|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 23, 2007 10:54:14 GMT -5
Notice: The following messages, first posted in the "Members Introductions" thread, were moved here for better organization and to make them more findable in the long run: we feared that members would miss all the new information if it remained relegated to the "introductions" section. Authors, forgive us for taking the liberty, but our intent was to preserve the texts and author attributations intact. Please feel free to continue the discussion in subsequent posts. -Staff jiveyRe: Member Introductions « Reply #86 on Dec 18, 2007, 12:22pm » Hi, Mark -- I joined up specifically to give you a hard time ... starting with this wacko idea you and Covner are advocating about the pre-1756 church being in front of the present building. No more free ride, Lemon. In truth (no, I told Covner I'd never use that word) -- in reality, I'm very pleased to be back among the blessed who have opinions about the Alamo and how it all happened, regardless of what level of evidence they may have to prop up their ideas. I'm hungry for good arguments -- without Tom Lindley around to be outrageous, it's going to be hard to achieve the right level of high dudgeon, but still, we can only try. -jivey marklemonRe: Member Introductions « Reply #87 on Dec 19, 2007, 7:36pm » Hi, Mark -- I joined up specifically to give you a hard time ... starting with this wacko idea you and Covner are advocating about the pre-1756 church being in front of the present building. No more free ride, Lemon. Hey Jake, One man's "wacko" is another man's revelation...! Boy, this is gonna be good... But always remember, no arguments so strident that we can't sit down and have a beer at the end of the day....and again, I'm glad you're here. « Last Edit: Dec 19, 2007, 7:42pm by marklemon » jiveyRe: Member Introductions « Reply #88 on Dec 21, 2007, 11:02am » Mark No, no -- I argue for the fun of it, and I don't always think I'm right -- I argue to make a point, even when I think I'm probably wrong. I certainly won't tell you you're wrong, just why I don't believe something myself. No stridency here. Stridency? Now I'm not sure that's a word. Anyway, I haven't seen your article on the Wall -- I let my AJ subscription lapse a few years ago when things got too busy at work and I couldn't afford the time to get all riled up about something Tom Lindley had written (d**n, I'm going to miss that -- maybe you can serve instead?). But I've just sent money to Chemerka, so I'll get all of '07 and be in for at least '08 and '09. However, if you have an electronic copy of the article you could send me, we could start off the season properly with a good dust-up? My impression, though, is that you see the wall "figures" in the Gentilz pictures as suggesting that there was a church at the south end of the Long Barracks, and that this would explain some of the characteristics of the doorway through into the courtyard there, as well as details like the change in angle of the wall at this point. The stairway on the east side of the Long Barracks fits the idea, and I think Covner likes the concept as well. I also get the impression you suggest this was the church that fell in as reported in1756. In fact, I suggested this same thing (about a church being at that location, at least -- not the rest of it) to Waynne Cox and Anne Fox back in the 1980s, and I think George Nelson picked up the idea from me -- or it's such a logical conclusion when you think of it that he came up with it on his own ... not sure now. I loved the idea at the time, but when I pushed my analysis of master masons and who built what, and in the process looked closely at the development of altar furnishings and decorations in the temporary churches as described by the visita reports in 1745, '56, '59, and '62, I decided that this wouldn't work, and that the granary building that forms the north half of the Long Barracks was the temp. church all along. Certainly the evidence from which master mason built what suggests otherwise. Not to mention, I don't know of another church with similar figures on the wall of the nave -- especially not as masonry structures. You think we need a thread to argue about this for awhile? -jivey jiveyRe: Member Introductions « Reply #89 on Dec 21, 2007, 11:04am » No, wait -- we could use the "Mark Lemon important article" thread? marklemonRe: Member Introductions « Reply #91 on Dec 21, 2007, 8:37pm » Jake, To briefly respond to your post concerning the church's placement (before we jump to the other thread): I cite the designs shown by Gentilz (and also in several ophotographs) as evidence of my theory, but much more than those alone. Please see my Journal article when it comes to you. (You get no emailed excerpts from me, as your punishment for letting your membership lapse!)  Mark |
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Dec 23, 2007 14:41:44 GMT -5
Authors, forgive us for taking the liberty, but our intent was to preserve the texts and author attributations intact. Please feel free to continue the discussion in subsequent posts. -Staff Thanks Tom, we should continue this on the appropriate new thread. If it's OK with you, I'd like to repost my argument, to preserve the italics used for emphasis... -CRC |
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Dec 23, 2007 15:20:04 GMT -5
