Committee (AMAAC).
Given the confirmation of human remains in EU 05 by the SPO, at 10 AM the morning of August 15, 2019,
the Alamo Archaeologist proceeded with the formal notification of the various agencies identified in the
Human Remains Treatment Protocol developed by the AMAAC. A call was initiated by the Alamo
Archaeologist to Emily Dylla, the Texas Historical Commission (THC) archaeologist overseeing the
excavations at the Alamo. The participants in this phone conference included the RKI Principal
Investigator, the PA, the SPO, the Tribal Monitor, and the AA. Other notifications preceded and followed
to other agencies and Project Design Team members as prescribed in the Human Remains Treatment
Protocol.
At the present time, all on-going and proposed excavations within the Church have ceased while the
members of the AMAAC, the THC, and the Design Team members determine the appropriate course of
action. All archaeological excavations are now limited to within the Long Barrack.
Recommended Follow-up Actions
At the present time, we can establish with certainty that disarticulated human remains were recovered
from EU 05. We can also establish that a trench was excavated at some point below the surface of the
Church floor to install a large-diameter sewer-line and a smaller water pipe across the area. Few other
conclusions can be reach with certainty to allow us to make decisions regarding the human remains and
the next phase of excavations within the unit.
The human remains encountered to date in EU 05 consist of three confirmed disarticulated fragments and
a number of bone fragments that may be human given their association with the aforementioned
2
August 19, 2019
elements. At the present time, information is lacking regarding the number of individuals that are
represented by these remains, and the age, and sex of the individuals represented.
The context of the remains also remains unclear. It is possible that the trench that was excavated to install
the sewer-line and nearby conduit could have disturbed one or more intact or previously disturbed burials
interred below the floor of the church. It is also possible that the remains may derive from fill that was
used to bury the pipes but the fill itself derives from a different provenience.
Since, at the present time, we lack key information, such as the minimum number of individuals, the age
and sex of the individuals, and the context of the remains hitherto found and identified in EU 05, we
recommend that the excavation of the unit be allowed to continue until information can be obtained
regarding the following questions: 1) did the disturbances associated with the installation of the sewer-
line and water pipe impact human remains, and if so, 2) do the remains represent one or more individuals,
and 3) are the remains those of intact or previously disturbed burials, and, 4) how many individuals are
represented in the disturbed burials, and 5) what is the age and sex of the individuals buried?
Answers to these questions can be obtained by following excavation methods and techniques previously
outline in the aforementioned Human Remains Treatment Protocol and with the assistance of the on-site
ASO and the oversight of the SPO. The proposed excavations will be closely monitored by the PA, the PI
and the TM.
3
Exhibit "H"
6 63'2 /
-
21' E 24.333
•
• 60'
"t;
�
3
.0
p
.,
Q
0.0118"
•
.o
E
.,-
REVISED
6 1''2
o·, e
2.00 •
�
1
3
•
.0
0
"'
r>
"'
AFFIDAVIT OF JERRY E. PATTERSON
My name is JERRY E. PATTERSON, I am over the age of 18 years, a resident of Austin, Texas, and
in all ways competent to make this affidavit.
1 was Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office from 2003 until 2015. I formerly served in
the Texas State Senate.
Since long before the epic battle of 1836, the Alamo has been the site and the subject of
controversy and conflict. In the many years after the battle that tradition has continued. It is
evident from the negative response to several of the elements of what was initially described
by the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the City of San Antonio (COSA) as a plan to
"Reimagine the Alamo," that the controversies continue.
The legislature transferred the responsibility for the Alamo from the Daughters of the Republic
of Texas (ORT) to the GLO in 2011. As the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office at
that time, I was responsible for the Alamo until I left the GLO at the end of 2014. We contracted
with the ORT to manage the day-to-day onsite operations under our supervision. We
negotiated the gift of the most extensive Alamo artifacts collection in the world from singer Phil
Collins to the State of Texas. We began the process of restoring and repairing the Alamo that
the ORT had been unable to undertake due to their limited resources, and we formed a
nonprofit corporation that in a few short months raised approximately $400,000 from private
sources for Alamo restoration.
Since 2014, my successor, Commissioner George P. Bush, has taken some positive steps to do
what is needed to preserve and enhance the shrine of Texas Liberty. Unfortunately, there have
also been several not so positive steps. After firing the ORT from their Alamo Management role
in 2015, he clumsily and forcibly evicted them from the adjacent Alamo Library/Alamo Research
Center and seized all of its contents. He lost the ensuing litigation and was forced to return the
Library contents and pay all the DRT's attorneys' fees. The financial management pf the Alamo
and its myriad of nonprofit corporations has created distrust to the point that the legislature
passed transparency legislation to force the GLO to be open and transparent in their use of
private as well as state tax dollars. Despite this fact, Commissioner Bush has continued to
refuse to do so in direct violation of the state legislation.
Perhaps the most contentious proposal of all is the planned removal of the Alamo Cenotaph
from the site it has occupied since 1940. The initial "Reimagine" plan favored a site for the
Cenotaph that was distant and not visible from the Alamo, and that did not go over well. To a
few, the current planned location just outside the south wall is not as offensive, but the fact
remains there is simply no reason to move the Alamo Cenotaph at all. There are several reasons
not to move it.
Exhibit "I"
Cenotaph to the Heroes of the Alamo
Structural Assessment & Stone Conservation Report
for the
City of San Antonio
Transportation and Capital Improvements Department
JQ Project No: 1142141
Exhibit "J"

