|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 29, 2007 22:28:58 GMT -5
Mark, I really enjoyed your presentation -- and was quite moved by Gary Foreman's video dramatization of your model... uh.... your.... thing. It was unforgivable that you were not provided with a P.A. system. Hard to imagine that happening in this day and age. I was very impressed with the results of your collaboration with Gary. Those pictures are absolutely amazing, and waiting for February will have a touch of my difficulty as a kid with waiting for Christmas. David Jones and I were disappointed that you weren't able to actually bring the scale reconstruction (see how hard it is to avoid that M word?) down with you, but after hearing how much it would have cost to transport, it is certainly easy to understand why you couldn't. The questions which I refrained from asking last night since I figured this forum was a better venue for them are as follows: Where does the information come from for the building (wing?) on the east side of the "granary?" Gary said it is the "weaving room" of mission inventory fame, and this I accept (I guess). But where did you come up with a physical size, shape and location? Is this part of Jake's contribution? Is it from foundations found in a dig? (I recall one dig locating foundations in -- I think -- the seventies.) Or is it largely conjecture? I just have never seen it represented before -- unless it is the disconnected square structure in the LaBastida plat. Where did you get dimensions for the kitchens? You show it to be much longer than I would have -- more like in the two Sanchez-Navarro plats than the more dependable LaBastida. I noticed a dog-leg in the eastern end of the north wall of the low barrack just west of the kitchen. This is the first time I've seen this feature. What is the source for this? Why do you (and Gary Zaboly) depict the lunette fortification as having such a super perfect earthen embankment outside the palisade. Looks like poured concrete made in a mold. I know the Sanchez-Navarro plat depicts it as precise and hard-edged with sharp corners, but, hey, it was Texas dirt (probably caliche) just dug up and piled against cedar posts. What I'm fishing for is if you guys have discovered something about its construction that I do not yet know. Teach me. Teach me. That's all for now, but let me repeat how much I was impressed with the model (there, I said it) and the presentation format last night. Can't wait for the book. I'm sure we'll be able to sell them at Alamo Village. Thanks for enabling David and me to join you last evening.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Jun 29, 2007 23:30:21 GMT -5
I'm glad to hear all went well! Victoria, Alamo Sentry's correspondent, jotted down plenty of information for the article I plan to write about your upcoming book and the presentation. I was on the phone with Victoria last night after everything ended and the way she perfectly described, it felt as if I was there. I wish I was. But again, I'm glad to hear all went well and can only hope to make it back to San Antonio next March!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 30, 2007 9:43:28 GMT -5
Though I was unable to attend Mark's presentation last night, I have to agree with Rich about the reconstruction photos in Mark's upcoming book. I've gotten a very small sneak peek at one of the finished renderings, and I was blown away. My expectations were far exceeded, and I eagerly await this book. Mark has done an amazing job. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 30, 2007 11:07:41 GMT -5
Rich, As usual, you have a keen eye. You noticed some things that I expect will get the attention of some honest sceptics, and others who have their own agendas for criticizing my book (as you already mentioned, a well- respected Alamo author and artist was dubious, and hadn't even seen any of the images in the book at all! His statement of "It's all been done before.." speaks volumes about his own insecurities..and they are well-founded, as his depictions are about 15 years behind the current level of research) But I will take your questions one by one, and I hope I will answer them to your satisfaction. 1. The building situated in the northern courtyard has both archaeological and eye-witness documentation, but has never before been depicted in any, as far as I know, artistic rendering of the 1836 Alamo. This is meant to be either the ruined weaving workshop, or the forge, both from the mission period, which were located in this area. I first noticed this many years ago in Labastida's map, and have always wondered about it. Labastida was pretty precise yet economical in his rendering, and didn't just cavalierly throw in buildings or features willy-nilly (I encourage you to look at the color reproduction of this map in the Time-Life book "The Texans" on page 82-83, which is I think the best reproduction of this map I've seen) Follow-conversations with Jake Ivey resulted in our agreeing, based on some tantalizing archeological finds in this area, that there were in fact some stone buildings set apart from the main structure. Going back to the inventories then, we have descriptions of some more substantial work spaces there, including the weaving workshop, and the forge, which were described as being the same size. The precise placement of this building is, barring any real future excavations in this area of the "cavalry courtyard," unknown, just its relationship, based on Labastida's plat, to both the granary, and the denticulated trench, both known commodities. The only real question I have about it is: was its roof extant, or had it fallen? I depicted it as a fallen-in ruin, and the building well on the way to collapsing, as by the mid 1840's it does not show up on the Army plats. 