crcRe: Member Introductions « Reply #92 on Today at 9:29am » Dec 21, 2007, 11:02am, jivey wrote: "In fact, I suggested this same thing (about a church being at that location, at least -- not the rest of it) to Waynne Cox and Anne Fox back in the 1980s, and I think George Nelson picked up the idea from me -- or it's such a logical conclusion when you think of it that he came up with it on his own ... not sure now. "I loved the idea at the time, but when I pushed my analysis of master masons and who b,uilt what, and in the process looked closely at the development of altar furnishings and decorations in the temporary churches as described by the visita reports in 1745, '56, '59, and '62, I decided that this wouldn't work, and that the granary building that forms the north half of the Long Barracks was the temp. church all along." Jivey, I've been questioning the location of the first permanent church for a long time - since you gave me a tour of San Juan in '82 and pointed out the similarities between its ruined, unfinished church and the configuration of the church/convento connecting wall at the Alamo. In the years since I have developed a long list of reasons of why I would like you to re-examine your choice for the location of the first permanent church (the present church site), and it needs to be presented carefully and as a whole argument and not as seemingly unrelated, subjective anomalies that will be dismissed as each one is presented. My points are inter-related and might get lengthy - so... Questions for you first, and then moderator and members: should I write up my "proposal for re-examination" and send it directly to you; provide a pdf file of it linked to the forum; or should I just spin it out on a new thread here (after the holidays) ??? I don't have time for a shootout now, so I'll just do a "drive-by" and loose off a round at the quote boxed above as I ride away, incommunicado, toward the holidays: Jake, if you and I agree that the granary (the long room on the north end of the present-day "longbarrack") was the "temporary" church, it leads to some drastic conclusions. I ask you to read the 1756 report again (and if you could, perhaps provide us with your best translation of it, as my references all seem to be paraphrased), and consider this and correct me if I'm wrong: It does state a choir loft was in the temporary church, but it does not say it had an exterior stairway to access it. In a separate paragraph describing the convento, it mentions the stairway to the second floor where there was a passage to the choir loft of the church - note: not the temporary church - and I'm not playing semantics here. The granary is a one-story building (albeit a tall one), with the doors to it on the west side, meaning there is no narthex, no need for a passage beneath the choir loft, tall enough to walk under to enter the temporary church. The choir loft did not need to be of any great height, nor could it be with a (tall) one-story ceiling above it anyway. A few wooden steps, inside the building would have sufficed. I believe you've previously estimated a building must have a minimum 16-foot high ceiling to accommodate a choir loft. I don't recall what the floor-to-ceiling clearance was in the granary originally, but it's academic anyway: one cannot walk from the second story of the convento into anything but a second-story choir loft, and the granary could not have had one - it just wasn't tall enough. This leaves us with what is in the record and verifiable: there was only one set of stairs in the convento; the stairs were where La Bastida, Everett, et AL placed them - in the southeast part of the convento, where they could double as access to the choir loft of the church - the first permanent, stone church. Forgive me Jake for using an early draft of your manuscript, as you may have elaborated on this in later versions, but you state Tello, the master mason charged with building the first church, "decided to put the primary church back from the mission plaza..." You gave no reason why (you'd never let me get away with that), so now we must consider this: if the first and second permanent churches are on the same footprint or foundations, and the second church is being built in the early 1750s, the convento is still basically a single, west wing. You wrote that the 1756 description is still of a "convento with essentially only one side..." There is no physical connection between the new church and the convento yet. Therefore, how could a stairway in the convento have led to the choir loft of the first church if it was set back where the second church was being built? They weren't even near each other. In summation: (1), we both accept the granary as the temporary church. (2), The 1756 reference to access to the choir loft of the church via a stairway to the second floor of the convento is exactly what it says it is; there is no phantom set of stairs on the northern end of the convento west wing providing second-story access to a choir loft in a one-and-a-half-story temporary church. (3), the stairs to the second floor of the convento are where they are portrayed in later maps (and in reports of the time I didn't mention) - toward the southeast end of the convento's west wing. (4), If the second church is a rebuilt first one, or a new-build on the original footings, there should be access to its choir loft from the southern end of the west wing of the convento - a physical impossibility as they were not connected or even in proximity at the time. In fact, it doesn't matter where one wants to place stairs or access to a choir loft, if the second church cannot be connected to the west wing of the convento, the first and second churches cannot be on the same piece of real estate... ...more anon... Addendum: please all, no glib rejoinders that the first church had already fallen so why would there be a passage to the choir loft of a church that no longer was standing? Jake wrote that "workmen began the construction of second story rooms on the convento of Valero in the 1730s. Three rooms had been built on the second floor of the building along the west side of the southern patio by 1745." The stairs were there; and the entrance to the choir loft of the 1744 church was through a small room in the landing of the stairs... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 23, 2007 15:49:31 GMT -5
I'll leave the more knowledgable to argue over architecture, building techniques and translation, and just throw in the point I raised on the original thread about Mark's article/theory.