12.02.14

Mr. Razi Hosseini, P.E., R.P.L.S., Assistant Director
Transportation & Capital Improvements (TCI)
Municipal Plaza Building
114 W. Commerce Street, 6th Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Razi.Hosseini@sanantonio.gov

Re: Alamo Cenotaph Assessment
Parks & Recreation Department
City of San Antonio

Subject: Structural Assessment & Repair Report

Dear Mr. Hosseini:

We have prepared this report to provide a structural and masonry condition assessment of the Cenotaph to the
Heroes of the Alamo monument (hereafter referred to as the Alamo Cenotaph) in Alamo Plaza. The report will
provide a description of the existing structure based upon a review of the original construction documents
prepared by the architectural firm of Adams & Adams in 1937, and a visual observation of current conditions. It
will also include an assessment of the condition of the stone used for the exposed finish of the monument,
including the sculptured stone surfaces.

The monument was visually observed on Monday, November 10, 2014 with the use of an aerial boom lift to
provide access to the top of the monument, and to allow closer examination of the exposed surfaces of the stone
masonry and joint system between the masonry units. The visual observation was conducted by the undersigned,
and Mr. Scott Lefton with JQ San Antonio, LLP, and by stone conservationist, Mr. Ivan Myjer with Building and
Monument Conservation. Mr. Myjer was assisted by Mr. Dennis Baltuskonis of Fine Art Consulting Services LLC.
Photographs taken during our field observations are included in Attachment 1 to this report and are referenced in
text of the report. A report prepared by Mr. Myjer is also included in its entirety as Attachment 2 to this report.

Description of Conditions

Review of Original Construction Documents:

Digital copies of the original construction documents were obtained through the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission from their Blueprints and Drawings Collection located
in Austin, Texas. The plans consisted of seven (7) blueprinted sheets titled E1, E2, and G1 through G5. The
Architect is listed on the drawings dated May 11, 1937 as Adams & Adams Architects. Also in the drawing title
block, the sculptor for the monument is listed as Pompeo Coppini, and the consulting engineer is listed as Frank T.
Drought.

The drawings indicate that a reinforced concrete frame consisting of columns, beams and slabs was used. Georgia
marble was used for all but the bottom pedestal base of the monument which is granite. Drawing elevations
dimension the height to be 56’‐0” from the bottom of the granite base to the top of the marble tower section.

Alamo Cenotaph Assessment
Transportation & Capital Improvements (TCI) Department
City of San Antonio
Condition Assessment Report
12.02.14 Page 2 of 5

Brick infill masonry was used between the concrete columns and beams. The brick infill provides backup and
anchorage points for the marble and granite facing for the monument. Columns for the Alamo Cenotaph consist of
four (4) reinforced concrete walls that extend across the east‐west width of the monument. The columns are
typically 1’‐0” thick. A column is located on both the north and south faces of the tallest, tower portion of the
monument. Two additional columns are located to the south of the main tower. The granite base for the
monument is supported by beams that cantilever to the north off of the north‐most column, and to the south off
of the south‐most column. Reinforced concrete slabs span between the concrete beams to provide support for all
horizontal and/or sloped marble surfaces.

Reinforced concrete beams general span in a north‐south direction between the concrete columns. The beams are
spaced at approximately eight (8) feet on center measured vertically above the granite base. The beams were
constructed with concrete lugs that extend out from the exterior face of the beams to provide support for the
stone facing. The lugs on the north and south side are offset from the lugs on the east and west side by four (4)
feet in elevation difference, which represents one course of marble.

The Alamo Cenotaph is supported on deep, reinforced concrete spread footings. One common footing supports
the two columns at the north and south faces of the tower. Two additional spread footings are located under each
of the columns located south of the tower. All of the footings are indicated to be founded twenty two (22) feet
below the bottom of the granite pedestal. This depth is below the level of seasonal moisture variation typically
seen in San Antonio. Additionally, the continuous pavement on all surfaces surrounding the monument would
serve to further protect underlying soils from soil moisture variation due to seasonal periods of wet and dry
weather. The architectural sections show that the existing grade inside the monument is approximately two (2)
feet lower than the present grade around the granite base at the exterior of the monument. This means that any
moisture that infiltrates to the interior of the Alamo Cenotaph could potentially be trapped over underlying clay
soils until it was able to evaporate. The presence of water on the interior of the monument could not be
determined during our observations.

The drawings indicate that the internal spaces between columns are ventilated through small vent openings
formed into the four concrete column/walls. A small vent for the monument interior was provided through the top
slab of the tower section, and two (2), six (6) inch diameter vents were provided through the bottom beam of the
monument on both the east and west sides. These vent openings were provided with bronze vent covers. In
addition to these ventilation openings, a 4” cast iron drain pipe extends from the top of the monument, and
discharges onto the current sidewalk through the granite base on the west side toward Alamo Street. This drain
opening had a similar bronze cover that matches the vent opening covers.