2. The kitchen/hospital was worked out using Jake's data from his not-yet-published manuscript. The length of the structure was, if I remember correctly, 60 feet long from the northeast corner of the low barracks. The corner, that is, of the small room at that corner that had, a very short time after the battle (1837), fallen in, NOT the corner of the remaining portion of the low barracks. The somewhat surprising feature to me of this area was not its length, but the height of the back, or eastern stone wall, which is estimated to have been at least 13 to 17 feet in height for this 60 foot section of the 120 or so foot long wall. So much for the "Low Wall" moniker. 3. The "dog leg" feature you mentioned is one of the most intriguing discoveries made in this project. I wish I can say that I discovered it, but it was noted by, of course, Craig Covner. He noted, when looking at the 1837 Fulton drawing, that a myserious wedge-shaped feature was seen above the eastern end of the surviving portion of the low barracks. He then compared this drawing, as can you, with the 1840's Bolleart drawing done from the top of the church, looking west. In it you can see, quite clearly, that Bolleart drew exactly the same thing, just from another perspective. While we don't know at this time WHAT it was, we do know that it WAS there. Conjectures range from the ruins of an earlier structure, such as a tower, to an as yet unknown feature that was never finished. 4. The lunette's configuration is one of the things I am more certain of. First, the archeology quite clearly shows a classic 5-sided outer earthwork outline, with bevelled corners and precise, not rounded, contours. Next, the same thing is shown by Navarro, and even to a lesser extent by Labastida, who, while showing a slightly different overall outline, has it with precisely executed outlines. I think I know where you are coming from with the "rougher appearing" aspect, and I do agree, as my own research has shown that in reality, most things are rougher appearing than originally believed. But in this area, as in the other works constructed by the Mexicans, a GREATER, rather than LESSER degree of precision and professionalism was manifest in their work. The archeology shows over and over, that they did a beautiful job, though incomplete, in building these works. Note the precisely executed denticulated trench as shown by labastida. Surely this is just an artist's fancy, but no, it was found to be exactly as shown by Labastida. Over and over, trenches, and outer ditches, are seen to be precisely dug, with mostly flat bottoms, and bevelled sloping sides, just like in the military engineering manuals of the day. The Mexicans under Ugartachea had over 500 men available, beginning on October 12, to build these works. Ivey's remarkable manuscript goes into excruciating detail in explaining with mathematical precision, the amount of work in man-hours, including the amount of earth with one man can be expected to excavate in one day, which would have been required in order to have built the defenses in the time available, and it is found to have been quite achievable, even without overworking the men. So, with the high degree of professionalism, the amount of men available, and the archeological evidence, I think it's very probable, almost certain, that the lunette was not just "dirt...dug up and piled against cedar posts." Thanks again for coming Rich, and for your comments. Having an open, inquiring mind, willing to accept new concepts when the data supports it, and not digging your heels in on a pet theory because you LIKE IT is (I have experience in this!) crucial to being able to move ahead towards the TRUTH. Oh and yes, I was quite P.O.'ed about them not having a microphone, as you may have been able to see in my face at the time. Hope this answered your questions, Mark
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 30, 2007 23:16:59 GMT -5
Thank you, Mark, for you very thorough and efficient answers to my questions. As for my methodology, nothing makes my day more than when somebody can teach me something new about my all-time favorite subject. You, sir, are doing that by leaps and bounds -- AND you live on the W. & A. R. R. to boot!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 30, 2007 23:19:43 GMT -5
Victoria, Alamo Sentry's correspondent, jotted down plenty of information..... ...and I FINALLY got to meet Victoria. Now, if I can get her to visit Alamo Village -- along with Wade -- I will have had a full life!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 1, 2007 0:24:51 GMT -5
Thank you, Mark, for you very thorough and efficient answers to my questions. As for my methodology, nothing makes my day more than when somebody can teach me something new about my all-time favorite subject. You, sir, are doing that by leaps and bounds -- AND you live on the W. & A. R. R. to boot! Thanks Rich... But God forbid that I should ever begin thinking I know it all.. The Alamo is a cruel mistress..She leads you and lures you on, allowing you to think that you are beginning to understand her, when suddenly she pulls the rug out from underneath you, leaving you with the sad realization that you never really knew her at all. Those grim silent stones continue to mock me, but I'll keep on trying to court her favor, notwithstanding. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 1, 2007 10:54:22 GMT -5
The Alamo is a cruel mistress..She leads you and lures you on, allowing you to think that you are beginning to understand her, when suddenly she pulls the rug out from underneath you, leaving you with the sad realization that you never really knew her at all. Those grim silent stones continue to mock me, but I'll keep on trying to court her favor, notwithstanding. Mark That's the truth! Every time, I feel like I'm beginning to understand something, somebody finds new more compelling evidence that my latest belief is wrong. While I have always loved history, I don't think until I began to seriously study the Alamo, that I really comprehended that the true historian must use the scientific method. The historian must be able to develop new theories to meet the new evidence. I really like what Jim Crisp said a couple of years ago to Jim and me, that in his field as a historian, "being proved wrong is almost as good as being proved right."