For a long time accepted wisdom (dangerous I know) was that the area in front of the existing church was a campo santo.
If Mark's theory that this is actually the site of the original church is correct then this can't be so as it would have been a combination of rubble and building site.
Is there any documentary evidence that it was the campo santo or is that itself just an ingenious theory to explain why the church is pushed so far back?
Complicating the issue is the question of the bones turned up at the post office site at the north end of the plaza suggesting the campo santo might have been up there at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 23, 2007 18:19:06 GMT -5
I'll leave the more knowledgable to argue over architecture, building techniques and translation, and just throw in the point I raised on the original thread about Mark's article/theory. For a long time accepted wisdom (dangerous I know) was that the area in front of the existing church was a campo santo. If Mark's theory that this is actually the site of the original church is correct then this can't be so as it would have been a combination of rubble and building site. Is there any documentary evidence that it was the campo santo or is that itself just an ingenious theory to explain why the church is pushed so far back? Complicating the issue is the question of the bones turned up at the post office site at the north end of the plaza suggesting the campo santo might have been up there at some point. Stuart, There must have been more than one location for the mission's camp santo over the years, as people were dying there years before a church was begun in the present location. And there's no reason why one of two scenarios cannot have happened with regards to the south courtyard's being a burial ground: 1) The first church was begun and completed up against the southern end of the convento (long barracks)in about 1750. At this time, or perhaps even before, as the construction was underway, burials could have taken place just to the south of this "first" church in the general area of what we now call the southern courtyard (which is now directly in front of the present church). When the first church fell, and the second church was begun on its current locaton, the campo santo, which had previously been to the south of the first church, was now to the west of the "new" one. OR 2) The original campo santo was somewhere else, in a spot which has been lost to history. After the second church was begun on its present location, burials began taking place in this courtyard to the west of this ( present day) church, and this area became the campo santo. Mark |
|
crc
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crc on Dec 23, 2007 18:32:00 GMT -5
Is there any documentary evidence that it was the campo santo or is that itself just an ingenious theory to explain why the church is pushed so far back? Stuart, the only reference I can recall off the top of my head is Sanchez Navarro's map with a cross marking the area in front of the church as a campo santo. However I don't know why he identified it as such, and of course he can't speak for its use in mission times. Postulating here: as the new church used up the material from the first church, the ground was cleared and could have been used as a cemetery; but in the California missions at least, the Campo Santo is often to the side of the Church. Parish churches, such as the San Fernando in Bexar proper were more likely to have cemeteries in front of them. From the records, we know at least two people were interred beneath the crossing of the transepts in the first church (where ever that turns out to be). Special ceremonies were necessary for this to take place, because the church hadn't been consecrated yet. With its collapse so soon after though, I don't know if it or its surrounding area would continue to be used as a burial ground. Maybe Jake Ivey knows if the Compania from Alamo del Parras used the present forecourt as a cemetery during the period they used the sacristy of the second church as their presidial church. Again, I can't recall any reference specifically pointing to the area in front of the churches - first or second - as a campo santo in mission times. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 23, 2007 18:35:31 GMT -5
Would a dig in the area answer the question of the original church placement with some certainty? Would there be footings that would identify the original foundations?
