|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 27, 2012 22:52:25 GMT -5
Kevin, thank you.
Jake's comment that they discovered 3 different wall footings running east to west just dumbfounded me.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 28, 2012 17:23:13 GMT -5
David - No, they didn't discover three different wall footings east to west, they only found one -- apparently found one and quit, and rebuilt the wall on that one. The inventories make it clear that there was a row of rooms with an arcade in front running along this side, just like the west side. That would give us an arcade line, a front wall line with doors and windows through it, and a back wall line, with no opening through it, so far as the inventories tell us, at least. They even give the sizes of the rooms and height of the ceiling. So we don't know if they, the excavators of 1910 or whenever, found the arcade line wall footing, the front wall footing, or the back wall footing.
Rich - The well works out to be pretty close to the center, within a few feet --- but the problem is that the plan of the convento appears to be the result of several changed plans over time, and some of the earliest plans are not clear. Nor is it clear when the well was dug, and whose plan was in effect at the time. In other words, we don't know where the center "should" have been.
But we can work out a fairly good approximation of the final, "as-built" plan as of 1772/1793, based on what survives, what was found in the early 1900s work, the Army plans of the 1850s (corrected) and the descriptions and measurements in the inventories.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 28, 2012 18:42:02 GMT -5
Jake, must have misread your post about the walls.
So the bottom line is this: we dont know which of the three probable wall footings the current east-west wall is actually built on. Is that correct.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 28, 2012 21:23:07 GMT -5
Jake - are there any images that show the area you are talking about (in Nelson maybe)? I gather no images of the 3 footings exists as they have not been uncovered and we only know the location of the one that was found and built on.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Feb 29, 2012 1:29:41 GMT -5
Strange that the DRT never actually pursued full scale archeological explorations of the Alamo. Seems to me that a continuing series of digs would have been a big draw for tourists (a benefit for the DRT) and answer a lot of questions (a benefit for Alamophiles). I've had the same thought about digs being something that would enhance visitor interest. I recall visiting SA long ago when they were doing "underwater archaeology" (if you can call it that!) in the river for cannon and how fascinated people were to watch. Now that DRT is no longer solely in charge, maybe that will become a possibility. Digs in the plaza would do the same. Is anyone out there involved in the city's plaza project? I wonder if that idea has come up. www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Alamo-Plaza-remake-is-eyed-2617226.php#photo-2101103
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Mar 1, 2012 13:26:27 GMT -5
Yes, David, that's correct -- although we can make a really good case for one over another by reconstructing the plan of the place from all the available information. I guess that's enough like archaeology that I can discuss it in my posts in the archaeology section. I'll put in some plans I've put together as well, although it will be some days before I can get to that.
For views of the 1912-1913 excavations: If you have the third revised edition of Nelson, look at pp. 104-105, the wide-angle along the bottom (pp. 89-90 in the first edition, pp. 94-95 in the second). This shows the excavation trenches along the north courtyard wall of today (but only one of the three parallel ones of the 1772 and 1793 inventories), as well as the east wall of the courtyard. There was at least one other east wall, parallel to this one, the one rebuilt, and possibly a third one, since the Franciscans were in the process of building a row of rooms with an arcade along the east side.
See also p. 103 top for a different view from one of the buildings across the Plaza (p. 88 top in the first edition, p. 93 top in the second).
See also bottom p. 107 for a view of the excavation for the back wall of the LB (p. 92 in the first edition, p. 97 in the second).
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Mar 1, 2012 17:24:38 GMT -5
Thanks, Jake. Looking forward to your posts in the archeaology section.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 1, 2012 19:11:50 GMT -5
Thanks for those reference, Jake; much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 19, 2012 14:38:04 GMT -5
Rich - The well works out to be pretty close to the center, within a few feet --- but the problem is that the plan of the convento appears to be the result of several changed plans over time, and some of the earliest plans are not clear. Nor is it clear when the well was dug, and whose plan was in effect at the time. In other words, we don't know where the center "should" have been. But we can work out a fairly good approximation of the final, "as-built" plan as of 1772/1793, based on what survives, what was found in the early 1900s work, the Army plans of the 1850s (corrected) and the descriptions and measurements in the inventories. Thanks, Jake. Of course it couldn't be as simple as I had hoped, but at least I'll keep the well-as-center theory in the back of my brain.
|
|