Earthen Estructures

8/13/2019 Earthen Estructures

1/6

1 FOREWORD

In 1699, Padre Piccolo, the founder of the mission ofSan Francisco Javier de Biaund, travelled from theLoreto mission to the opposite coast in the peninsulaof Baja California with a view to finding a favour-able spot for the docking of galleons coming fromManila that needed to obtain provisions after theirlong voyage across the Pacific. The expedition, de-scribed in a letter to Padre Juan Mara Salvatierra,served as a magnificent synopsis of the expeditionand occupation of the territory, where the construc-tion of mission churches was a fundamental item inthe consolidation of the settlement and evangelisa-

tion of the population.This construction involved a process that wentfrom the erection of an initial vegetable structure tothe final stone building, with an intermediate stagein which an adobe structure filled the most urgent li-turgical needs. This text aims to analyse this processin which earth is the main ingredient, as we can seein the series of missions built in the peninsula ofBaja California between 1697 and 1832, constitutinga Mexican heritage that deserves every effort to con-serve and revalue it. All of this forms part of the re-search carried out in the R&D project funded by theMinistry of Science and Innovation, The missionsof Baja California between the 17th and 19th centu-ries. Cultural landscape and implementation ofvalue, developed between 2009 and 2012.

2 OCCUPATIOIN OF TERRITORY IN BAJACALIFORNIA

The peninsula of Baja California constituted a pe-ripheral space in the colonial context, where steadysettlement was sought from the very early 16th cen-tury although it was not until the end of the 17th thatit was consolidated, an aspect magnificently docu-mented by authors like Miguel Lon Portilla (2000).The arrival of the Company of Jesus marked the firstimportant occupation phase during which a series ofmissions were erected scattered about the south ofthe territory. The expulsion of the members of theorder between 1767 and 1768 was also a key mo-

ment: a watershed that led to the arrival of Francis-cans and Dominicans and the definitive allotment ofthe south sector of the peninsula and, by extension,the whole coast of what was known at the time asAlta California, which underwent a similar occupa-tion process from 1769 onwards, as described byMartha Ortega Soto (1999) and Iigo Abbad y Sierra(1981).

It was precisely the Jesuit order that turned themissions into an indispensable element to attain suc-cessfully both spiritual, material and territorial con-trol of the native people and the Pacific coast, actingas an authentic advance party of a political systemwhich had recourse to it at given moments, accord-ing to Eugene H. Boltons account (1990). In thiscontext, it was the members of the Company of Je-

Earthen structures in the missions of Baja California (Mxico)Miguel ngel Sorroche CuervaUniversidad de Granada. Departamento de Historia del Arte.

ABSTRACT: The use of soil was common in the building of missions in the Mexican region of Baja Califonia. Adobe was used in churches and additional buildings as a response to the urgent need of constructioand before it was substituted with stone. Not all the missions have been preserved until today. The mission built and occupied by Franciscans and Dominicans allow us to have a better idea of the architectural historythese buildings. On the other hand, just some remains of the Jesuit missions have been preserved. All of theconstitute a significant Mexican heritage, representative of a period when consolidation of borderlands wasimportant as the evangelisation of indigenous population. The mission as an institution was equally useful the purposes of both the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown.


2/6

sus who defined a management model that deter-mined what Ignacio del Ro (2003) called the JesuitRegime, insofar as it represented a way of under-standing the spread of faith and in which the charac-teristics of the territory led to the fusion of religiousand political tasks.

These functions required suitable spaces in whichto carry them out and which were determined, more

than by the links with the peoples to be evangelised, by the political implications of the need to control aspecific area like the Baja California coast, exposedto a great deal of external pressure.

That would explain, like in the case of the Do-minicans building programme, that a defensiveelement was included in their plans, an aspect that inthe case of the Jesuit missions had been a componentincorporated more as part of the decoration of the buildings than as a real element, as we can see in ex-amples like the missions of San Francisco Javier deBiaund or Santa Rosala de Muleg..

3 FOUNDATION & CONSTRUCTION OF THEMISSIONS

Many sources provide details about the foundationof the missions, and the first moments of the con-struction of their most essential components were noexception, as we have pointed out in other works(2007 & 2011a). A perfectly established work

method is surprising, regarding both the location ofthe new settlements and the construction phases theyemployed in their primary architectures. Theseguidelines suggest a systematic procedure, goingfrom the choice of place, clearly determined by theinformation provided by the natives, to the initialtemporary vegetable structures, which gave way tostable adobe buildings, which allow us to identifythe use of processes, materials and building methodsat each stage before making the final stone building,as we are told by authors like Barco (1988), Baegert(1989), Clavijero (1970) or Palou (1994).