The architectural details indicate two (2) different types of anchors to be used for the marble facing. One anchor
consisted of a three‐eighths (3/8)” diameter, aluminum rod with bent ends to be embedded in the structural
concrete framing members, and mortared into holes in the interior edges of the marble pieces. The other type of
anchor was detailed as a one eighth (1/8) inch thick by one and one half (1 ½) inch wide bent aluminum stone
anchor to be embedded in the brick masonry backup, and mortared into slots cut into the interior edges of the
marble. The detailing of the anchors is similar to common stone masonry anchors of the day, but the aluminum
material is quite unusual. Our office has not encountered aluminum anchors in other masonry projects constructed
during the time period of the late 1930’s.

Observations:

The Alamo Cenotaph is exhibiting some movement in the large, individual marble stones, especially at the top of
the tower section. The movement has not resulted in any instability of the stone due to the frequent and
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 3 of 5

substantial support provided by the concrete ledges. It does appear that the limited movement that has occurred
may have caused some of the observed cracking of the marble.

Typical joint widths between the individual marble stones, indicated on the original construction documents, are
one quarter (¼) inch in width. Several of the joints we observed are much wider than this original joint width. The
drawings indicated that the stones were set in a “cement mortar,” but we did not see any further specification for
the mortar. Observed distress in the face of the marble along joints suggests that the original mortar may have
been too hard, in comparison to the strength of the marble, resulting in the stone cracking and chipping off as
movement of the stone occurs. Further discussion concerning this movement is provided below. We were able to
find in archived City Council records, titled An Ordinance 62,870 on May 15, 1986, that accepted a bid “to repoint
the joints and waterblast the Alamo Plaza Cenotaph.” This is likely when the remaining mortar in the joints was
partially removed, and replaced with sealants.

Observation of the monument revealed that the removal of the original mortar was not uniform in depth, nor was
it complete in all joints. We observed evidence in areas of the Alamo Cenotaph that an abrasive blade was used to
cut the mortar back from the face of the marble. Sealant was then applied over the cut areas of mortar to fill the
joints to the face of the marble to presumably provide a weather‐tight surface. The marble is generally four to six
(4 to 6) inches thick, and the narrow width of the joints would have prevented the removal of the original mortar
to any great depth without damaging the face of the stone. At the present time, the sealant is weathered, and has
largely de‐bonded from the marble allowing water entry into the joints. This is especially evident at the top of the
tower section of the Alamo Cenotaph where movement of the stones is especially pronounced.

Lateral movement of individual pieces of marble appeared to be up to one half (1/2) inch at the top of the
monument. This amount of movement is not enough to cause loss of adequate support for the marble.

Structural Assessment

The structural condition of the Alamo Cenotaph appears to be good based upon the visual observations we made.
Limited field measurements correlated well with the original construction documents. The reinforced concrete
frame appears stable, and the deep foundations appear to not have moved appreciably over the years. This is
evidenced by the uniform width of joints between the marble stones. Typically, when movement of a structural
frame occurs, it gives evidence of non‐uniform, differential movements between various parts of the framing
system. For masonry clad structures, this results in not only widening of joints, but racking of the masonry that
produces varying joint widths across the height and width of the stone. This condition was not evident in the
Alamo Cenotaph masonry.

The observed movement of the stone is likely the result of several conditions that may have occurred. We were
not able to visually observe the concrete structure, the condition of the brick backup behind the marble, or the
presence and/or condition of stone anchors as these are all concealed from view. However, several possible causes
are suggested by what can be observed from the masonry.

First, water infiltration through the open joints between the marble, and at inadequately sealed vent and drain
penetrations through the marble and underlying concrete support system has most likely provided the
environment conducive to the degradation of the masonry. The installation of sealants in the mortar joints almost
thirty (30) years ago indicates that the mortar joints were to some degree allowing water to enter into the stone
masonry at that time. The failed sealants evident during our current observation and the widening of the joints as
evidenced by the gaps between the sealant, installed decades ago, and the stone (see Photo 14 & 15) suggests that
movement of the marble is continuing. The fact that most of the movement has occurred near the top of the
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 4 of 5

monument also suggests that water infiltration is contributing to the observed movement because of the exposure
of the joints to rainfall.

The use of aluminum anchors for the marble is unusual as noted before, and is also likely a contributing factor in
the movement of the marble. It is well known today that unprotected aluminum reacts with the alkalinity present
in both concrete and cementitious mortars. The reaction produces aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen gas that
may cause expansion and cracking of the concrete and mortar as the aluminum corrodes. The presence of any
chlorides in the concrete can significantly accelerate the rate of corrosion of aluminum. Aluminum in close contact
with mild steel reinforcing can also produce a galvanic corrosion cell that is enhanced by the presence of water. As
a result, the aluminum anchors used to secure the marble may have corroded and allowed the stone to move.
However, none of the anchors could be visually observed to confirm.