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 1, 2007 11:31:41 GMT -5
The Alamo is a cruel mistress..She leads you and lures you on, allowing you to think that you are beginning to understand her, when suddenly she pulls the rug out from underneath you, leaving you with the sad realization that you never really knew her at all. Those grim silent stones continue to mock me, but I'll keep on trying to court her favor, notwithstanding. Mark That's the truth! Every time, I feel like I'm beginning to understand something, somebody finds new more compelling evidence that my latest belief is wrong. While I have always loved history, I don't think until I began to seriously study the Alamo, that I really comprehended that the true historian must use the scientific method. The historian must be able to develop new theories to meet the new evidence. I really like what Jim Crisp said a couple of years ago to Jim and me, that in his field as a historian, "being proved wrong is almost as good as being proved right." Amen, brother I think the true test of a "grown up" man in this field is a guy who has the guts to admit when his pet theory is actually wrong, because he is putting the search for the truth ahead of his own ego. I have been shown to be wrong more times than I like to admit, though thankfully, its getting to be less and less as the years go by and I use, as you say, the scientific method to research. But I'm sure that no matter how "good" any of us think we are getting, new and painful disappointments await us regarding what we think we know.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 1, 2007 11:40:37 GMT -5
As I get deeper into study, I find that what I think I know has been immeasurably colored by author's theories. I find myself going back to primary sources in an effort to determine why I believe what I do. A case in point is the alleged Morales attack on the palisade area. This bit of information has been repeated continually, but I find no reference to a palisade attack in any of the early sources and , in fact, it isn't logical. It's funny how we get our minds set on something and we're off and running. We're going through this same process of re-examination now on the Ruiz thread as regards Travis's position. I find it fascinating. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 1, 2007 14:32:41 GMT -5
Its certainly something I've come across a lot. I like to refer to it as the christmas tree effect; generations of authors keep adding to the "decoration", or changing it; putting their own spin on the evidence, adding "new" snippets here or there, without ever stopping to ask whether the underlying tree is the right shape.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Al on Jul 1, 2007 16:18:53 GMT -5
What a privelege it is to be among you folks! Just wanted to say that . . .
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 2, 2007 9:16:05 GMT -5
The information I continue to gleam from this forum is amazing. Every time I log on and read a new post or comment, I get an education.....and realize just how little I know. The views expressed and /or exchanged here are done professionally, eloquently, respectfully.....and I appreciate that so much.
In regards to history I agree, an open mind is essential. Preconceptions and long standing beliefs can act as barriers to learning and accepting what is true. I think "Yoda" said it well when he said "You must unlearn what you have learned." After all, isn't that why we're all members of this outstanding forum....to seek the truth and to learn?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 26, 2007 0:09:06 GMT -5
Here's an update:
On Saturday, and Sunday, July 20th and 21st, Gary Foreman returned to my home in GA and shot some much-needed angles that weren't covered the first time around, and re-shot some that needed re-doing for various reasons. This time, we concentrated on stand-off, overall views of the compound, as seen from the ground-level on all four compass quadrants. In these shots, the Alamo appears almost in "profile." Next, he shot elevated, or aerial shots (not directly overhead, but at about a 45 degree angle) from not only the four major quadrants, but also the NE, NW, SW, and SE views. These added views will absolutely cover the entire viewing spectrum. Now, the compound has been shot from close up, intermediate range, and from a distance to see the entire mission.
These images will now be "enhanced" with photoshop, by adding backgrounds such as sky, and terrain.
I have just completed the text, some 55 pages of data to accompany the photos, and have sent it in to the editor.
There will be an extensive appendix, in which there will be extrmely detailed diagrams of various sections of the Alamo. These can best be described as blueprint-type diagrams with elevations included, with measurements of walls, interior and exterior spaces, etc. In addition, an illustrated diagram of all the Alamo's artillery is included, with accompanying data, as well as the guns' probable placement.
Specific detailed diagrams of the Lunette (for you, Rich!), the Palisade, the Convento, Granary, Low barracks, two of the west wall houses, and, of course, the church, are included.
The book is beginning to take shape, from what was once a mass of scattered drawings, photos, text and diagrams. In about one to two weeks, the whole thing will be about complete, and then its off to the publisher. The book is still scheduled for FEB 2008 release.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 26, 2007 0:19:32 GMT -5
There will be an extensive appendix, in which there will be extrmely detailed diagrams of various sections of the Alamo. These can best be described as blueprint-type diagrams with elevations included, with measurements of walls, interior and exterior spaces, etc. In addition, an illustrated diagram of all the Alamo's artillery is included, with accompanying data, as well as the guns' probable placement. Specific detailed diagrams of the Lunette (for you, Rich!), the Palisade, the Convento, Granary, Low barracks, two of the west wall houses, and, of course, the church, are included. Sounds like the appendix alone will be a treasure-trove for researchers. February or Bust.
|
|