|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 12:03:51 GMT -5
Thanks, folks. Appreciate the compliments.
Allen, is there any documentation about the reconstruction of this side of the Long Barracks?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2012 12:59:12 GMT -5
David - I'm a novice on this stuff and rely on info in the Nelson book and what has been posted here by Jake Ivey and others. As I recall, at some point, only the lower story of the west wall of the Long Barrack survived, which is still there today. Some of the former openings/doorways are easily detected, although they have been sealed up with stone. Other than that, I don't know how the remaining Long Barrack of today came to be, but I believe it's in Nelson's book.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 13:08:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I was just wondering if they rebuilt the arcade and walls of the cloister on the original footings.
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).
Well, what do I know. After all, the DRT has nothing but the best interests of the Alamo at heart.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2012 13:24:22 GMT -5
Some of the original DRT leaders wanted to dispose of the Long Barrack altogether. Thanks to Adina de Zavala, at least some of it survives.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 24, 2012 13:27:12 GMT -5
Not sure about the arcades, etc, but the "corrals" walls were built on the original footing. I understand that all the stone used on the reconstruction came from the original Long Barracks.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Feb 24, 2012 13:42:19 GMT -5
Nice work, David, please see Messages.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 17:06:16 GMT -5
You know, I've always thought that de Zavala's efforts on behalf of the Alamo were worthy of a Hollywood movie. That lady had one hell of a fight on her hands but she never backed down, even in the face of extreme bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 24, 2012 17:56:13 GMT -5
David-- We don't know whether the reconstruction of the arcade was on the original foundation. So far as I know, we don't have construction drawings for that work (although there could be drawings hidden in the vaults of the DRT Library) or any information on what excavation was done for the work.
Herb, yes, the wall between the north and south courtyards is on "the original foundation" (one reason we know this is because Greer's archaeology in the 1960s placed a unit against the wall and the profile of the unit showed the excavation trench that traced it, as was shown in a ca. 1913 photo in the newspaper), but the thing is, there were three wall lines going west to east in this area, and they built this wall on one of them. Which one? We don't know. Craig Covner and Rick Range and I have had a considerable amount of discussion about this, and the answer depends on which reconstructed plan of the Alamo you're using.
Greer also did some of his units down in the southeast corner of the south courtyard, the "well courtyard," and clearly hit on the foundations and floors of the south row of rooms over near the sacristy and Monk's Burial Chamber (gag). But a) he didn't know those rooms were going to be there, and b) he was unable to make any sense out of what he found, so QED: we know no more than if he hadn't dug at all.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 18:01:00 GMT -5
Jake, do you ever find your hands instinctively reaching for trowels and soil-sifters when you walk around the convento courtyard?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 24, 2012 18:21:34 GMT -5
You clearly understand the strain the place puts on me -- I don't know if the Alamo is so archaeologically off the scale in interest because it's the Alamo, or if it's because it's the Alamo that so little real archaeology has been done in so few of the right places.
I was astonished in the '70s when they actually asked me to do the excavations in the north courtyard. So unlike their usual approach of "If we don't look, we won't see anything we don't want to know." ... Ah, that's a little mean. You could argue that they're being good stewards by keeping intrusions into the ground to the absolute minimum, and doing archaeology only when the project does intrude. Park Service is the same way, these days, although in the 70s-90s they were more willing to allow some work for the sake of research -- I don't think the DRT is likely to ever do that.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 27, 2012 12:50:42 GMT -5
And then there was that three ring sideshow called the Alamo Well Dig that the city allowed...
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 27, 2012 16:47:23 GMT -5
David, what program are you using for your conjectural models? Very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 27, 2012 16:57:33 GMT -5
Rich, I'm using a program called Gimp. Latest version.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 27, 2012 16:58:29 GMT -5
Yes-Richard is right. A very impressive program and interesting graphics...helps to look and consider things fresh...very interesting and thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 27, 2012 19:39:50 GMT -5
...but the thing is, there were three wall lines going west to east in this area, and they built this wall on one of them. Which one? We don't know. Craig Covner and Rick Range and I have had a considerable amount of discussion about this, and the answer depends on which reconstructed plan of the Alamo you're using. How symetrical were these mission master builders and architects in the early 18th. century? It seems to me that the well would be a starting point for locating walls, if indeed they were following classic patterns. Since we know the plan for the convento included classic arcades around a courtyard, would the well not have been equally classic and planned for the exact center of is patio? After all, according to mission inventories, the well did have a stone arch and curb, so it was no slouch. If this could be relied on, then walls would have been equidistant from it.
|
|