The use of the cemititious mortar between marble panels likely is a contributing factor to the cracks around the
edges of the marble panels. Mortar that is too hard relative to the soft stone around it can cause cracks parallel to
the joint lines characteristic of the damage seen in photo 8. When the stone panels moved, the hard mortar
tended to restrain panel movement and caused a crack to form in the marble parallel to and close to the joint line.
Also, cementitious mortar expands thermally up to 5 times more than marble and may have caused this damage
over 75‐plus years of daily thermal cycles.

Moisture trapped within the monument can potentially promote the corrosion of embedded reinforcing steel if a
crack in the concrete exposes the steel to the moisture and air, or if the steel is not adequately covered by the
concrete. It is quite common in older, reinforced concrete structures to have minimal concrete coverage. When
steel corrodes, it expands in volume and can cause severe damage to the concrete structure, and the materials
attached to the concrete.

Recommendations

The marble on the Alamo Cenotaph should be stabilized by cleaning out the joints between the marble, and
making them weather‐tight as indicated in the attached report provided by Mr. Ivan Myjer with Building and
Monument Conservation. Two options have been provided in that report for consideration by the City. It is
essential that water infiltration into the monument be stopped.

The top stone on the south side of the tower section of the monument (see photo 13) should be removed when
any repair work is accomplished to allow the condition of the underlying concrete structure, and the anchors used
to secure the marble, to be observed and documented. This stone is already visibly displaced, and should be reset.

The interior of the monument should be checked for the presence of trapped water inside the structure. This
might be accomplished by removing a vent cover from the granite base of the monument, and observing the
ground inside by camera.

The condition of the monument should be frequently monitored. No repair can be considered permanent. The
Alamo Cenotaph will continue to age, deteriorate, and weather over time. Efforts made today to stabilize and
maintain the monument may not remain effective in years to come.

Limits

This assessment consisted of a partial visual observation only. Observation was limited to the exterior of the
monument and should not be construed as involving an exhaustive review of all conditions present. Demolition or
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 5 of 5

removal of materials was not conducted to gain access to concealed conditions, unless specifically noted otherwise
in the report. No testing was performed to determine the strength and or quality of existing, in‐place materials.

We were able to retrieve the original construction documents for the Cenotaph, but were not able to verify
whether the existing, in‐place construction internal to the exterior face matched the materials and techniques
indicated on the drawings. We correlated some field measurements with plan dimensions, and found them to be
in general conformance with the drawings. Further, we were able to locate an old photograph taken during
construction that suggests the drawings for the monument were accurate, but there is no guarantee that they
match in all respects. We did not have access to “as‐built” record drawings, shop drawings, or related construction
documentation reflecting actual in place construction, or engineering calculations to verify design assumptions and
capacities. We performed no calculations to assess the structural adequacy of the facilities, unless specifically
noted otherwise in this report. Therefore, we made the assumption that the facility was constructed using
construction techniques typical as we understand them for the time period when the facility was constructed.
Furthermore, our conclusions are based only upon our interpretations of our visual site observations made on the
dates indicated.

Neither the observation, nor this report is intended to cover mechanical, electrical or architectural features.
Further, if the property is rehabilitated or renovated, an assessment of the presence of asbestos containing
materials, and lead paint products will be required. We did not evaluate these environmental factors in this
assessment. Notify this office of any questions or comments regarding the information contained in this report. If
none are received it is concluded than no exceptions are taken regarding the professional opinion(s) rendered.

Please feel free to contact our office, at your convenience, should you have any questions or comments regarding
the matters addressed or if additional information is required. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,

David Gauthier, PE
Senior Project Manager
Jaster Quintanilla San Antonio, LLP
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F‐432
12/02/2014

Attachments:

 1: Photographs

 2: Conditions Assessment Report with Treatment Recommendations and Budgets for the Alamo Cenotaph
prepared by Building and Monument Conservation
ATTACHMENT 1: PHOTOS
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 1 of 8

Photo 1: Granite base of Alamo Cenotaph monument. Bronze vents are visible
in the side of the granite base that provides interior ventilation, and drainage
opening.

Photo 2: Bronze vents in the granite base. The vent with water seeping from
the opening is connected to a roof drain at the top of the monument.
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 2 of 8

Photo 3: West sculpture relief.

Photo 4: East sculpture relief.

City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 3 of 8

Photo 5: View of the top of the tower section at the south face. Joints in the
stone detailed on the original drawings as ¼” wide have widened as the stone is
displaced.

Photo 6: View of the top of the tower section at the north face. Slight
displacement of the marble is visible in this photo especially at the top stone,
and the interior field stone. The stone offsets at the right and left sides of the
tower are part of the design of the marble stonework.
City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 4 of 8

Photo 7: Crack in the marble sculpture at the south face of the tower section.

Photo 8:
Example of
typical joint
deterioration
with cracked
marble along
the joint line.

City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 5 of 8

Photo 9: Deteriorated marble at one of the sculptures on the east side of the
monument.

