Covento Courtyard Well

[cantador4u]

I'm interested in the OTHER well, located in the main plaza. I understand that its location is not known and there were several attempts to locate it, but to no avail. (a whole other can of worms) OK, so we don't know where it is exactly, but why is it always shown near the front of the long barracks? I think it would make more sense and be more useful near the kitchen, not by a building that would draw artillery fire.

Do we know who dug it and when it was dug? Was it dug during the Mexican occupation of the Alamo in 1835, or during the Texan occupation in 1836? What records exist that tell us so?

Most illustrations of the well show it having some sort of wooden or stone fixture around it. If it was dug in haste then perhaps all it consisted of was a hole in the ground, maybe with some boards bracing the side-walls of the well. At the surface a board or two might have been thrown over it to prevent people and dirt from falling it it. The dirt from the hole may have been used elsewhere in the compound, otherwise it would have been in a big pile near the hole.

So my questions are,
1. Who dug the 2nd well in the plaza,
2. when was it dug, and
3. what records exist that give us this information?

Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin

[Rich Curilla]

My understanding is that this second well was dug by the defenders during the siege. This was from a primary source. In Sanches-Navarro's key to his 1836 plat of the Alamo, he says for item "O": "Well dug by colonists for water." His use of the term "colonists" refers to the defenders. Source: Hansen, page 409.

[texast]

I thought the location was known or a real close proximity anyway

Not sure who drew this or when but it is one of a few at the Alamo de Parras site one can reference or get bearings with usually.

Mission San Antonio de Valero.


Again though considering the well was dug by the defenders the question comes into how deep was it as this would also help in figuring out what or how it was built and how quickly it could have been filled with debris of the battle or aftermath.

Depending on the depth also would help us to figure out how much water there might have actually been and if things were thrown down of any importance at least a guess could be made as to the shape of anything that might still be found that is even remotely recognized.

It is highly unlikely that much is now intact in the well areas due to the moisture in the well and the surrounding mud that may be covering anything.

[marklemon]

The map posted from the Alamo de Parras site is most likely a hybrid, as it shows a conjectural Mission-period compound, with the battle-period plaza well. The exact position of the well is not known, and the only real evidence we have of it (contemporaneous) are two separate plats by Sanchez-Navarro, which places the well closer to the west wall, and the second-hand plat after Green B. Jameson, which places it closer to the southwest corner of the convento. I'm not sure if Sutherland's map shows it , as I don't have it handy at the moment.
Mark

[TRK]

The Sutherland sketch maps, as reproduced in Hansen, Alamo Reader, 160, 161, show the well in the center of the plaza between the convento and the west wall, halfway between the north and south walls.

[cantador4u]

The fact that there was a sort of pond to the east of the Alamo makes me think that in 1836 it may not have been necessary to dig very deep in order to hit water.

I looked at the composition of the soil as found in the report of the excavation of the lunette, but nothing jumped out at me as significant. It listed several shades of clay, gravely or porous soil, and caliche.

I had to look up what caliche is. It is: "A soil condition found in some areas of the arid Southwest, or as the result of synthetic fertilizers, caliche is a deposit of calcium carbonate (lime) beneath the soil surface. This condition is more commonly called 'hardpan' and creates an impervious layer in lower levels of soil."

I didn't know that before. Regardless of the depth of my ignorance, maybe someone with geology knowledge could make something of the soils as described in the various archaeological reports.

When all else fails then you bring in the dowsers and psychics. (Just kidding)

- Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin

[Rich Curilla]

Nov 29, 2008 22:40:26 GMT -5 cantador4u said:

Regardless of the depth of my ignorance, maybe someone with geology knowledge could make something of the soils as described in the various archaeological reports.

Or you could go the opposite direction and ask me. In its simplest definition, caliche is clay found at Alamo Village.

[Rich Curilla]

Nov 29, 2008 17:35:57 GMT -5 @texast said:

Mission San Antonio de Valero.

