|
Post by marklemon on Mar 14, 2008 15:50:43 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? Tom, Jake has calculated the earth required for the fortifications built, and, after the outer, western acequia was dug by Cos' engineers, there was just enough dirt to complete the fotifications as shown, but without the acequia, there would not have been enough. Mark
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 14, 2008 16:45:47 GMT -5
Mark:
I know Jake's done a lot of studies on the engineering realities of the fortifications, and time-and-space studies concerning construction, too, I believe. Maybe he'll weigh in here.
Timber must indeed have been a scarce commodity in Bexar at the time. Obviously, any pine would have had to be carted in from east Texas (right?), and it seems likely there would have been very little of that available. What would have constituted the locally milled timber usable in constructing fortifications, other than cedar and possibly oak and cottonwood?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 14, 2008 18:37:58 GMT -5
Mark: I know Jake's done a lot of studies on the engineering realities of the fortifications, and time-and-space studies concerning construction, too, I believe. Maybe he'll weigh in here. Timber must indeed have been a scarce commodity in Bexar at the time. Obviously, any pine would have had to be carted in from east Texas (right?), and it seems likely there would have been very little of that available. What would have constituted the locally milled timber usable in constructing fortifications, other than cedar and possibly oak and cottonwood? I'm inclined to conclude that, while not in great abundance, timber was not quite as rare as many have thought. When I review the paintings and drawings of Gentilz, James Gilchrist Benton, and Seth Eastman, I note that while there are expansive areas of prairie, the river and waterways are invariably lined with more than a few trees. Cottonwood, oak, pecan and cedar seem to be the most likely candidates. Small mesquite trees can be used, but only in short sections such as are utilized in the Herrerra Gate. I have recently been looking into the methods of obtaining sawed lumber, and have only really determined that there may have been a saw mill in Bexar, and it most likely was a pit-saw type of operation, as a water driven mill is highly unlikely due to the slow-flowing San Antonio River. I need to spend some Lindley-like time in the archives in order to conclusively determine this, and until I can return to San Antonio, this will have to wait. Mark
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Mar 14, 2008 19:23:57 GMT -5
The ever-present cedar in modern day Texas should not suggest that it was as present in 1836. Dr. Bruce Winders and I had a discussion about the pervasive cedar and he suggests that it's essentially a post-Texas Revolution botanical item.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 14, 2008 19:30:44 GMT -5
The ever-present cedar in modern day Texas should not suggest that it was as present in 1836. Dr. Bruce Winders and I had a discussion about the pervasive cedar and he suggests that it's essentially a post-Texas Revolution botanical item. There is a reference (of course, I can't remember where I read it, most likely in The Alamo Reader) of a group of travellers not long after the battle, camping near the church, and, I believe this is correct, utilizing the remnants of a cedar palisade for firewood. Craig Covner and I discussed this briefly in San Antonio, but I cannot recall the specific details of this account, only that the wood used was cedar.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 15, 2008 2:15:58 GMT -5
I'll buy that. I never thought about that. My only additional question is, is there evidence at the Alamo or elsewhere for such a construction? Rich, we have no evidence, one way or another, about the precise configuration of the revetted reinforcing on the north wall. While it may have been a solid wall of horizontally laid logs, I rather doubt that the Mexican engineers, who knew the quantity of timber available, would have been so lavish in its usage, but instead would have found a method which allowed them to obtain the same result, but also save on wood. And remember, the logs would all have been covered in a protective earthen enbankment, so a solid log reinforcing wall was not necessary. What I have done is to display a configuration which I feel accurately reflects a scarcity of timber. Mark Thanks Mark. This fits, because in the past I have always viewed this structure as simply being a way to keep dirt from falling out, and this hit me as having a dump truck made out of open mini-blinds. One revelation you have brought to me is that the earth was to have been packed against the outside too. I just didn't understand this about field fortifications.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Mar 15, 2008 8:00:40 GMT -5
The ever-present cedar in modern day Texas should not suggest that it was as present in 1836. Dr. Bruce Winders and I had a discussion about the pervasive cedar and he suggests that it's essentially a post-Texas Revolution botanical item. There is a reference (of course, I can't remember where I read it, most likely in The Alamo Reader) of a group of travellers not long after the battle, camping near the church, and, I believe this is correct, utilizing the remnants of a cedar palisade for firewood. Craig Covner and I discussed this briefly in San Antonio, but I cannot recall the specific details of this account, only that the wood used was cedar. Perhaps, Dr. Winders was suggesting a type of pervasive cedar that dots the Texas landscape now but was lacking in 1836. Northern White cedar is native to the American NE but the Lebanon Cedar is unique to Asia and parts of Africa. Since there over a dozen types of cedars growing in Texas, this topic deserves further investigation. [And I haven't studied botany since my undergraduate college days!]
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 15, 2008 18:01:09 GMT -5
The ever-present cedar in modern day Texas should not suggest that it was as present in 1836. Dr. Bruce Winders and I had a discussion about the pervasive cedar and he suggests that it's essentially a post-Texas Revolution botanical item. There is a reference (of course, I can't remember where I read it, most likely in The Alamo Reader) of a group of travellers not long after the battle, camping near the church, and, I believe this is correct, utilizing the remnants of a cedar palisade for firewood. Craig Covner and I discussed this briefly in San Antonio, but I cannot recall the specific details of this account, only that the wood used was cedar. I too remember this reference (and I too can't remember where) -- that or a photo that said something like "the three posts in the picture are all that remains of...... etc." I read a lot of contemporary letters and I'll keep a lookout for references to any cedar. I do believe I have seen them.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 9, 2008 20:31:59 GMT -5
Mark, this is more about that great set of handouts you created to accompany your book, rather than the book itself, but looking at the interior views of the hospital, the ruined room adjacent to hospital, and the porteria in the convento, did you mean to depict the floors as composed of bricks or tiles?
I assume the floors as seen in 1836 would have dated from the 1809-10 renovation of the convent/hospital, during which one of the areas earmarked to be repaired was the upstairs and downstairs floors. There were detailed estimates, for example, of the materials for the new roof that was put on the hospital. Do you know if there were materials lists that specified flooring materials?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 9, 2008 22:33:17 GMT -5
Mark, this is more about that great set of handouts you created to accompany your book, rather than the book itself, but looking at the interior views of the hospital, the ruined room adjacent to hospital, and the porteria in the convento, did you mean to depict the floors as composed of bricks or tiles? I assume the floors as seen in 1836 would have dated from the 1809-10 renovation of the convent/hospital, during which one of the areas earmarked to be repaired was the upstairs and downstairs floors. There were detailed estimates, for example, of the materials for the new roof that was put on the hospital. Do you know if there were materials lists that specified flooring materials? Tom, The depiction of the floors was gleaned from data from the digs in the convento courtyard which indicated that the arcade floors were covered with terra cotta tiles, much like thin bricks. The inventories indicated that the second floor arcades were similarly configured, as well as the interior second floor rooms. I did goof on one aspect however, according to Jake. He said that the interior of the 1st floor rooms would have been a poured adobe, instead of tiles. I'll make this correction before these drawings appear in any future book. Mark
|
|