|
Post by TRK on Sept 9, 2009 7:23:54 GMT -5
Bruce, I see that you revised your last post overnight, inserting new information on the probable location where Eastman drew the view of San Antonio. Using Google Earth imaging and modern street maps for San Antonio, it's clear that Eastman had to proceed north of the Powder House complex at least as far as East Houston Street to see any of the north side of San Fernando church, so I think you're on the mark.
As for the road running diagonally from the left, I doubt that it was Camino de los Mochos, since that road seems to coincide roughly with modern East Houston Street; i.e., Eastman's vantage point. I'd expect Camino de los Mochos to be to the right of the drawing, mostly out of the view. A more likely choice may be the road marked Camino de Paso Torato on the Rullman map, but I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it was simply a farm lane in one of the labores.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Sept 9, 2009 8:47:17 GMT -5
Yes Tom, I had to revise my estimate of Eastman's position last night when I realized that a sketch made from the Dignowity and Lockwood Park location would effectively place the Alamo Church to the left of San Fernando Cathedral.
One other interesting feature that I noticed in the middle-ground of the Eastman sketch is what appears to be a relatively straight line of brush and undergrowth which extends across the entire sketch. This line begins at the far right side of the drawing (notice cattle or horses just beyond the vegetation line near the Convento) and continues to the left until it decrease or angles around the dead tree (just below and right of the Cottonwoods). The treeline appears again just beyond the aforementioned road. Here the vegetation line seems to split with one branch continuing southward and off the left edge of the drawing while another seems to begin near the ox-cart and continues along the south side of the road toward town.
It seems likely that these lines of vegetation mark portions of the eastern branch of the Alamo Acequia and its desagues. The angle point near the dead tree (this time cattle to the right on the near side of the treeline) would then correspond to the angle seen in the Alamo Acequia near Anastasio Monslo's and M. Lopez's property line (see the Rullman map). This intersection corresponds generally to the modern street intersection of Bowie and East Crockett.
That would seem to suggest that the road seen in the Eastman sketch is indeed a private lane, possibly the one shown passing through the M. Lopez property on the Rullman map. Rullman indicates that the Lopez tract was bounded on either side by desagues, so the vegetation line shown running along the south side of this lane would make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Sept 9, 2009 19:18:45 GMT -5
Bruce, I am not entirely convinced that the view Eastman drew from Powder House Hill towards San Antonio shows the north face of San Fernando Church. And in particular, I'm of the opinion that the Alamo church shown in the drawing is not angled as you show using the small Gentilz insert. As I view the Eastman drawing, the church looks to me to be angled in such a way that we are seeing it from east, south-east. What makes me pretty sure of this is the chopped-down apse at the far eastern end. To me, this shows up pretty clearly in Eastman's drawing as being near the right side of the church as shown by Eastman, not the left, as you surmise. As for the San Fernando, can it be possible that we are seeing the shaded buttresses at the north side of the church, which look from a distance like an angled side of a building? I have not taken the time to do a linear analysis of the city's plan, to test my hypothesis, so I cannot be certain about this, but I'd think that if one got a pretty accurate street map of 1840's San Antonio, and viewed it from a somewhat flattened perspective, the truth or fallacy of our respective theories could be easily proven. Mark
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 19, 2009 10:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by valerobowie on Jan 11, 2013 14:21:52 GMT -5
is there anyway anybody can tell me the distance of the powder house from the commerce street bridge? Also did anybody happen to notice that the street that is now s. Piedmont(where the powder house is believed to be today) was once called powder house according to the 1912 Sanborn maps.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 11, 2013 21:02:29 GMT -5
is there anyway anybody can tell me the distance of the powder house from the commerce street bridge? Also did anybody happen to notice that the street that is now s. Piedmont(where the powder house is believed to be today) was once called powder house according to the 1912 Sanborn maps. I indeed did notice the name of the street having been Powder House. The distance is 2,250 yards from the Commerce Street Bridge to where we believe the watch tower's west wall was. The powder house was roughly six or seven yards caddycorner to the N.E. from the N.E. corner of the watch tower. There is a good possibility that a later powder house was constructed near the southern end of Powder House Street (Piedmont). This is suggested by the extreme distance between the only two structures indicated on the "Civil War" map (Page 82 in Nelson's 2nd. revised edition). This map (actually drawn in 1846 and embellished during the Civil War) is highly accurate in most other details, so this strange divergence from what we know from Eastman's drawing suggests something. Also, a later city map at the time of the cemetery layout, shows a footprint of a rectangular (not square) structure and labels it the Powder House. This half a block further south and would just about line up with the lower one on the 1846 map.
|
|
|
Post by Don Allen on Feb 17, 2013 23:20:16 GMT -5
I just re-read this thread. For some reason, the powderhouse and watchtower locations captivate me as much or more than the mission does.
