|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 22, 2007 23:00:47 GMT -5
I'd like to start a discussion in regards to the stone wall that runs between the kitchen and the convento and the possibility of it being used as a second line of defense.
We know, the garrison was suppose to fall back to the Long Barracks and other rooms if and when the Mexicans captured the outer walls. As I look at the Texans proposed second line of defense, the (low) Stone Wall, as well as the Kitchen, must have been included as a fall-back points.
I came to this conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, the cannon that the Texans positioned in the gap or opening in the wall demonstrates an intent to defend this line. Second, by falling back to the stone wall and kitchen, the defenders maintain a solid line that runs north-south and protects the Church from capture.
A question I have is, given that the height of the wall is 6-7 feet high, what is the likelihood that the defenders built a firing step (earthen or other) to shoot over the wall?? Gary Zaboly also theorized that a firing step may have existed.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 23, 2007 19:03:10 GMT -5
Glenn,
A wall has to be about 4 to 4.5 feet tall in order to allow a person to effectively fire over it. Allowing that the wall was, let's say 7 feet tall, this means that a firing step some 2.5 to 3 feet tall must have been built there. The step would have had to have been at least two feet wide at the top, and probably wider at the bottom. Presuming that the step was earthen, and not piled up crates or something else, that means that a ditch would have had to have been dug to accommodate the same volume of earth (I'll leave the calculations to others). In any event, if such a step was made, and it was of earth, then there MAY still be some trace of the ditch's lower depths remaining under all of the paving and landscaping.
Basically, its anyone's guess. Navarro, who was drawing so many defensive positions, he even drew them where there were none, DIDN'T draw anything there, so that may be significant.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 24, 2007 15:50:23 GMT -5
The earliest depiction we have of this wall, in the early 1840s (I think Mary Maverick's drawing about 1841 -- I can't find my home copy of Nelson's "Illustrated") shows it only a foot or two high. For it to have been any use as a wall when it was built, it would have to have been at least three feet high, but there's nothing to indicate a wall any higher than three to four feet, far as I know. So if you want a higher wall here, it's going to be speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 24, 2007 17:56:48 GMT -5
The earliest depiction we have of this wall, in the early 1840s (I think Mary Maverick's drawing about 1841 -- I can't find my home copy of Nelson's "Illustrated") shows it only a foot or two high. For it to have been any use as a wall when it was built, it would have to have been at least three feet high, but there's nothing to indicate a wall any higher than three to four feet, far as I know. So if you want a higher wall here, it's going to be speculation. Jake, I must resectfully disagree. The Maverick drawing has been shown, namely by our friend Craig, to have within it some perhaps unintentioned sophistication. She for instance correctly drew the lighted upper left window of the convento's second story which has led us to the conclusion (supported by Lysander Well and William Bisset, to name a few) that the roof of that corresponding room was failing. She also correctly, if crudely, showed both the north face of the outer Confessional wall, simultaneously with the southern face of the "connecting wall." In addition, and most significantly, she depicted the correct configuration (shape) of the first floor openings along the western face of the long barracks. Not only did she do this, but she also factored in a low rise in the plaza, which, from her perspective, blocked the lower portions of those openings, which gave the appearance that they were all doorways, when in fact we know that two of them were windows. Why is this relevant? Because when we take this low rise into account, and look across at the wall which you believe is "a foot or two" high, we immediately see that this wall must be much taller, as it lines up with the tops of the doors and windows on the long barracks. If the wall was as you speculate, it would not have been visible to her, from her perspective seated in the far western side of the plaza. Also, look at the broken portion of this wall attached to the southwest corner of the convento. It easily lines up with the tops of the doors and windows on the west face of the convento/long barrack. On the contrary, Jake, if we study this drawing really closely,( I again refer to Craig's excellent article from a 1990 Alamo Journal) the direct evidence is that the wall is much taller, and the "speculation" actually is the belief that the wall was "a foot or two high." Happy Holidays Jake...! I want to repeat that it's great to have you as a part of this forum. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 26, 2007 22:56:53 GMT -5
This so-called "Low Wall" is another good example of a feature that is crying out for further archeological examination. It is not lying, at least not directly, on some burial ground, is not in an area of vehicular traffic, and can easily be dug in a small section without disrupting much of the tourist foot traffic. Of course, it is long gone, but the footings of a wall tell us much about roughly how tall it originally was (the deeper and wider the footings, the taller the wall, generally). So, while I have no doubt that the upper traces of the wall are completely gone, the deepest portion should still be visible.
