Alamo Southwest Corner Radio Shack dig

[sloanrodgers]

[glow=yellow,2,300]The H-H-Horror ![/glow]

[Herb]

Aug 24, 2009 20:57:42 GMT -5 @marklemon said:

To the best of my recollection, the "Travis" (Trevino) House was some 70 to 72 feet long, and the SW "fudge" was about 10 to 12 feet, so no, the "horror house" still sits on the site of the birthplace of Texas' most heroic document.

Mark, I'm not too sure about that last part. Remember Jameson only a couple of weeks before the siege, said that the Trevino House was where wounded Mexican officers, from the December fight, were staying. Sutherland locates Travis and Bowie's quarters as the southernmost room in the S. Castenanda House. As far as I know, the only thing we have that says the Trevino House was the HQs of the Alamo is the Sanchez-Navarro Plats. Is it possible, it was the Mexican Hqs in December? and that is why he marked it? What is the probability of Travis corresponding from his room in the S. Castenanda House?

It seems to me that the Trevino House may be the probable location, but that it's not a slam dunk.

I'm curious about what you think about the other question, becasue the dig was basically looking in the wrong place, is it possible that the Sanchez-Navarro Lunette outside the SW corner did exsist? or is the discrepancy in location too minor?

[marklemon]

Herb, that's true, but Jameson also referred to the house, or room where the Mexican officers were, at least temporarily, quartered, as "Headquarters of the Alamo." We know that Bowie, for one, and probably others, changed their quarters in the compound, so it's entirely possible that Travis did the same. It's admittedly an open question, but IMO, the preponderance of the evidence points to the Trevino house.
I wonder, could the wounded Mexican officers have been freed, or transferred, out of the compound during the truce, leaving the Trevino House (if that's where they were) open for new occupants?
I seem to remember Jake saying something conclusive about there not being an outer defensive ditch (ie: something very specific like examining a part of the ground where at least a part of it should have been), but I'll have to check with him to refresh my memory
Mark

[cantador4u]

Quote: To the best of my recollection, the "Travis" (Trevino) House was some 70 to 72 feet long, and the SW "fudge" was about 10 to 12 feet, so no, the "horror house" still sits on the site of the birthplace of Texas' most heroic document.

Please help me understand, If the city "fudged up" the SW corner by 10-12 ft, does that mean that the line visibly crossing the street indicating the south wall is incorrect, and that the planter which outlines the "alleged" location of the low barrack is not accurate? and that the entire SW wall/low barrack line needs to rotate slightly counter-clockwise (when seen from above) in order to show the actual south wall?


Quote: Rick had a friend with GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) walk across Alamo Street in this same (NW) area, and he found a large, thick (east-west-running), anomaly just where the north wall footing should be. We, of course realized that there were a number of intrusions under the pavement, such as water lines, and sewage, etc, but these lines should run parallel with the road, not perpendicular to it. So, there is a strong possibility that he found the old remnants of the north wall footing.
Mark

Was this done with anyone's blessing? i.e. City, DRT? It doesn't really matter. Regardless of the circumstances it seems like information that should be documented somehow before it's too late, so that when the Alamo Restoration Project finally gets going, or the next San Antonio downtown renewal effort takes place, someone on a bulldozer doesn't blindly go through and obliterate it during construction. Where was this anomaly in relation to the visible south wall line?

I understand why destructive digging type of research is carefully restricted but something as benign as GPR should be done ASAP over every square foot of space not occupied by a building with a basement. And not just near the Alamo but out at LEAST 100 yards (or varas) from the Alamo perimeter. It just seems like a great project for some enterprising young History PhD candidate to wrap a thesis around, or professor to win tenure with.

Because of work done throughout the years it would probably be a real jumble of confusing data, but it would be SOMETHING to start with. I think the odds are against it making clear wonderful discoveries, but pretty good at generating questions and identifying potential areas for future research. In 10 or 20 years GRP will probably improve so that the early work can guide later work. It could all be done at night so that it didn't interfere with traffic

Would it show where the foundation of the collapsed first chapel is? Would it show where the acequia had flooded? I guess we'll never know unless it's tried. I salute Rick and his friend.

- Paul Meske

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than to obtain permission." Anonymous

[marklemon]

Aug 28, 2009 19:42:34 GMT -5 cantador4u said:

Please help me understand, If the city "fudged up" the SW corner by 10-12 ft, does that mean that the line visibly crossing the street indicating the south wall is incorrect, and that the planter which outlines the "alleged" location of the low barrack is not accurate? and that the entire SW wall/low barrack line needs to rotate slightly counter-clockwise (when seen from above) in order to show the actual south wall?

Mark: Yes, exactly..the current reconstructed line including the planter, as well as the line crossing Alamo street is off be a significant margin. Rick and myself measured this line starting at a point near the SE corner of the planter, and used Fox's archeological report showing the located footings of the low barrack, and retraced the foundation lines on the present day plaza. The actual footprint of the low barrack in relation to the present day planter is exactly as you suggested, rotated about 5 degrees (an estimate) in a counterclockwise manner. This places the actual SW corner of the compound about 5 to 7 feet inside the present Ripley's building, near the "Fat Lady" display.


Was this done with anyone's blessing? i.e. City, DRT? It doesn't really matter. Regardless of the circumstances it seems like information that should be documented somehow before it's too late, so that when the Alamo Restoration Project finally gets going, or the next San Antonio downtown renewal effort takes place, someone on a bulldozer doesn't blindly go through and obliterate it during construction. Where was this anomaly in relation to the visible south wall line?

Mark:Well, we documented our findings, and Rick documented his friend's GPR findings. Rest assured, when the restoration project gets underway, all of these details will be taken into consideration, and used.

I understand why destructive digging type of research is carefully restricted but something as benign as GPR should be done ASAP over every square foot of space not occupied by a building with a basement. And not just near the Alamo but out at LEAST 100 yards (or varas) from the Alamo perimeter. It just seems like a great project for some enterprising young History PhD candidate to wrap a thesis around, or professor to win tenure with.

Mark: I agree

Because of work done throughout the years it would probably be a real jumble of confusing data, but it would be SOMETHING to start with. I think the odds are against it making clear wonderful discoveries, but pretty good at generating questions and identifying potential areas for future research. In 10 or 20 years GRP will probably improve so that the early work can guide later work. It could all be done at night so that it didn't interfere with traffic

Mark: Again, I concur

Would it show where the foundation of the collapsed first chapel is? Would it show where the acequia had flooded? I guess we'll never know unless it's tried. I salute Rick and his friend.

-Paul Meske

Mark: That's a good question (regarding the first church's foundations) and I'll raise it with Rick. Of course, we'd have to have the DRT's authorization, even if we only run the GPR along the pedestrian sidewalk, but I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse us. The area in back of the church where the flooded acequia was, has been so disturbed over the years with various buildings built there, that I'm sure that area has been obliterated.



"It's easier to ask forgiveness than to obtain permission." Anonymous