SEp 6 c'd
ept. 9, 1960
0--met on the AEgRO STOr-
Theak you for mention and for askinr my opinion.
I think it was a elwar approach to a most saoplioatod
OWbjet, Mate~rflly told. Enjoyed it imnensely.
Spam yoe missed the boat in several places, thru no fault
of your on, however, as I see your study stopped far abort
of its seoelusion
1st. let us olear minor orrer,. May be typograpgieal but
aped errtetion before publication
PAtl ha "'Uraila' as wife of de lita, when it sl JUANA.,
ftJs L a g use "aFeranses" when It should be Ferandte
g erlgsx..Pare 41g. Jb Ouillen instead of ANTONIO,
Iwof.t Glaring mistaJke And one that hit me between the
Speaking of houses e, 81 in particular Antonia's "lacest,..
Yei say0...and fald*& to reeever it'.... at ls meet dfiitely
eearituress 1804 I o. 359..
Dea Meanel Castilla and Defla Ratala Permandes, his wife.
the lt(Dea Manuel) with power of attemary for the heirl
of children of Defia Viteriana Gaille(lNrs. Antonie Pernandes)
om is deceased frao Havana, June 3, 1801.
And the 2nd(De6a Rafaela) as dai~t r and heir ef the Senera
Vioterieana 0illea (Fernsader) to aa Creqpo...
.woo.....the lot and walls of a house en St. Gearge St....by
which it is boetaed on the WEST...(meaning lot and walls of
a house on the east aide of the street) and an the EAST the
PMasa of the Castle(Pert) and an the NORTH Dea Praenisee del
G et.., and ea the SOUTI by the heirs of Dea Juan Sanhes...
lot *vt title eao to e....T...une 2 1802, by AMU eof the
wevner and to the heirs of the said atonia de AVERO...
I want e say that Mrs. Maul Castilla was'afaela Pernandes.
daughter of Colomel Antoeioa erm adez and Vbote'oana OGdllen,
and the grand-daughter of Antoaia de Aver, whe was Vioteriana's
hwl1ma-s 1M5 b. 180...
Mn .a @stOlls to t Mare ilf ma totr iole ot
AUtlWA WD AVMl o J w0A MW3US do OCA.,.
Srn1 .Msom a t. "o r Stw str, hk is the WET bI my.
::=l-igUt ot amB as.aU aBssT.l3.4 tam aid htast "* *t*X*
lMlrp Maam frt^Nag *we6s Tot I" a- 91 ynard4 XWI
AM *eSmnt t a estate rt olye M was d lmluoe sw
in no vus bgt of Uwes teis 6I t Goles ve
*M3 tm is us muno imt tmi of this...
.IiM, lMi s AA AVMh arwloe *ipwtm do 20ltas...s hfa
r d ile am * ll R MAsoUCA ... This eld
t., shase maem titn RAoISCO RUIZo Adel
mall nMt AWMIA 4 ATIm lieM la It M ew rg e. ma=t
9mbhe i meo a t hes sslteP JUAWA...
amm fAIt AL. Sp awa In 17i..AI ewe are liaig ma lft
at e I' lyr....
%aO a 1798 Wth a rawe r ...W or rs. If lllta
sensFlIr ate-e Pramst -e 4c1k caw am s B s ia
as stemeai4ast e amesa....oo
NIA...weswes tseaMIy ft AMr AMIeA #a ATM%
bse mon so"s p~gmgnse e' am...
mi-6Mt-. .1a O&mb) w"am maet die' tila Wl(rs.
a ie0Ase at a setttemBet of Ow *tat& 61 O, .at. 1s to
Sit atala*e pmNee e sdte Wit per(e ysa) ft
wtaft Amoseft do AV"*- Ifme*t-ag lwMpeMe, MUMa re
lot ftUyv *saemUb emly #r att~-kle to the tftrmm
ta a.m, n steUm...
i t, bon T~u avtele wmo. Pms bly I wi1
Rml JUAN do PE ALCJBAG,.
Marrpied in 1672 to te A omastacio is Y4rr
MARIA 4* PE"ALiSAp b, 16759 possible lot part of' yearv Jane
Jacepha do Poftil.sa barn 1675.9 pessiBly end ofp yeap Dec.