This plat was taken from Excavations at the Alamo Shrine by Jack D. Eaton (1980) and has the caption:

Mission San Antonio de Valero. Plan of the mission complex as it probably looked in the 1760s.

Truly, the well in question is out of place on this plat as it was not dug until 1836.

[marklemon]

Eaton's map is incorrect in several other areas: He shows the Indian houses as one long row of "apartments," and they even travel around the NW corner, and form not only the North Wall, but the NE wall as well. In reality, 5 separate houses, spaced from 38 to 40 feet apart, formed the West Wall, as it has come to be known after the compound was walled in about 1760. The houses had wall sections added between then to fully enclose that area. In addition, there was one house left out of the newly walled in perimeter to the South ("Charli "House), and Jake Ivey thinks that there was one outside the North West corner as well (gone by the time of the battle).
The North Wall was mostly just that - a wall, and connected the NW corner of the walled area with the two small structures nestled in the NE corner.
Most striking to me though, is the inclusion by Eaton of the ENTIRE low barrack in 1760. The evidence shows that the South wall at this time consisted of just the small section of the (later to be known) "Low Barrack" containing the main gate. Later, about 1803 to say, 1805, after the arrival of the company of Spanish colonial cavalry, the two extensions from the gate were added to form what we know familiarly as the "Low Barrack." I believe that the section he shows as the "granary," in the then non-existent low barrack eastern wing, was most likely situated in a north-south line along the rather mis-named "Low Wall," which is why a substantial section of that wall probably quite a bit taller, as it once constituted the back or front wall of an older stone granary or other unknown structure.

[texast]

Thanks for enlightening me rlcgtt as to the creator of that plat. I was not sure but know I had seen it before with a few others and they all show the well in different locations of course.

Also thanks to marklemon for helping point out other errors on that plat. I knew when looking at it that many things were out of place or guess work or conjectural. I was not trying to say that was the one either but was using it more as an example as I could not quickly locate the another drawing I would have rather used. I knew the indian apartments had not surrounded the whole compound and a few other items were out of place but again I took it more for conjecture that he thought it was there as there are several other areas as you pointed out.

trk I have no copy of the Alamo reader unfortunately but I do believe I have seen the sketch you are talking about and it does seem to me that that placement may be more correct (although still probably off a bit) for a few reasons such as closer to center for the hospital, the kitchen area (what it was anyway), and if Bowie was actually in one of the rooms off the west wall also. I am not sure that it would be center of the north to south wall and would think although it might be more in the center between the West and East wall but mor towards the south end of the compound to be closer to the needs of the women and children along with the cooks and the sick or wounded. When considering the water surrounding the area along with the elevation drop from the west to the east (if I remember correctly from the last time I was in San Antonio) and the location of the known well to me it just makes more sense also as they would not want the well too close to any walls or other areas that could throw debris down to cover the well during shelling. I better stop here before I take the topic in another direction.

I still have one question though. Does anyone know how far they had to dig at the time to reach the water table to get enough water from the well regardless of what they may have shorn it up with? The water table back then was much higher than today of course but, I have been unable to locate any information that is anywhere near close satisfactory for the time period back then.

Ok sorry getting carried away here. Thanks again to all for the comments and pointing out the differences that your more aware of than I am.

[Herb]

I don't know where the water table was at that time, but here's some relevant elevations, the ground level at the North Wall is 665 feet, exactly, the SW corner is around 660, the San Antonio River at about 635 feet. A 25 foot deep well in the center of the plaza would reach river level and though not the same, it would seem that a dug well would not have to go too much deeper to hit the water table.

The real problem in my mind, is going through the caliche. Of course digging through this in February/March when its generally wetter is a whole lot easier than July or August.

[pff]

Was the Convento Courtyard well in use at the 1836 seige?
The plaza well-was this the well dug by the defenders that supposedly undermined a section of the defense wall and wall couldn't be used?