Photo 10: A portion of the nose on this figure was rebuilt with a non‐matching
material on the east side of the Cenotaph.

City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 6 of 8

Photo 11: Example of a broken corner of one of the pieces of marble. The
sealant in this joint varied in thickness and uniformity. Some of the old setting
mortar is still visible embedded in the sealant.

Photo 12: Example of displaced stone near the top of the monument.
Generally, the stone has displaced up to 3/8” laterally, but the joints have
remained relatively uniform in width.

City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 7 of 8

Photo 13: A large marble stone at the south side of the top of the tower section
is visibly displaced with an open sealant joint.

Photo 14: Close‐up of the failed sealant joint at the top of the monument at
the stone shown in the previous photo.

City of San Antonio
12.02.14 Page 8 of 8

Photo 15: View looking at down on the marble stone along the south edge of
the tower section. The sealant joints are completely open in all of the joints at
the top of the monument.

Photo 16: View of the roof drain and lead flashing at the roof vent at the top of
the Cenotaph. The joints at both of these openings were open, and appeared
to be allowing the entry of water.
Conditions Assessment Report with Treatment
Recommendations and Budgets
for the
Alamo Cenotaph, San Antonio, Texas
Produced for:
JQ
125 West Sunset Road
San Antonio, Texas 78209
Mr. David Gautier
Senior Project Manager

Produced by:
Ivan Myjer
Building and Monument Conservation
83 School Street
Arlington, MA 02476
December 1, 2014
ATTACHMENT 2: CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT

