|
|
Post by billchemerka on Dec 8, 2007 11:14:45 GMT -5
The December issue of The Alamo Journal, the official publication of The Alamo Society, features a ground-breaking article by Mark Lemon: "Up Against The Wall: The Evolution and Origin of the 'Connecting Wall,' and the Early Architectural Development of the Convento Complex at Mission San Antonio de Valero." The article, which identifies the location of the first Alamo church, is augmented by seven pages of detailed illustrations depicting the development of the Alamo from the foundation of the first church (c. 1724) to the mission-fortess in 1836.
The issue's cover image is from Mark's forthcoming book, The Illustrated Alamo 1836: A Photographic Journey.
Issue #147 has been mailed out to all members/subscribers world wide. In fact, the first mailing went out on Wednesday to those residing in Europe. Subsequent mailings to Canada, Australia and the United States took place on Thursday, Friday and today.
Issue #147 also includes:
* An update on the Alamo Plaza Restoration Plan
* Information on recent Texana auctions that feature documents by Crockett, Travis, Houston, Dickinson, Burnet and others
* Details about the new Sam Houston documentary
* Information about the scheduled Alamo Society 2008 Symposium in San Antonio
* A review of The Alamo: A Visual Celebration of John Wayne's Classic Movie
* "Documents of the Texian Revolution"
* A new Alamo poem, "Alamo Pyre: March 6, 1836," by Dr. Floyd Collins
* A new Alamo song, "My Alamo," by Mike Petee
* Pages of "Alamo News"
* A "Membership Profile" of former Alamo curator Sam Nesmith.
The Alamo Journal: for those who remember the Alamo!
It's never too late to "cross the line."
_________________
Bill Chemerka
editor: The Alamo Journal
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 10, 2007 14:34:27 GMT -5
Mine arrived today; and it is indeed a very interesting and important article. Personally I'm well convinced by Mark's argument that the present church is set back from the plaza to avoid the ruins of the collapsed original and that the wall connecting the church with the Long Barracks is the only surviving fragment of that original church.
The theory, convincing as it is, does raise an interesting supplementary question.
Secondary sources refer to the space immediately in front of the current church as the mission's campo santo or burying ground.
Is there actually any evidence of this?
As I read Mark's interpretation this area will have been a combination of rubble and building site all the way through until work on the present building was abandoned prior to desecularisation.
This is an important point because as Mark points out a dig in this area should reveal plenty of evidence of the original church - and this will be a whole lot easier to achieve if it doesn't have any burial ground taboos attaching to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 10, 2007 23:50:52 GMT -5
I mentioned elsewhere that it is a great article, which I've only just begun looking at in detail. the drawings and captions showing the evolution of the convento area and the original and current church buildings are fascinating and valuable.
Regarding the campo santo, last March, Wolf took us to a spot near the plaza where there once had been a marker saying that it was the sight of the campo santo, but the marker was gone. So, I, too, am curious if there is any new thinking or evidence regarding that location. Stuart is right; if it is a burial ground it will result in possible restrictions on excavation in the area.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 11, 2007 0:56:35 GMT -5
Am I the only one still waiting for the new issue??
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 11, 2007 8:36:22 GMT -5
I don't know; check with Wolf. I think he holds the record for being last to receive "AJ". It's worth waiting for; be sure to check out Mark's articles and the illustrations when it does arrive.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Dec 12, 2007 17:06:10 GMT -5
Great issue. I've been looking through George Nelson's "The Alamo: An Illustrated History" and comparing Nelson's 1745 and 1785 views to Mark Lemon's (Figure 3). Except for the absence of the bell tower and sacristy in Nelson's views, the church looks remarkably similar, including the footprint. Is there archeaological evidence for this church?
Nelson reverses the chronology a little, having it built as a temporary adobe church after the first stone church (where the church now stands) collapsed. Lemon has it built first, of stone; then the present church being built where it now stands using the rubble of the first church as a stone quarry. I wish Nelson had put more explanatory text for his illustrations so we could tell how his analysis ran. Mark -- did you talk with George Nelson?
