A new find!

[Kevin Young]

Well, the last name does not show up on the data base of Illinois Volunteers...that leaves Arkansas and Kentucky.

[marklemon]

Based on the 1793 mission inspection done prior to its secularization, the feature that was just discovered was a window, not a door. The Army simply found that it was much easier to make a doorway out of an already-existing opening, than to just start from nothing.
We all ignored or dismissed this 1792 reference, as it turned out, to our everlasting embarrassment, because we only saw the "Army" door, and for some ungodly reason ignored the crystal clear evidence that was there for all to see above this door on both sides of the wall. (see my photo and post at this link:
johnwayne-thealamo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=641&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=160 )
A factor which strongly supports the window theory is the fact that the other three interior doors in the church proper are formal, dressed openings, each with a flat arch. There would be no reason why any self-respecting master builder would place an anomaly like a splayed, curved arched door leading directly into the side of the nave, which would be entirely out of character with every other interior door.
Based on the long-overlooked documentation, and the common sense observations which can be made today, the feature is most probably a window, not a door.

[Hiram]

Mark,

I think you mentioned in an earlier post about the benefit of having a splayed opening to allow more light (for a window or yes even a door). There appears to be signs of a interior relief arch above that opening, which would suggest a door as opposed to a window. Is it possible for you to link the 1792 report? This is not the first time I've been clueless, but I don't remember reading about a window in that particular area. There are a series of wood beams laid across the bottom of the window/door, placed there by the U.S. Army. I'm trying to figure out why they would plank the bottom of a window frame and turn it into a door as opposed to simply stabilizing an existing doorway. I'm also curious as to why Eastman would arbitrarily draw a doorway if in fact if was a window. Your thoughts?

[marklemon]

Hiram,
The possible presence of a relieving arch does not necessarily indicate a door over a window, IMO. Having an unsupported splayed opening set into a (approximately) 3 ft thick wall means that literally tons of weight are above it, be it a door or a window. As you know, any hole or aperture weakens the wall, and , door or window, a relieving arch is an insurance policy. More importantly, it also depends on how the window is made. Unlike a standard arched opening, the splayed opening does not lend itself to the installation of voussoirs, and is more likely made of a type of aggregate,mortar or concrete, molded or poured around a form. If this is the case, then, a relieving arch is critical, as there would be no load-distributing elements to the splay. The relieving arch would fill the void, in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't the same thing present above the double-splayed window (hidden under plaster perhaps) in the window between the MBC and the Sacristy.
As for the Eastman drawing, note that he shows this door being very far back in the nave, much too far back to be the opening in question. Craig Covner, and I to a lesser extent, have great faith in Eastman's accuracy, and he believes that Eastman is showing us something else besides the newly uncovered feature. I'm waiting to hear Craig's explanation, as I cannot readily explain it. I only know that Eastman, in his drawings, does not arbitrarily move items around that much. And the door you reference in his drawing even appears to be back as far as the north transept.
Mark

[marklemon]

The 1793 reference to the south-facing window can be found in Nelson's book, among other places, on page 39, second revised edition.

[marklemon]

I think we all are overlooking a simple point I noted earlier that strongly supports the feature being a window...the very same window referenced in 1793.
The church was built by a master mason. Accordingly, we see his work in fine architectural details such as the groin-vaulted rooms, the splayed windows, and the finely cut formal dressed-stone doorways, each featuring flat arches. Why then, would this man break up the architectural harmony and consistency of ALL all of his interior church doorways by sloppily inserting a glaring anomaly such as a splayed arched doorway, right in the middle of a set of formal, flat arched doors? This is just so inconsistent with what a person highly trained in the aesthetic harmony and balance of architecture would have done.
And we are still forgetting, as we all did for so very long, that a window, not a door, is referenced in the 1793 inspection.
Occam's razor applies here: all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one.

[Hiram]

Okay, its the Salazar/Huizar 1793 report, my error. I thought you said 1792. Speaking of errors, is it not an error when they describe the walls of the sacristy as being whitewashed, and not plastered as they clearly were? And the report also describes two doors with carved stone frames. Yes, there is a doorway leading to the east portion of the nave, and yes there is a doorway leading to the MBC, but stone framed? Not any more at least. And Tuscan architecture? Are there any physical indicators in the columns of the church facade or on the pilasters inside the sanctuary that suggest the entablature, architrave, frieze or cornice of the Tuscan order?

And I'm still curious as to why Eastman would misplace or misrepresent a window as a door.

This dialogue goes back to the fact that those of us in the 21st century are reading the same reports and/or inventories from the 18th century. The writers knew what they were referring to because they were looking at it contemporaneously. We do not have the same luxury, which is why we often have different ideas as to how the church looked during any particular period.

I'm here on this site to learn...and I'm trying my best to do that. I hope that someone can enlighten me come March (in person because I most often need to be led by the nose), as to why Eastman chose to draw a door which was actually a window and why the U.S. Army would fill a window with limestone rubble and wood planks to create a doorway.