S ftar z others
Se r4~ e C, .eneeerl~;lbX e~(WGCb L
Ure PEALOSAO,,ANASTACIA to HERR1ER4 ,0 b. 1
Parents Juan to Harper& ftpheml~a &a Cabrera. married 1645
Herrera was a Mar inor nat ive of' Sewfl lsq SpaIn.
Sem of France sco doHerrera and Elvire Omes,
Fftfoua to Cabrera was dau hter of' Goenionu do
Cabrera and Juana do Say1 ilose ,,
G-eracle we of' Riavanav Jue Savailoe was a native
Therewas jiiftt oft*SAVALToS fud1'j Trom 1594 thru 1826o
Jua d Sa'vallas an& Lain& Mele~anes were parents in 159711
of a boyo Josef' do Savaelloe0 tand I"of ta boys DiegoQe
Either one could have boon the father of' Jusna do Savalles.
Ut and when I hit Ito I Will *e*" to you,
zop Kris, Arnade Is wuo
bttter and yoiu are situated
Flo *7 F.
THE AVERO HOUSES--A LOCATION ANALYSIS
John R, Dunkle
August 25, 1960
This report is made at the request of Mr. Earle Newton
August 20, 1960. This report follows a report made by Dr. Charles
Arnade entitled "The Averos Story; an early St. Augustine Family
with many Daughters and many Houses." This report was received by
me August 20, 1960.
The problem, as posed by Mr. Newton, was to locate the
Avero complex houses as specified by Dr. Arnade and indicated on the
Puente map of 1763. This location analysis results from work accom-
plished in approximately two and one-half days. The pressure of
other activities necessary to complete work prior to termination of
contract August 31st precludes the spending of further time on this
analysis. Briefly the findings are as follows:
The locationsof three houses are definite. The first of
these belonged to Antonia Avero and is No. 68 on the Puente map.
This building was situated on the property immediately south of the
Arrivas house, which property now houses the Museum of Yesterday's
Toys. The second property, located with finality, was the so-called
Arrivas house, Puente No. 67. Restoration work is proceeding on this
house. The third property, located with sur6ty, is that listed by
Puente as No. 81, belonging to Antonia Avero. This property is the
present so-called Saltzar House.
The Alfonsa Avero property, Puente No. 66, lies just north
of the Arrivas House, in roughly the same position as Rocque house 44,
but more probably between the Arrivas house and Rocque house 44.
Archaeological findings by Dr. Smith would indicate the presence of
houses in that area, one of which is probably the Alfonsa Avero house,
Puente No. 66.
The most difficult house to locate is Puente house 64, which
is listed as belonging to Blanco. In terms of map overlays this
house would seem to be No. 5 on the Moncrief map, No. 46 on the Rocque
map, and on lot 25 of the present city map. (See attached overlays).
However, the location of the Blanco property is complicated by the
property assessment which Dr. Arnad& cites in his report.
This Blanco assessment specifies 812 cubic varas of stone
which is equivalent to approximately 7308 cubic feet of stone. This
equals 730 linear feet of wall, one foot thick, ten feet high. This
much material could not have been used on the Blanco property, Puente
No. 64. Thus, it would seem that if the assessment applies to the
Puente 64 area the Blanco house probably must have included more than
shows on the Puente map. At this point certain speculation may be in
order. At the time the Puente map was made the Spanish were facing
the problem of what to do with their property when the English arrived.
Sales of land seem to have been made daily. It is possible that
Puente 65 and Puente 63 also belonged to Blanco and were sold by him
to Carmona and Rivera, respectively. Thus the Cotilla survey may
have included more than shows as Blanco property on the Puente map.
An inspection was made of the Roqque houses 45, 46 and 47, which lie
in the area of the Blanco property. Taken together the total wall
area is 668 linear feet, just shy of the amount indicated by the assess-
ment. Furthermore, the pattern of rooms as listed in the assessment
fits this piece of property fairly well if 45, 46 and 47 of Rocque
are all taken into account as being the Blanco property. However,
as Dr. Arnade pointed out, it is also possible that the assessment
could be applied to Puente house No. 80, which is listed as owned by
Antonio Avero. An analysis of this property indicates that there were
650 linear feet of stone needed, again just shy of the assessment
figure, and that the interior arrangementsbf rooms, as specified by
Rocque, are sufficient in number and disposition to fit the Blanco
assessment. Analysis of this assessment by Mr. Stewart indicates
11 to 15 rooms inspected by Cotillo, the assessor. Thus either the
extended Blanco property (Puente 64) or the Antonia Avera property,
Puente 80, would fit the assessment.