I believe from my research that this low wall may have been part of a much larger wall, which may have been a part of an early structure from the mission period, which by the 1830's, had fallen to a height of about 6 or 7 feet in height at the northern end, and probably substantially higher on its southern end. The southern end of this wall served as the eastern, or "back" wall of the kitchen/hospital northern wing of the low barrack.
This is a particularly dicey area of research, as so little evidence has come down to us, but that is why I so strongly support new digs at both the "low wall" site, and the southern face of the "connecting wall."
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 30, 2007 9:32:37 GMT -5
I can accept that the evidence suggests that the "low wall" was higher than Maverick showed it. However, the history of use of the area makes it likely, in my mind, that the wall was never more than four feet high, and it seems to me that a higher wall of seven or eight feet is speculation. San Antonio missions all had their cemeteries in front of (although sometimes wrapped around the sides of) their churches, and a cemetery wall is usually 3.5 to 4 feet high. Same sort of thing in New Mexico. So what reason would you offer for why this wall was seven or eight feet tall?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 30, 2007 22:08:19 GMT -5
I can accept that the evidence suggests that the "low wall" was higher than Maverick showed it. However, the history of use of the area makes it likely, in my mind, that the wall was never more than four feet high, and it seems to me that a higher wall of seven or eight feet is speculation. San Antonio missions all had their cemeteries in front of (although sometimes wrapped around the sides of) their churches, and a cemetery wall is usually 3.5 to 4 feet high. Same sort of thing in New Mexico. So what reason would you offer for why this wall was seven or eight feet tall? Jake, You stated in your post that the evidence suggests that the "low wall" was higher than Maverick shows it. Perhaps you mis-spoke in saying this. Because what I was saying was not that it was HIGHER than Maverick shows it, but that it was AS HIGH as Maverick shows it. I am not "speculating" that it was seven or eight feet tall. But I am saying, based not on speculation, but on FOUR different artist's drawings, that it was probably between 5.5 and 7 feet tall. I have already described in detail how Mary Maverick's 1838 drawing was much more accurate than our "sophisticated" eyes at first give it credit for. This subject was very well covered by Craig Covner in his 1990 Alamo Journal articles. But we have much more than Maverick. Here's a summary: Mary Maverick's 1838 drawing shows both the northern segment (attached to the Long barrack) as well as the southern segment, as being AS TALL as the Long Barracks doors Lysander Well's 1839 drawing shows the the wall about 90 percent as tall as the Long Barracks doorways. William Bisset's 1839 drawing (later copied by V. Chasky), shows the broken segment attached to the southern edge of the Long Barracks as being the SAME height as the Long Barracks doors. Lastly, there is the (unattributed)drawing from the Center for American History, UT, Austin, which shows both northern and southern segments as being the SAME height as the Long Barracks doorways. Knowing that the doorways were somewhere on the order of seven feet tall, we have a good basis of comparison. To me, this is direct evidence. It strains credulity to simply assume that four seperate artists were not just inept, but were ALL inept in the SAME WAY, and none of them could correctly draw the relative height of a simple wall when compared to an adjacent building. (I strongly suspect that if the same evidence (four seperate nearly contemporaneous drawings) existed for an en barbette Lunette/tambour gun position, you would happily accept it as concrete proof.) Therefore, I say again that the speculative position here is not that the wall was some 5.5 to 7 feet tall, but rather that it was "no more than a foot or two" in height. Now, to your other points. First, we really have only the slimmest evidence that the area in front of the 1756 Church was a cemetary, and that is, I believe, the small cross placed on the Sanchez-Navarro map. But that notwithstanding, the history of this area is not clean-cut, as it may have been in other missions. This area was the site of (you may of course disagree) the first church begun in 1744 and completed late in 1749. This church collapsed, and may well have left several segments standing ("connecting wall" and even perhaps, a portion of the so called "low wall."). In addition, the inventories of the mission period are sufficiently vague with regard to specific placement of structures as to leave open the very real possibility that some larger building once existed along the line of the "low wall" (the early granary, perhaps?) And if this "low wall" was in fact, the retaining wall for the campo santo, as you suggest, where is the rest of it? Did it just vanish? Why was no trace of such a wall footing found in any of the digs near that area, and closer to the church? Lastly, one really does not have to justify, or explain a feature such as relative height that is clear in four seperate drawings, except to say: "There it is.." Whatever contradicts this, this is the real speculation... |