How much excavation was done before the flagstones currently in that area were placed?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 23, 2007 18:51:31 GMT -5
Would a dig in the area answer the question of the original church placement with some certainty? Would there be footings that would identify the original foundations? How much excavation was done before the flagstones currently in that area were placed? Jim The first church was begun by a master mason, Antonio de Tello, who whatever his faults in matters of romance, knew what he was doing when it came to construction. He would have undoubdtedly dug very deep and substantial footings. The first above ground level stone was laid, I think, early in 1744. It was only several months later that he was accused of killing his lover's husband, and fled the area. After that, the building continued under another, less qualified builder. To answer your question, I strongly believe that there must be remnants of wall footings in the area of the earlier church, and could be located with some relatively straight forward digs in that area. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 23, 2007 19:13:52 GMT -5
I'm bringing a shovel in March.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Dec 23, 2007 22:57:11 GMT -5
I haven't delved to deeply into the first church/second church debate (although it is a very interesting question), but I did help excavate the cemetery at the Refugio mission where we found numerous burials inside the first church. I will have to look back at our report but it seems like there were around fifty or sixty burials within the foundation of the church, soldiers and natives included. Many of the burials were multiple interments and there were a number of cases where subsequent burials were made into earlier ones.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if burials occurred inside and/or in front of the first church even after construction on the final church was under way. With more than 900 burials recorded as taking place on the mission grounds between 1724-1782, they have to be somewhere and chances are they're not too spread out.
You can probably forget about archaeology here, though. We have a very aggressive group of Native American activists in South Texas and burials will not be touched unless there is an absolute need to move them. Anything that might impact burials will probably be off limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 24, 2007 11:15:36 GMT -5
Bruce,
I get the resistance about excavating in a known cemetary/burial ground, but my understanding is that we actually dont know for sure that the area in front of the church IS such a place. Surely, some limited digs along the southern face of the connecting wall, with the purpose of locating footings of a possible first church in that area, can be done, or at least suggested.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Dec 24, 2007 13:15:20 GMT -5
Jake Ivey: Anyway, I haven't seen your article on the Wall -- I let my AJ subscription lapse a few years ago when things got too busy at work and I couldn't afford the time to get all riled up about something Tom Lindley had written (d**n, I'm going to miss that -- maybe you can serve instead?). But I've just sent money to Chemerka, so I'll get all of '07 and be in for at least '08 and '09. However, if you have an electronic copy of the article you could send me, we could start off the season properly with a good dust-up?
Howdy, Jake!
I mailed out issue #147 to you this morning. The rest of the 2007 issues will follow in a separate mailing.
All the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Dec 24, 2007 13:21:44 GMT -5
Locating a boundary of the campo santo would be good for a number of different reasons, I’m just not exactly sure how it could be accomplished. There are non-invasive techniques that could normally be utilized (Ground Penetrating Radar comes to mind) but it may not work very well in the Plaza considering the history of disturbances across the area. The rule for archaeologists working in the compound is when human remains are encountered to record their location and immediately close the unit.
I’m not sure how the THC would weigh in but it might be possible to create a research design that would focus on shallow excavations in a search for foundations of a first church. The problem would be that as soon as a burial is encountered, that unit would be closed down – I can imagine it could become very frustrating for archaeologists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 24, 2007 14:02:07 GMT -5
How much damage has already been done in the area in front of the church? Seems to me the topography has changed a lot over the years, with paving, etc.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 24, 2007 14:18:20 GMT -5
How much damage has already been done in the area in front of the church? Seems to me the topography has changed a lot over the years, with paving, etc. Jim Jim, To me, and for purposes of this thread, the area of most concern is not necessarily the area in front of the church (present day), but rather, that area immediately adjacent to, and south of, the connecting wall-from the southwest corner of the long barrack, to the present day gated opening. I realize that the Hugo & Schmetltzer and Grenet operations made various facade alterations along this area, but were probably of no more note that wood framed porches and planked ambulatories. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that the area I refer to is, more or less, uncluttered by very much mid to late 19th century debris, at least for any appreciable depth. This area is crying out for investigation, and the fact that it hasn't been looked at (as far as I can tell in Bruce's map of Alamo digs over the years) is irresponsible to the point of negligence. And what's more, if the archeologists are careful and crafty, they'll stay relatively close to the connecting wall, in order to avoid any possible graves farther out in the courtyard, which would immediately shut everything down. Mark |
|