Conditions Assessment Report with Treatment Recommendations
for the
Alamo Cenotaph, San Antonio, Texas
Introduction
On Monday, November 11, 2014 Ivan Myjer of Building and Monument Conservation surveyed
the Alamo Cenotaph as part of a team assembled by Dave Gauthier of JQ Engineers. Assisting
Ivan Myjer was Dennis Baltuskonis of Fine Art Consulting Services LLC. Dave Gauthier and
Scott Lefton of JQ were present throughout the day and reviewed exterior stone conditions with
Ivan and Dennis.
The purpose of the assessment was to determine the possible cause, or causes, of the stone
displacement that is visible at the top of the monument. One of the principal goals of the
assessment was to evaluate whether the displacement of the stone at the top of the monument
represented a possible safety hazard and, if there were any other conditions that were unsafe or
might become unsafe in time. An additional goal was to develop short term and long-term
recommendations for the maintenance, conservation and restoration of the monument. This
report supplements the structural assessment completed by JQ.
Methodology
The monument was surveyed from the ground and from the basket of a 60 foot aerial lift. The
conditions were recorded with photographs and notes. No probes or investigations of the interior
of the monument were undertaken as part of this assessment.
Prior to starting the assessment, the original drawings and one historic photograph of the
monument while it was under construction were reviewed. The original drawings and the
photograph were very valuable because the manner in which the monument was constructed,
using a cast concrete frame with cast in place ledges to support the marble panels, is relatively
unique and could not have been determined by viewing only the exterior. (See historic
photograph 1 attached to the end of this report)
History and Background
The Alamo Cenotaph, also referred to as “The Spirit of Sacrifice” was commissioned by the
Texas Centennial Commission to commemorate the men who died fighting at the Alamo in
1836. The monument, according to some sources was constructed on the spot where the bodies
of the men were piled and then burned by Santa Anna’s troops.
The sculptor was Pompeo Coppini. The architects were the firm of Adams and Adams and the
engineer was Frank T. Drought. The base of the monument is Texas Pink Granite and the
balance is Georgia Marble.
1
Ivan Myjer, Building and Monument Conservation
Executive Summary
Summary of conditions and evaluation of safety concerns
As a whole the monument is in fair to good condition but it is suffering the effects of long
deferred maintenance. The displacement of the marble large units at the top of the monument
(see photos on photo page 2) is directly tied to water infiltration into open and failed mortar and
sealant joints. The displacement of the panels ranges from 1/4" to 3/4" and does not in itself
represent an immediate safety hazard because the units that have shifted are supported either by
the slab at the top of the frame or by the ledges that project from the frame. The movement of the
units however has caused some cracking and spalling (detachment of small pieces of stone) of
the marble over the years. (See photo pages 3 and 4) While none of the existing cracks in the
stone represents an immediate safety concern, if the root cause of the displacement of the panels
– water infiltration through open joints - is not addressed in the near future, then larger cracks
and greater fragmentation of the stone can be expected. Given the almost 60 foot height of the
monument, even a small piece of stone detaching from the monument has the potential to cause
injury.
The original drawings indicate that the anchors tying the stone back to the structural concrete
core were to be fabricated from aluminum. It was not possible to view one of the original
anchors but there is a good reason to suspect that the anchors are no longer functioning as
intended. Aluminum is known to deteriorate when it is in contact with, or embedded in cement.
The fact that the large panels at the top of the monument have shifted is an indication that the
anchors at the top of the monument may have failed.
In summary, while the monument is not presently unsafe, continued water infiltration into the
core will result in potentially unsafe conditions as well as advanced deterioration of the exterior
stone. Additional consequences of unchecked water infiltration include damage to the cement
and brick frame that supports the stone panels as well as the deterioration of the aluminum
anchors lower down in the structure. The carved figures are the most vulnerable to cracking and
loss because the heads of the figures span the joints between units. Movement in the units
directly above the heads of the figures will result in the cracking and eventual loss of the heads
and faces of the carved figures.
Treatment Options:
Conceptually there are two possible approaches to conserving and restoring the monument. The
first approach is a conservation and stabilization program that stops, or at least dramatically
slows down, the shifting and cracking of the marble units. This approach includes an
investigation into the condition of the frame and anchors but does not correct defects in the
frame, replace the anchors that may have failed, or reset the panels in their original locations.
2
The second option would involve removing the marble units that have shifted in order to reset
them in their original locations. Removing the units would provide the opportunity to correct any
defects in the concrete and brick frame behind the removed units as well as the chance to replace
the existing aluminum anchors with new stainless steel anchors.
In the second option we have anticipated that the upper four courses would have to be removed
and reset but the amount of units that require removal and resetting could increase if, when the
upper courses of stone are removed, the concrete frame and/or the aluminum anchors below the
bottom four courses are found to be defective.
Removal and replacement of all of the marble units should not be necessary unless the concrete
frame is exhibiting a level of deterioration that undermines its structural stability. If all of the
aluminum anchors appear to be badly corroded but the frame is sound, it should be possible to
re-secure the marble panels to the frame without removing all of them. Selective removal of
individual units should provide enough access points to add additional anchors to the more
vulnerable carved stone panels without removing them.
The scope of work in both options would entail cleaning the stone and repointing 100% of the
joints with a softer and more compatible pointing mortar that matches the appearance of the
historic mortar.
Regardless of which option is selected, tremendous skill will be required on the part of the
conservators and masons to remove the existing failed mortars and sealants from the joints
without damaging the stone. The joints intersect the carved figures at a variety of angles
producing many locations where the edges are exceedingly thin. While the joints in the flat units
can be removed by skilled restoration masons, conservators and specially trained conservation
masons will be required to remove the failed mortar and sealant by hand from the joints within
and between the figures. Cutting with grinders and or pneumatic tools in the conventional
manner will result in chipped edges, lost details and permanently altered joint widths.
Option 1 - Scope: Conservation and stabilization of the monument
1. Removal of one of the units at the top of the monument on the south side that has shifted
in order to investigate the condition of the concrete and brick frame as well as the original
aluminum anchors and determine what would be required to eventually reset the shifted
marble units in their original locations.
2. Removal of all sealants from the mortar joints.
3. Raking out and removal of failed mortar located beneath the failed sealants.
4. Repointing of 100% of the mortar joints with an appropriate conservation mortar that
matches the appearance of the original historic mortar but is softer and more permeable
than the original mortar.
3
5. Installation of stainless steel cramp anchors at the joints between the marble units on top
of the slab in order to prevent any additional outward movement. Cramps will not be
visible from the ground.
6. Reattachment of cracked pieces of stone with a clear stone epoxy used in art
conservation.
7. Grouting of cracks and filling of areas of loss with compatible hydraulic lime based
mortars and grouts.
8. Removal of discolored and non-matching prior repairs and replacement with new better
matching and more compatible repairs utilizing carved Georgia Marble and/or specially
formulated hydraulic lime based patching materials.
9. Cleaning of marble and granite to remove biological growths and general soiling and
staining.
10. Application of lead or polymer covers to skyward facing joints to prevent water
infiltration in the future. Joint covers will not be visible from the ground.
11. Removal of failed sealants at the drain and vent at the roof of the monument and
installation of new sealants.
12. Inspection of the existing drain pipe using a video camera to determine if it is corroded
and/or leaking.
13. Documentation of all treatments with photographs and notes as well as documentation of
the condition of the concrete frame and aluminum anchors.
Budget for Option 1: $140,000 to $160,000 based on 10 weeks of site time using a mixed crew
of restoration masons and sculpture conservators. The budget does not include any landscaping,
tree trimming, abatement of hazardous materials, police details or permits.
Option 2 - Scope: Conservation, stabilization, resetting of shifted units and repairs to the
exposed portion of the frame.
1. Removal of the upper four courses of the monument as well as the unit on top of the roof
slab.
2. When the units are removed the concrete and brick frame would be evaluated by the
project engineer. Repairs would be made at locations where the cement has spalled or
cracked or where the brickwork is defective - as directed by the engineer.
3. The roof slab and the exposed section of the concrete frame would be waterproofed prior
to resetting the marble slabs in their original locations with new stainless steel anchors.
4. Reattachment of cracked pieces of stone with a clear stone epoxy used in art
conservation.
5. Grouting of cracks and filling of areas of loss with compatible hydraulic lime based
mortars and grouts.
6. Removal of discolored and non-matching prior repairs and replacement with new better
matching and more compatible repairs utilizing carved Georgia Marble and/or specially
formulated hydraulic lime based patching materials.
4
7. Cleaning of marble and granite to remove biological growths and general soiling and
staining.
8. Application of lead or polymer covers to skyward facing joints to prevent water
infiltration in the future. Joint covers will not be visible from the ground.
9. Removal of failed sealants at the drain and vent at the roof of the monument and
installation of new sealants.
10. Inspection of the existing drain pipe using a video camera to determine if it is corroded
and/or leaking.
11. Documentation of all treatments with photographs and notes as well as documentation of
the condition of the concrete frame and aluminum anchors.
Budget for Option 2: $220,000 to $260,000. Based on 16 weeks of site time using a mixed
crew of restoration masons and sculpture conservators. The budget does not include any
landscaping, tree trimming, abatement of hazardous materials, police details or permits. The
budget does include the use of a small crane to remove and reset stones and an allowance of
$20,000 for repairs to concrete and brick frame after stone has been removed.
General Recommendations:
1. Repoint mortar joints with mortar rather than sealant. Mortar is not just historically
correct, it also provides a two way system that allows moisture to exit the wall. Sealants
may be appropriate in certain locations - such as upward facing joints or in control joints.
2. Do not apply stone sealers, stone strengthening materials or waterproofing agents directly
to the front or back of the marble units.
3. Do not clean marble with acidic or strongly alkaline cleaning agents.
4. Document all work before, during and after treatment.
5. Employ properly qualified stone sculpture conservators to undertake the delicate work in
and around the carved figures and carved ornament.
Conditions Assessment Notes:
1. The monument is clad in Georgia Marble which was set on an internal frame made from
cast concrete and brick masonry. The concrete was reinforced with steel rebar. Water
infiltration into the monument may be causing corrosion and expansion of the steel
reinforcement. The condition of the concrete could not be verified at this time.
2. The drawings indicate that the marble was tied back to the brick and cast concrete core
with aluminum anchors - a fairly unique use of this material. The presence of aluminum
anchors could not be confirmed in during this examination of the exterior stone cladding.
Aluminum is known to corrode when in contact with, or embedded in, concrete.
3. Some of the marble units were set on shelves cast into the concrete frame while others
were set on top of concrete slabs. The units that sit on the concrete shelves generally
support one or more units above them.
5
4. The displacement of the stone units that can be observed at the upper courses of the
monument appears to be related to water infiltration through the open mortar joints. The
displacement may be caused by water freezing and expanding between the back of the
stone the concrete but there could be other causes for the movement. One possible cause
is the corrosion and expansion of steel rebar that was placed very close to the edge of the
poured concrete frame.
5. The movement of the large marble units is exerting pressure on the edges of the adjacent
units. The hard cement mortar used in the original construction transfers the pressure
from one unit to another. A softer pointing mortar would potentially act as a buffer
between units.
6. The monument appears to have undergone only once cycle of maintenance in the almost
80 years since it was completed. During that single round of maintenance the deteriorated
mortar joints were covered with a sealant. The sealant was placed directly over the mortar
in some locations and over a foam backer-rod in the areas where the erosion of the mortar
created a recess greater than one inch.
7. The sealant that was applied some decades ago is now completely deteriorated. It has not
functioned to keep water out of the joints for a considerable amount of time. It does
however slow down or prevent water that has entered the interior of the monument from
exiting.
8. Several of the heads of figurative carvings span a mortar joint and sit directly in front of
the unit above them. These carvings are especially vulnerable to cracking and loss
because if the unit above the figure shifts, the head will crack.
9. The marble is minimally soiled - mostly from the buildup of organic growths such as
algae and lichens.
10. The upward facing carved details are weathered but not sugaring. Sugaring is a term used
to describe marble where the binder has been lost due to acid rain and only the insoluble
grains remain on the surface. The application of a stone consolidant is not recommended
at this time.
6
Alamo Cenotaph under construction.
The ledges for supporting the marble panels are clearly
visible in the newspaper photograph.
ATTACHMENT 2: CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT 1