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Jan 1, 2008 8:14:19 GMT -5
Gents,
No one has mentioned yet that the SW corner of the convento/long barrack has significant clues as to how high the "low wall" may have been. The quoins (the large corner edging stones that define and strengthen building corners) only start at about the height of an average man's chest or shoulder. They are missing up to that height. This hints that the low wall was "keyed" into the west face of the convento, and contiguous with it. Perhaps it was laid down as the convento was, so there was no need of edging stones up to the height of it. Regardless, taking into account the present day curb and underlying fill height, the wall (at the corner anyway) could have been as tall as a man at the time of the siege. (Let's make a point of measuring the height the quoins start this March.)
In his 1860 and 1868 versions of his "Fall of the Alamo," Rueben Potter includes the wall in front of the church with the other "barrier walls" of 6 to 8 feet in height; but in the 1878 edition it was a "lower portion" of the wall and four feet high. He also changed the barrier walls' heights to 9 to 12 feet except in the courtyard to the east of the long barrack. He first visited the Alamo in 1841, but made no attempt to map out the ruins until he was stationed at the (then) QM Dept. at the Alamo in 1857. By then, the wall was long gone. In fact, since the 1837-38 Mary Maverick and derivative pictures, I can't recall a contemporary depiction with the low wall in it; though that doesn't mean it couldn't have been there later. It is certainly gone though by the time of Blake's sketch in 1845 and Everett's 1846 plat. I have my suspicions that since the wall was apparently made of stone, and not critical to any structures nor on privately deeded land, it became an early casualty to scavenging or legal removal by petitioners.
However, if the wall was only as wide as the present-day scribed marks in the pavement, and in consideration of my point that the missing quoins indicate the wall was never higher than a man, I don't think it could possibly be the remains of a facade wall of the first permanent church. Additionally, if the first church were "flush" with the west face of the convento (on top of the "low wall"), the opening on the south face of the convento that led to the choir loft of it would have emptied into thin air in the nave- it would end up too far east to access the choir loft. To me, Jake and Mark are both right on certain points: Jake because the "low wall" seems to have been a simple separating wall at its inception, perhaps as a cemetery boundary wall; but Mark's placement of the first church as attached to the south side of the convento agrees with my research - but not necessarily his hypothesis that the "low wall" is a remnant of its facade. I think there is a good chance that someday the facade of the first church will be found to have been set back about 14 feet from this wall and the face of the convento. (See the string on the First Permanent Church.) Fourteen feet isn't a lot of room for even a part of a cemetery though, so I'd argue for a campo santo to the south of the first church.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 1, 2008 12:31:07 GMT -5
Craig,
I had forgotten about the quoins and their height, which you had mentioned to me a while ago, so on this point, I stand corrected. And it does make sense that (in light of the choir loft doorway) that the facade of the church was set back eastward some distance from the north-south line formed by the convento. However, your comments raise a most significant point:
The keyed-in area you cited is chest or shoulder high CURRENTLY. But when one factors out the sidewalk, and the paved area beneath, the 1836 ground level is at least a foot or a foot and a half deeper. This, then, would make the "low wall" higher than head high by some inches, which does in fact agree with my theory that the wall was about 5.5 to 7 feet in height at the northern end.