[Hiram]

Jan 22, 2010 1:38:45 GMT -5 @marklemon said:

The church was built by a master mason. Accordingly, we see his work in fine architectural details such as the groin-vaulted rooms, the splayed windows, and the finely cut formal dressed-stone doorways, each featuring flat arches. Why then, would this man break up the architectural harmony and consistency of ALL all of his interior church doorways by sloppily inserting a glaring anomaly such as a splayed arched doorway, right in the middle of a set of formal, flat arched doors? This is just so inconsistent with what a person highly trained in the aesthetic harmony and balance of architecture would have done.

Grant you, the church of Mission San Antonio de Valero is not built on the scale of Notre Dame de Paris , and yet, we are examining a structure built over the course of 20-30 years, which means more than one master mason was involved.

Mark, you yourself have noted distinctive differences in things as innocuous as the cornices and friezes of the pilasters, so why is not the same notation given to the possibility of different doorways?

[marklemon]

Jan 22, 2010 2:25:20 GMT -5 Hiram said:

Okay, its the Salazar/Huizar 1793 report, my error. I thought you said 1792. Speaking of errors, is it not an error when they describe the walls of the sacristy as being whitewashed, and not plastered as they clearly were? And the report also describes two doors with carved stone frames. Yes, there is a doorway leading to the east portion of the nave, and yes there is a doorway leading to the MBC, but stone framed? Not any more at least. And Tuscan architecture? Are there any physical indicators in the columns of the church facade or on the pilasters inside the sanctuary that suggest the entablature, architrave, frieze or cornice of the Tuscan order?

And I'm still curious as to why Eastman would misplace or misrepresent a window as a door.

This dialogue goes back to the fact that those of us in the 21st century are reading the same reports and/or inventories from the 18th century. The writers knew what they were referring to because they were looking at it contemporaneously. We do not have the same luxury, which is why we often have different ideas as to how the church looked during any particular period.

I'm here on this site to learn...and I'm trying my best to do that. I hope that someone can enlighten me come March (in person because I most often need to be led by the nose), as to why Eastman chose to draw a door which was actually a window and why the U.S. Army would fill a window with limestone rubble and wood planks to create a doorway.

I'm not sure where the "errors" reference fits in to my argument, as I never meant to imply that errors have never been made at the Alamo...the DRT comes to mind...(OOPS ) But seriously, not sure what that means really...if you are implying that the inspectors made an error when standing there looking at a door, and calling it a window, then that is too far of a stretch for me to make. If I were forced to choose, I'd put my money on an artist, even a very good artist, of making an error before I'd charge two inspectors, who had the responsibility of making an accurate description of what they saw, and no aesthetic or artistic ax to grind, with making an error before I'd think they did. And remember, we ALL thought that they made an "error" for well over a hundred years, and I'm thinking that they are now being vindicated.

Again, not quite sure what is meant by the "Tuscan Architecture" reference, unless it is to weigh against the inspector's credibility. As Salazar was a master mason, we'd normally expect that he'd know what defined the "Tuscan" order. Clearly, he either knew the difference and "mis-spoke" or confused the very archaic Tuscan with some other order. This kind of thing is much more understandable to me than if he were to stand in a room, look at a door, and say "window."

As for doors, the door leading into the Sacristy from the transept was once a finished door just like the Baptistry and Confessional doors, and the evidence is still visible as a tiny piece of molding at the lower right exterior corner that was left behind when the Army modified the door. Of course, the Sacristy to MBC door is different, but I am only referring to the church's interior -facing doors and their relative consistency.

As for Eastman, I don't think that we can naturally assume that what he draws, positioned as it is as far back in the nave as the northern transept, is the same thing that has been uncovered, much, much closer to the drawing's viewer. Perhaps the better question to ask is:

"And I'm still curious as to why Eastman would misplace the newly discovered opening by such a huge margin."

And where was this sudden (in everyone) attention to this feature in Eastman's drawing before December of last year? Obviously, since it did not fit into our ideas of what or what did not exist in the nave at that time, we simply dismissed it.
Now, it apparently HAS to be the same newly-found opening, even though he moves it some 60 feet to the east of where it is/was.

Personally, I'm not convinced at all that the door he shows is this new-found feature. It may turn out, as Craig has speculated, to be a Mission-period window (and reported as such in 1793) that was later modified into a door by opening it down to the ground, and filling the upper area with a loose conglomerate of stones which later fell out or were removed allowing graffiti artists to carve their names there in the 1840's. This "new" door may have been done by the Army in the late 1840's, or it may even have been done earlier. But what is now clear is that it originally was a window.
And your last query: "...why (would) the U.S. Army would fill a window with limestone rubble and wood planks to create a doorway." seems pretty apparent and sensible to me, especially if they wanted better and quicker access to the stores that the building was filled with.
Bottom line: I admit that it's probably too early to be definitive one way or the other, but in my opinion, we are looking at a feature that, whatever later became of it, started it's life as a window. The same window observed in the same wall in the same room, in 1793.
Mark

[marklemon]

Jan 22, 2010 2:49:17 GMT -5 Hiram said:

Mark, you yourself have noted distinctive differences in things as innocuous as the cornices and friezes of the pilasters, so why is not the same notation given to the possibility of different doorways?