Do any of you have plans to revisit the area any time soon? If so, I don't know what help I'd be but I'd love to tag along and offer any assistance I can.
|
|
|
Post by Don Allen on Feb 19, 2013 16:30:33 GMT -5
Would it be correct to assume that the powder house would be similar in general construction to the mission (i.e....type of foundation, materials, etc)?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 19, 2013 17:05:17 GMT -5
Would it be correct to assume that the powder house would be similar in general construction to the mission (i.e....type of foundation, materials, etc)? Perhaps somewhat. One of the early descriptions (page back through these posts) referred to the building materials being similar to the missions, but this might simply mean that this person was saying random stone construction versus adobe or latter-day materials. The powder house and watch tower were built in the early nineteenth century by the Alamo de Parras cavalry company stationed in the Alamo. It wasn't built during the mission period. Building techniques, however, were largely the same, if more militarily functional.
|
|
|
Post by Don Allen on Feb 19, 2013 17:22:32 GMT -5
Would it be correct to assume that the powder house would be similar in general construction to the mission (i.e....type of foundation, materials, etc)? Perhaps somewhat. One of the early descriptions (page back through these posts) referred to the building materials being similar to the missions, but this might simply mean that this person was saying random stone construction versus adobe or latter-day materials. The powder house and watch tower were built in the early nineteenth century by the Alamo de Parras cavalry company stationed in the Alamo. It wasn't built during the mission period. Building techniques, however, were largely the same, if more militarily functional. What then would one hope to find, under the best-case scenario, if/when the site is located...a foundation somewhat similar to those of the Alamo compound buildings?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 20, 2013 2:55:16 GMT -5
Perhaps somewhat. One of the early descriptions (page back through these posts) referred to the building materials being similar to the missions, but this might simply mean that this person was saying random stone construction versus adobe or latter-day materials. The powder house and watch tower were built in the early nineteenth century by the Alamo de Parras cavalry company stationed in the Alamo. It wasn't built during the mission period. Building techniques, however, were largely the same, if more militarily functional. What then would one hope to find, under the best-case scenario, if/when the site is located...a foundation somewhat similar to those of the Alamo compound buildings? Perhaps. Plus lots of 1801 to post-1836 artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 21, 2013 15:01:38 GMT -5
Well, I'm doing some visual research using my virtual Bexar model and will be resurrecting this thread a bit. The late Bruce Moses did indeed bring much light to the location and visualization of the Garita (Powder House and Watch Tower), and I am perhaps finally able to contribute to this based on accurately placed points on my virtual map (with models). Bruce's presentation of maps, theories, observations and (where possible) conclusions are my ever-day tools.
One "find" that I have made is somewhat like his line projection technique for the purpose of discovering where Seth Eastman was located when he made his sketch of Bexar "from near the Old Watch Tower..." I have aligned my "virtual camera" on my model (which is of a 3-mile-square area centered on Bexar)so that I place the Alameda, San Fernando Church and the Alamo in similar positions as per the drawing. What I find is that Eastman was much closer to them than 2,200 yards (the distance from the Alamo apse to the Garita). Seems like he was perhaps only 1/3 that distance and off to the north of the line to San Fernando. However, Bruce made one error above. He compares the long distance Eastman view of the rear of the Alamo church to Theodore Gentilz' close-up painting from the N.E. when it is actually almost identical to Eastman's own drawing of the back of theAlamo from the S.E. This places the point-of-view of the distant drawing hundreds of yards closer to the axis between the Watch Tower and San Fernando tower than Bruce was concluding -- and still allows one to see the shaded north side of San Fernando Church.
Alas, while I can navigate my model and position myself at that site (hence this conclusion), I still haven't been successful with taking a SketchUp snapshot of the angle due to my low RAM on my ancient (2006) computer and the large file size of my model (127 MB). If I can get it, I will post it.
Man, I wish Bruce -- and Kevin -- were still around. This is getting exciting!
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Sept 22, 2013 8:47:46 GMT -5
Well, I'm doing some visual research using my virtual Bexar model and will be resurrecting this thread a bit. The late Bruce Moses did indeed bring much light to the location and visualization of the Garita (Powder House and Watch Tower), and I am perhaps finally able to contribute to this based on accurately placed points on my virtual map (with models). Bruce's presentation of maps, theories, observations and (where possible) conclusions are my ever-day tools. One "find" that I have made is somewhat like his line projection technique for the purpose of discovering where Seth Eastman was located when he made his sketch of Bexar "from near the Old Watch Tower..." I have aligned my "virtual camera" on my model (which is of a 3-mile-square area centered on Bexar)so that I place the Alameda, San Fernando Church and the Alamo in similar positions as per the drawing. What I find is that Eastman was much closer to them than 2,200 yards (the distance from the Alamo apse to the Garita). Seems like he was perhaps only 1/3 that distance and off to the north of the line to San Fernando. However, Bruce made one error above. He compares the long distance Eastman view of the rear of the Alamo church to Theodore Gentilz' close-up painting from the N.E. when it is actually almost identical to Eastman's own drawing of the back of theAlamo from the S.E. This places the point-of-view of the distant drawing hundreds of yards closer to the axis between the Watch Tower and San Fernando tower than Bruce was concluding -- and still allows one to see the shaded north side of San Fernando Church. Alas, while I can navigate my model and position myself at that site (hence this conclusion), I still haven't been successful with taking a SketchUp snapshot of the angle due to my low RAM on my ancient (2006) computer and the large file size of my model (127 MB). If I can get it, I will post it. Man, I wish Bruce -- and Kevin -- were still around. This is getting exciting! I agree...This is a project he would love..O'l Kev would also be very proud of ya...
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 22, 2013 16:10:17 GMT -5
The "Road to the Powder House."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 22, 2013 16:12:53 GMT -5
Aerial View looking east. Yeah, I know. The street's too wide. I'll fix it.
|
|