Top of monument. West elevation.
Five individual units of stone meet at the top of the monument
The joint at the top left is completely open – an producing four upward facing mortar joints. The failed mortar
and sealants in these joints is responsible for most of the water
indication that the marble unit has shifted. infiltration into the interior of the monument.

Small areas of loss on two faces of the same unit. The cracking of the stone at the edges is a
result of the movement of the stone units and the pressure exerted on the edges of the stone.
The architectural blocks were coped out to receive

The carved stone is very vulnerable to cracking at the carved stone in many locations. Movement of
the edges because it is thinner in those locations. the architectural units results in cracking and
Note the cracks in the tips of the wings. losses in the carved stone.

The sealants that were applied on top of the original mortar have been
preventing water that enters the core of the monument from escaping.
Removing the sealants in order to prepare the joints for Large areas of loss where the stone is fragmented
repointing will require a great deal of skill on the part of the
masons and conservators in order to avoid damaging the can be repaired with matching pieces of Georgia
carvings. Marble inserted into the area of loss.

The heads of the figures project into the blocks of stone above them. If the
blocks at this level begin to shift in the same manner as the blocks at the top of
the monument, then the heads of the figures will start to crack.
The square block behind the shoulder of the figure on the left
A small area of loss is visible to the may be an insert that is covering the location of an anchor that
left of the head that is facing right. keeps the figure from tilting forward.