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 12, 2007 18:12:37 GMT -5
Great issue. I've been looking through George Nelson's "The Alamo: An Illustrated History" and comparing Nelson's 1745 and 1785 views to Mark Lemon's (Figure 3). Except for the absence of the bell tower and sacristy in Nelson's views, the church looks remarkably similar, including the footprint. Is there archeaological evidence for this church? Nelson reverses the chronology a little, having it built as a temporary adobe church after the first stone church (where the church now stands) collapsed. Lemon has it built first, of stone; then the present church being built where it now stands using the rubble of the first church as a stone quarry. I wish Nelson had put more explanatory text for his illustrations so we could tell how his analysis ran. Mark -- did you talk with George Nelson? Bob No Bob, I haven't spoken with Mr Nelson, but it isn't through lack of trying. Last June, in a spirit of goodwill, I invited him to attand the reception/presentation I was giving for my book, which was held in the St Anthony's Hotel in San Antonio. I received no reply, and he did not attend, but a very good authority has it that upon being told about my book, he supposedly replied: "Why's he doing THAT? It's all been done before!" There are alot of toes in this field of study, and it seems hard to avoid stepping on a few when some forward strides are made. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 14, 2007 14:51:06 GMT -5
My issue arrived yesterday, and I'll agree with everyone else that it's a fine issue.
Mark, your article was illuminating and makes, I think, a very strong case.
A couple of questions: You mention that church services were held in the granary while the collapsed church was undergoing reconstruction. Is this based on the fact that it was the only large space available, or is there other evidence?
Did the arcade in the courtyard collapse due to disprepair and neglect, or did Cos's men pull it down either to use the materials for ramps or to clear the ground for some tactical purpose? Was it constructed of stone and if so, why the problems with structural integrity in this area of the compound? I guess I'm just curious as to why this area would have collapsed...the tower on the church makes sense, but why so the arcade.
Thanks,
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 17, 2007 20:17:06 GMT -5
My issue arrived yesterday, and I'll agree with everyone else that it's a fine issue. Mark, your article was illuminating and makes, I think, a very strong case. A couple of questions: You mention that church services were held in the granary while the collapsed church was undergoing reconstruction. Is this based on the fact that it was the only large space available, or is there other evidence? Did the arcade in the courtyard collapse due to disprepair and neglect, or did Cos's men pull it down either to use the materials for ramps or to clear the ground for some tactical purpose? Was it constructed of stone and if so, why the problems with structural integrity in this area of the compound? I guess I'm just curious as to why this area would have collapsed...the tower on the church makes sense, but why so the arcade. Thanks, Jim Jim, Much of my knowledge and understanding of the architectural state of the mission comes from discussions with Jake Ivey and Craig Covner, both of whom are now members of this forum. I took much of Jake's data, and compared it to my own readings of much of the same materials he used. While we agree on the great majority of things regarding the Alamo's evolution/de-evolution, there are a few areas of divergence. In any event, the great majority of facts concerning the progress, placement, and description of the mission's buildings comes from the "inventories" taken periodically during the mission period. While translations exist of varying quality, it is fairly clear from the inventories that the granary, located at the northern end of the "long barrack", or near the northwest corner of the friary compound, was utilized for many years as a church, until such time as a more permanent structure could be built. It wasn't until 1763, when the sacristy was completed, that the franciscans moved their services from the granary to the sacristy. As anyone who has been around construction sites in general, or old ruined ones in particular can attest, if a building, even a strong masonry one, is left unfinished, degredation soon begins. Water and plant intrusion, added to intense heat and cold (expansion/contraction)changes over time is the culprit. The cement roofs of both the convento apartments and arcades were laid over a layer of wooden boards, laid side by side, and topped usually with a layer of straw. These boards were laid over horizontal wooden beams tied into the vertical walls, which supported the whole affair. If ANY portion of any roof was unfinished, water soon found its way in, and began the process of decomposition (of the wood) and disruption of the mortar. In fact, the problem most often mentioned in the inventories is that of faulty roofs, and this was with constant upkeep. Imagine their state if left to the elements. Anyway, the convento complex was never completed, and, as Jake has said, by 1772 had reached its apex of development, when a sever manpower/labor shortage precluded any significant further construction. From that time onward, the Alamo was in a constant state of degredation. By the 1830's, the convento complex must have been a mess, with some sections of arcade standing, a few arches having fallen, as well as many of the apartment roofs having fallen in. Cos must have quickly seen that he could do a "two-fer," meaning that, in clearing out all the rubble, he'd have not only a usable space (horse pen/artillery park?) but also have tons of building material for the ramps and other defensive positions that he eventually made. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 17, 2007 21:33:40 GMT -5
Makes sense to me, thanks Mark.
Jim
|
|
