|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 28, 2008 13:35:05 GMT -5
I'm opening this thread because we all now have an awesome new research tool with the publication of Mark Lemon's The Illustrated Alamo 1836: A Photographic Journey. While Mark continues work on *the sequel,* it remains for us to begin building on his first contribution. I suggest we confine this thread, therefore, to discussion of questions raised by specific details presented in Mark's book. Great thanks to Mark for his very focused research and hard work (and that of Gary Foreman and William Hamilton), and thanks in advance for all discussions he is willing to put up with and contribute to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 28, 2008 13:51:14 GMT -5
My own first post is a question for Mark. I noticed on page 90 that you list the saint statues planned for the four niches as including St. Bartholomew rather than St. Dominic. What is the source for this? The only source I can locate is page 15 of Excavations at the Alamo Shrine by Jack D. Eaton.
I do realize that the top two statues (St. Margaret and St. Clare) were never completed and that the niches were occupied by two other icons of unsure origin. I had read somewhere that we had probable names for both and that they might have been commissioned and installed by some Bejareno in the early 19th. Century. If one was St. Anthony, what was the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 28, 2008 18:07:59 GMT -5
My own first post is a question for Mark. I noticed on page 90 that you list the saint statues planned for the four niches as including St. Bartholomew rather than St. Dominic. What is the source for this? The only source I can locate is page 15 of Excavations at the Alamo Shrine by Jack D. Eaton. I do realize that the top two statues (St. Margaret and St. Clare) were never completed and that the niches were occupied by two other icons of unsure origin. I had read somewhere that we had probable names for both and that they might have been commissioned and installed by some Bejareno in the early 19th. Century. If one was St. Anthony, what was the other? Rich, You brought something to my attention which has caused me great consternation. In my original draft, I had erroneously designated one of the statues as Bartholomew, instead of the correct Dominic. This was corrected in my final draft, which was sent for printing (or so I thought). Apparently, someone at the press used my earlier draft, or somehow transposed an earlier portion of it, and sent it for final printing. I have been feverishly going through the text, and so far everything else looks good. So, in short, you are correct, the known statues are Francis, Dominic, and Anthony. As far as I know (and I believe this jives with Jake's latest info) we don't yet know exactly who the fourth one was, only that it, at some later date, perhaps even after secularization (when the sacristy was still being used for services by the Compania Volante) was, along with the statue of St Anthjony, placed in the upper right niche. (Anthony was probably in the upper left one.) In addition, the staue of Anthony was, according to Sam Maverick reportedly damaged by Mexican soldiers sometime in the late fall of 1835, and was missing it's head. This headless saint can be seen in the close ups of the church front in my book (upper left niche). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 28, 2008 21:04:01 GMT -5
Sorry to hear that it was truly a blooper. Perhaps the person at the press is in fact "the headless saint!"
Buddy, it is impossible not to have errors. Don't despair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 29, 2008 12:04:27 GMT -5
This might not be the right place, and this may seem dumb to others, but Mark included a great drawing of the plan of the mission on page 116-117; what I'd really like to see sometime is a plan with an accurate modern street overlayed on to it.
For me it would be great, to visit the Alamo and have what would amount to an accurate map of the place and finally be able to realistically envision the historic Alamo on the actual grounds.
For instance, using Mark's book it appears to me that at least two out of the three rooms of the southern Casteneda lie under Houston street and/or the sidewalk. Imagine how much an accurate drawing could add to a visit - at least until Gary's vision starts to bear fruit!