Yes, but notice, these "distinctive" differences, or inconsistencies, were not so distinctive that they were ever noticed by anyone on the staff of the Alamo or the DRT in recorded memory, so I submit that these differences were enormously miniscule in comparison with something so obvious as a door.
What I was pointing out was the presence or absence of a taper at the extreme ends of the pilaster side-molding. The presence or absence of this taper does not noticeably effect the visual look or style, of the pilaster. If it did, this would have been noticed by someone before I came along and saw it three years ago.
ML

[Hiram]

Some additional thoughts on the "door versus window" discussion.

My original impression based on the size of the interior opening (facing N) was that the opening was a door and was the same width (approx. 6 feet) on the exterior (facing S). After the limestone fill and boulders were removed by Pam Rosser, it became clear that the N opening narrowed on both sides to the point where the S opening was perhaps 6 inches wider that the doorway as it now looks. So the opening is splayed toward the N, into the MBC or what I call the adapted sacristy, and the top of the opening as it faces the S (into the proposed sanctuary) is straight and regular in form. In its final configuration, the window would be properly faced, meaning that the rectangular opening would be facing the unfinished sanctuary (left open to the sky) and the splay would face the interior of the adapted sacristy.

Then we have just some general observations. The original lintel seems too high to be a door, and then a very unscientific observation that the graffiti in the splayed opening is easily accessible to folks in the 1840s if they could stand in the frame of the window and carve away as opposed to standing on crates or on a ladder or some other physical aid. I think it would be beneficial for a better understanding if there was a "channel" dug on either side of the opening on the north side to better determine the original shape of it, but as of this writing, those are not in the immediate plans.

I spoke with the mason who was brought in to examine the damage in the upper east corner of the opening. He was of the opinion that there was nothing supporting that corner other than the limestone rock and rubble added by the Army. He also mentioned that there was a void behind the splayed opening which perhaps might indicate the absence of a relief arch.

The current plan now is to stabilize the corner by repairing it, but not to the extent of filling it in. We want visitors to be able to see literally "inside" the walls of the Alamo Shrine. And the opening above the wooden Army lintel will be left as is, to show the transition from church to warehouse.

[marklemon]

Feb 10, 2010 1:21:39 GMT -5 Hiram said:

Then we have just some general observations. The original lintel seems too high to be a door, and then a very unscientific observation that the graffiti in the splayed opening is easily accessible to folks in the 1840s if they could stand in the frame of the window and carve away as opposed to standing on crates or on a ladder or some other physical aid. I think it would be beneficial for a better understanding if there was a "channel" dug on either side of the opening on the north side to better determine the original shape of it, but as of this writing, those are not in the immediate plans.

.

Here we are in absolute, complete agreement.
But as in so many other areas of the present day Alamo, we're now so tantalizingly close, and yet so far....
Now, and henceforth, we'll have yet another area of endless debate: "DOOR, or WINDOW," when (and unless there's a good reason not to) we could do the exploratory dig as you suggested, which would answer this question in perpetuity.
That there was once a window in that location is a documented fact, that, until very recently, we all chose to ignore. The only question that remains, in my opinion, is when was it reconfigured to be a door? I can't wait to hear the explanation given by the docents, and scripted by the higher powers. John (that is you, isn't it?), we'll have some fun with this one in March, I'm sure.
Mark

[Hiram]

Mark,

Hiram, aka John, present and accounted for. I've got some measurements to pass on. Widest point of the opening on the N side is 74". It narrows to 34" on the S side. From the highest point of the opening to the flagstone its 126". Of course the flagstone is 18-24" above the original packed dirt floor. From the N opening to the S opening it measures 44".

Naturally I have to work March 6, but I'm sure we'll have some time to take a closer look at the opening and the room itself.

[VictoriaR85]

Feb 10, 2010 18:52:29 GMT -5 Hiram said:

Mark,

Naturally I have to work March 6, but I'm sure we'll have some time to take a closer look at the opening and the room itself.

I look forward to taking a look at that myself... I wonder if there will be access into the MBR around then. Interesting stuff to say the least.

[Hiram]

The scaffolding has been down for about two weeks, and they are still stabilizing colonial era mortar and plaster in some areas, but I was in there today and it looks almost ready to go. At some point, they will be doing some masonry work on that failing corner of the opening.

As everyone knows, the custodians are the DRT, but it is still owned by the State of Texas, so we "move" when the Texas Historical Commission gives the DRT the thumbs-up, and not before. So its not really up to the DRT at this point as to when that masonry work will be done, a permit must be issued.

Which brings us to the "channel" that everyone (including the preservationist) would like to create in order to determine what the opening was in its original design. The decision to do that must come from THC, not DRT.

In the event that the room is inaccessible to the public 6 March, I'll do my best to get some access. Just a programming note, the Shrine is closed from 12pm to 4pm for the memorial service.