Mark
|
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Jan 1, 2008 14:58:52 GMT -5
The keyed-in area you cited is chest or shoulder high CURRENTLY. But when one factors out the sidewalk, and the paved area beneath, the 1836 ground level is at least a foot or a foot and a half deeper. This, then, would make the "low wall" higher than head high by some inches, which does in fact agree with my theory that the wall was about 5.5 to 7 feet in height at the northern end. Mark Mark, I covered that in my post, which if you read again, you'll see. I agree that 5.5 feet would be the lowest the SW corner quoins indicate. Uecker, in his The Archaeology of the Alamo, states that (in the street in the same general area) there is the flagstone and concrete top layer; 8-10 inches of gravel fill as base for the modern pavement; a layer of asphalt paving and a base for that before you get to the upper soil levels of the late 1800s. Add the curb height of 6-8 inches and your 1.5 foot drop from today's level to battle times is not unreasonable; but we still need to measure the height the quoins start, get a profile from the 1995 "Wells Project" dig, and measure the sidewalk height to be more precise. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 2, 2008 23:05:21 GMT -5
Mark
Ok, the drawings you mention clearly show a wall trace at the height you are arguing for. It looks like that wall was indeed higher than 3.5 to 4 feet in its 1836 condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 3, 2008 0:20:39 GMT -5
Mark Ok, the drawings you mention clearly show a wall trace at the height you are arguing for. It looks like that wall was indeed higher than 3.5 to 4 feet in its 1836 condition. Well, as usual, Covner tipped the scales with his mention of the quoins and their height as related to the 1836 ground level. I had completely forgotten about this fact (but had specifically made close up photos of them last year!), as I was really focusing too closely on the drawings while neglecting the stones themselves. Anyway, the higher wall lends itself to some interesting speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 3, 2008 10:41:13 GMT -5
Yes -- for example, that would suggest that the wall from the convento south to the south gate structure was built at the same time as the first floor of the convento west wing -- but that doesn't make sense, because that south gate structure wasn't there then. So instead, it would seem to be evidence that at first the building was not constructed using the quoins -- which in turn means the presence and absence of the quoins tells us nothing about the height of the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 3, 2008 11:10:14 GMT -5
The quoins may or may not tell us anything about the height of the wall, as you suggest. If they do not, my points submitted previously, concerning the weight of evidence from numerous eye-witness drawings, still stand.
If they do, they only add weight to those points. They certainly sugggest nothing about a shorter wall.
|
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Jan 3, 2008 21:05:21 GMT -5
Yes -- for example, that would suggest that the wall from the convento south to the south gate structure was built at the same time as the first floor of the convento west wing -- but that doesn't make sense, because that south gate structure wasn't there then. So instead, it would seem to be evidence that at first the building was not constructed using the quoins -- which in turn means the presence and absence of the quoins tells us nothing about the height of the wall. Oh you Jakester! No one said the low wall led to the south gate structure (that wasn't there yet). If it was a cemetery wall it could have turned toward the east - toward a church or around it on the south to border the campo santo. It could have been built at any time - it's not mentioned in the inventories. The quoins could have been damaged when the wall was removed, or because wagons creamed them taking the corner - anything is possible; but I don't think you think the friars just started putting quoins in at 6 - 7 feet up on their intended 2-story convento! AND everything on those walls is a clue that tells us something about the 'mo - it's just deciphering those clues that is the challenge. As Mark implies, it's the weight of many small clues adding up that give us anything approaching probability in matters at Valero; and the absence of the quoins certainly doesn't contradict what Mark postulates does it? |
|