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 29, 2008 13:49:00 GMT -5
This might not be the right place, and this may seem dumb to others, but Mark included a great drawing of the plan of the mission on page 116-117; what I'd really like to see sometime is a plan with an accurate modern street overlayed on to it. For me it would be great, to visit the Alamo and have what would amount to an accurate map of the place and finally be able to realistically envision the historic Alamo on the actual grounds. For instance, using Mark's book it appears to me that at least two out of the three rooms of the southern Casteneda lie under Houston street and/or the sidewalk. Imagine how much an accurate drawing could add to a visit - at least until Gary's vision starts to bear fruit! Herb, On the 4th, Gary Foreman and myself, and perhaps Craig Covner (if he's not otherwise tied up) are planning to mark off the south and west wall features with sidewalk chalk. Hopefully, you may get that same sense of envisioning on this trip, providing we are able to accurately do this. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 29, 2008 14:00:40 GMT -5
Herb,
What you're asking for wouldn't be all that difficult. All I would need is an accurate city engineer's map of that portion of the city. Using the church as a point in common, the drawings (my map, and the city map) could be overlayed at the church, making sure they are both scaled the same, and that north/south/east/and west axes are all aligned properly. The rest would be simple. If I could get such a map from the city, I'd gladly do this.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 29, 2008 15:35:10 GMT -5
Herb, On the 4th, Gary Foreman and myself, and perhaps Craig Covner (if he's not otherwise tied up) are planning to mark off the south and west wall features with sidewalk chalk. Hopefully, you may get that same sense of envisioning on this trip, providing we are able to accurately do this. Mark That would be great in itself, let's hope for no rain, and that some property owners leave your markings up! Just be careful when you're marking the main gate, and the low barracks' guard house!  Herb |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 1, 2008 19:38:15 GMT -5
An accurate Alamo overlay plat would be yet another grand addition to our Alamology. I am soooooo tired of seeing the Francois Giraud plat misaligned with the *current* inaccurate plaza maps. I would bet that, if you made one up and dressed it a bit in the margins and printed it on heavy paper, you could even get the Alamo Gift Shop to sell it to great result -- thus helping all interested tourists as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 1, 2008 19:43:59 GMT -5
Mark, I noticed a minor blooper on page 30 in the description of Bowie's Room. Shouldn't it read, "At least one source shows the eastern portion of this fairly large room...."?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 1, 2008 20:15:48 GMT -5
Mark, I noticed a minor blooper on page 30 in the description of Bowie's Room. Shouldn't it read, "At least one source shows the eastern portion of this fairly large room...."? Yes, that one I caught just before the book went to press, but it was too late to change it. It should read east, not north. If this run sells out (5000 copies) and the press prints a second run, these 2 corrections will be implemented. That should be it for the typos/bloopers, though, as I have gone over the book thoroughly over the last few days, and haven't caught any others. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 1, 2008 22:55:11 GMT -5
Mark, I noticed a minor blooper on page 30 in the description of Bowie's Room. Shouldn't it read, "At least one source shows the eastern portion of this fairly large room...."? Yes, that one I caught just before the book went to press, but it was too late to change it. It should read east, not north. If this run sells out (5000 copies) and the press prints a second run, these 2 corrections will be implemented. That should be it for the typos/bloopers, though, as I have gone over the book thoroughly over the last few days, and haven't caught any others. Only two errors. That's pretty awesome. I expected to encounter more, knowing how these things go. |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 2, 2008 8:54:47 GMT -5
That should be it for the typos/bloopers, though, as I have gone over the book thoroughly over the last few days, and haven't caught any others. One more, to wit: p. 13, column 1, paragraph 3, line 2: "Bolleart" should be "Bollaert". |
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 4, 2008 21:59:39 GMT -5
List,
I have a question that may already have been answered here or it may just be common knowledge to everybody except me!
After looking at Mr. Lemon's new book(which is really neat by the way) I was wondering where the dirt came from to reinforce the North wall? It seems like alot of dirt to move over any long distance and the trenches shown around the NE corner don't seem to be big enough to have supplied all of that dirt... am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 5, 2008 8:53:25 GMT -5
Scott, I've been wondering about the same thing as applies to the earth fill for the Fortín de Terán and Fortín de Condelle. If you figure just the fill for the platform part of Condelle, excluding the earth needed for the ramp, it required about 22' x 23' x 8', or approximately 150 cubic yards. Scaling from Mark's drawings, Terán looks to have been about three times the area of Condelle, so that one required about 450 cubic yards of fill. Discounting the local adobe and stone rubble that probably was mixed into the fill, and considering that a cubic yard of rammed earth weighs upwards of a ton and a quarter, just those two batteries would have consumed a considerable amount of dirt.
Anybody, feel free to take potshots at this, as I have little to base it upon, but could those ponds to the east of the compound have resulted, even in part, from excavations of earth for the defensive works in 1835-36?
|
|