In our further attempt to arrive at the answer to the
question--where was the Blanco property--a title analysis has been
made. (See attached sheets). Blanco property 64 quite clearly is
shown on the Moncrief map of 1765 as the Kipp property, No. 5. This
property, together with that of Rainsford also shown on the Moncrief
map, No. 4, was purchased by Rainsford in 1767. He sold it to Stone
in 1770, who sold it to Cecil in 1783. There is a gap in the informa-
tion but evidently it was sold to Salcedo in 1784. It shows on the
Rocque map, together with Rocque 44, 45 and 46, as belonging to Salcedo.
The Rocque property 46, which stands on the side of Blanco's 64, was
sold to Antonia Ursina in 1791. It is described as being wood and
stone. In time this property was sold to the Catalina Usini in 1815.
However, if this Blanco property is to fit the Blanco assessment, the
property must have included what is shown by Rocque as house No. 47
and listed as owned by Clark. This lies partly on land formerly owned
by Rivera, Puente 63, and Perez, Puente 62. These two properties were
sold to Fish in 1764 and show on the Moncrief map of 1765 as Fish
property. On the Rocque map of 1788 this shows as Clark, a wooden two-
story house. It seems probable that Clark came into possession of this
property between 1765 and 1788. He held this property at least
through the 1800 tax list which lists Clark--a wooden house. It is
reasonable to suppose, that Clark replaced the existing Puente
structures by a structure of similar size. Thus, it is quite possible
that Rivera's stone house, Puente 63, was itself a two-story house,
replaced by Clark by a wooden two-story house in the English mode.
One small piece of evidence which leads one to believe that the
assessment fits Blanco 64, rather than the Antonia Avero No. 80 house,
is the assessment listing of certain outbuildings. The outbuildings
show on the Rocque map in the Rocque 45, 46, 47 area. No outbuild-
ings show in the Rocque house 5 area. However this evidence is not
very positive since outbuildings are not of a permanent nature generally.
Three methods were used in trying to locate the Avero complex
One, overlays were made of maps by Puente, COstello, Solis,
Moncrief, Rocque and the present city map by Poe.
Secondly, attempts were made to fit the Blanco assessment
to possible properties.
Thirdly, a title analysis was made to see if we could tie
the present structures to the Avero beginning. It is in this latter
area that more research needs to be done. Especially we need to know
where Blanco, Carmona and Rivere, Puente 65, 64 and 63, purchased
their property. Further, we need more information during the British
period to get the chain of ownership from Puente up through Rocque.
Attached are the overlay maps, the analyses of the properties, as to
size and arrangement of rooms, and the analyses of title.
1. Puente 66, the Alfonso Avero property, is not extant. It lies
in a vacant lot excavated by Dr. Smith to the north of the present
2. Puente 67, the Arrivas property, is now being restored.
3. Puente 68, the Antonia Avero property, is located on the site of
the present Museum of Toys.
4. Puente 81, the Antonia Avero property, lies in the location of
the present Salizar house. The present house is much smaller
than the house as shown on Rocque as No. 5.
5. Blanco house 64 is no longer extant. It should lie in present
lot 25. It may have consisted of several structures, ine
accordance with the pattern shown by Rocque, lots 45, 46 and 47.
If so, the Blanco house extended into present lots 24, 25, 26 and
The only remaining problem is tying the Blanco assessment
to either property Puente 80 or property Puente 64. It will be im-
possible to do this until such time as records of property title
during the English period are located and analyzed. It will probably
also be necessary to review the change of title just prior to the
Puente maps so as to establish whether Blanco, Puente 64, sold some
of his property to Rivera and Carmona, and possibly to Perez, thus
extending the total Blanco area to the 55 varas specified in the
assessment, for neither Puente 80 or Puente 64 give a front footage
of 5$ varas.
Lack of time on my part precludes further research into this