The figures and other carved details are the most weathered
where they are the thinnest and exposed to rain water on all sides.
The removal of the mortar and sealants from the joint
below the upraised arms must be completed using hand Repairs made with resins yellow over time even if they match
when they are first completed. The resin on the nose should be
held tools. The stone directly above the joint is very thin removed and replaced with a specially formulated repair
and vulnerable to cracking. mortar.

P.O. Box 377, Von Ormy, Texas 78073 | Phone: 210-622-0323 | Fax: 210-622-4021 | www.mdv-law.com
November 12, 2019
Travis County District Clerk

PO Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
512-854-9020
Re: Request for Issuance of Citations
Dear Clerk,
I respectfully request you issue citations regarding the in the attached new suit
filed concurrently with this request. Please send the citations to me by email to
misty@aspearslaw.com. I will provide them to our private process server for service.
1. Alamo Trust, Inc., a Texas nonprofit corporation, which may be served with
citation at its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., located at 206 E. 9th
Street, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
2. Defendant Douglass W. McDonald, is sued in his official capacity as CEO of the

Alamo Trust, is an individual and may be served by delivering, in person, the citation to
206 E. 9th Street, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
3. Defendant the Texas General Land Office is an administrative agency of the

State of Texas. Service of process may be accomplished by personal delivery of the
citation to Commissioner George P. Bush, at 1700 N. Congress Ave., Suite 935,
Austin, Texas 78701-1495.
4. Defendant George P. Bush is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the

Texas General Land Office. Service upon Commissioner Bush may be accomplished by
personal delivery of citation to him, at 1700 N. Congress Ave., Suite 935, Austin, Texas
78701-1495.
5. Defendant Texas Historical Commission is an administrative agency of the State

of Texas and may be served by delivering, in person, the citation to its chairman John
L. Nau, III or its executive director Mark Wolfe at 1511 Colorado Street, Austin,
Texas 78701.
6. Defendant Mark Wolfe is sued in his official capacity as Executive Director of
the Texas Historical Commission, is an individual and may be served by delivering, in
person, the citation at 1511 Colorado Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
Misty Spears
Paralegal

Alamo Defenders Descendants Lawsuit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Alamo Defenders Descendants Lawsuit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

,NO.

ALAMO DEFENDERS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

his Official Capacity only and respectfully shows the following:

1. Plaintiff Alamo Defenders Descendants Association (hereinafter “ADDA”) is a Texas

Sutherland Springs, TX 78161-4714.

1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.

Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.

Service of process may be accomplished by personal delivery of the citation to Commissioner

7. Defendant Texas Historical Commission is an administrative agency of the State of Texas

1511 Colorado Street, Austin, Texas 78701.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Land Office are located in Travis County, Texas.

Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter, “Alamo Plan”).

and adding concrete sidewalks and various other renovations.

incorporated by reference as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively.

attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “C.”

construction at the Alamo commenced.

endangering the site.

Alamo Cenotaph Structural Assessment Report by David N. Gauthier, PE, incorporated by

Landmark Marker Number 95, Atlas Number 5029000095.

or relocating the Cenotaph until the State Law is followed.

Grounds for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief

General Opinion JC -0235.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

should declare that the Alamo Trust violated State law.

b. A cemetery exists at the Alamo site

711.010(a) ABANDONED, UNKNOWN, OR UNVERIFIED CEMETERY states clearly, “The

owner of property on which an unknown cemetery is discovered or on which an abandoned

incorporated by reference as Exhibit “H.”

Historical Commission to review evidence of unverified cemeteries. An unverified cemetery is

coroner, or a professional archeologist.

that the cemetery exists.

d. Cenotaph is protected under the Antiquities Code of Texas

Antiquities Code of Texas which must not be relocated or moved.

preparation and prosecution of this action.

rate or at such other rate as is set by this Court.

incurred by them in the preparation and prosecution of this action.

the pendency of this action:

investigation as mandated by the Antiquities Code of Texas;

b. from operating under the existing human remains protocols;

disclosure of the results to all interested parties;

d. from removing any funerary monuments, including the Alamo Cenotaph;

a. Grant Plaintiffs the declaratory relief requested herein;

THE MARTINEZ DE VARA

By: /s/: Adrian A. Spears, II

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ken Paxton via facsimile to 512-320-0167

Sec. 711.0111. NOTICE OF UNVERIFIED CEMETERY. (a) A person who discovers an

❑ Attach a copy of the landowner letter (see sample, attached).

Pat Mercado-Allinger Email: archeology@thc.texas.gov

Submitted to the Texas Historical Commission

Your contact information

Current landowner’s contact information

General Land Office

City of San Antonio

Emily Morgan LLC

TCW Third Street Properties & TCW Management LLC

United States Government

GPS Coordinates: 29.4260° N , 98.4861° W

NCB 115 BLK LOT ALL OF BLK & P-100(.209AC)

Provide a list of evidence:

Re: Notice of Unverified Cemetery