In any case, these buildings are erected thanks tothe experience of both the priests themselves in thecase of Miguel del Barco and the building of themission of San Francisco Javier de Biaund in the18th century and the soldiers, who participated in theconstruction of the preliminary adobe structure thatserved as a church until the definitive building wasmade, as described by Padre Piccolo and narrated byIgnacio del Ro (2000).

It was essential to train the native people in orderto have plenty of manpower to build some compo-

nents considered indispensable for the evangelisationand indoctrination process fast enough, using it as agood excuse to inculcate new habits that would con-tribute to the civilisation of the groups of natives,restructuring their familiar surroundings by arrang-

ing them hierarchically, where the centre would bethe church and, by extension, the mission itself, a practice described to perfection by Nieser (1998) andappraised by Sorroche Cuerva (2011b).

Figure 1. Santo Domingo Mission. 1775.

The structures that have lasted until our day pro-vide us with some testimonies of this process, whichwould explain the reason for constructing with soil,for which they used adobes on top of stone founda-tions and in which other local materials were alsoused. So, although the Jesuits only have the remainsof the mission of San Francisco de Borja as a clearexample of a process that was common practice inthe other foundations built until 1767; the mission ofSan Fernando de Velicat, built in 1769 and the onlyone erected by the Franciscans, shows us the remainsof what must have been the main building andwhose structure barely remains standing, and is cur-rently at the mercy of the inclemency of the weather.

It is definitely the remains of the Dominican mis-sions, despite their state of repair, that best reveal thetypology of the missions made of earth in the area ofBaja California. They are building units set aroundopen spaces around which all the different areaswere located, such as the sleeping quarters for thenatives and monks, rooms for military use and de-fence structures, where, as we said above, soil is theundeniable protagonist from a structural point ofview, the most trustworthy descriptions of which are provided by authors like Meigs, who visited them between 1926 and 1930 (1994).

4 SOIL AS A BUILDING MATERIAL

If we visit all the missions, we can see the diver-sity of materials and building methods used. Theseare in some cases solutions of extraordinary struc-tural quality, which, as far as earth is concerned, provide less important examples due to the poorcondition of the remains that still exist. In this sense,that earth was a material used to erect these build-ings is not only evident by examining these remains, but also thanks to the references we find in the


3/6

sources that speak of structures like churches, sleep-ing quarters and storerooms made out of adobe.

Added to this we have inventories of tools and in-struments to build and maintain them. It is interest-ing to note that when the Jesuits were expelled andthe missions were taken over by the Franciscans, thelatter made lists of the items contained in them in1773, as part of the process involved in handing the

management over to the Dominicans, and as a resultof the agreement between both congregations, brought about by the readjustment of objectives car-ried out by the governor, Gaspar de Portol, and thevisitor, Jos de Glvez (2003). In these inventories,studied by authors like Coronado (1994), there is adetailed description of each mission, especially ofobjects listed under the headings masonry andcarpentry. In these sections, apart from referencesto the above mentioned departments and their build-ing characteristics, setting apart those made ofadobe, the mention ofadoberas (adobe moulds),adoberas de horno (kiln moulds), ladrilleras(brickworks),escuadras (carpenters squares),cart-abones (set squares), plomadas (plumbs), etc., is atoken of the knowledge of the basic principles ofadobe construction that the people who lived there possessed.

Together with the sources, collections of docu-ments and chronicles, examining the missions thatwere built in the peninsula of Baja California andvisiting them gives us an idea of the dimension ofthe population and territorial control exerted from

the end of the 17th

century and allows us to recon-struct the building process and the use of materialsand techniques in such an out-of-the-way territory,far from colonial decision-making centres and sub- ject in many cases to a degree of self-supply thatclearly required them to erect their own buildings, asis reflected to perfection in works such as that byVernon (2002).

Not all the religious sites share the same charac-teristics. We have mentioned in passing the featuresof the most important cases of each of the orders. Inany case, all the remains of their adobe structures arenot still standing, although we know they existed.What we do know is that the occupation process af-ter the expulsion of the Jesuits was determined byhaste to build the missions, which permitted the con-solidation of settlements to stabilise the borderlands,apart from evangelisation. Thus, from 1769 onwards,the mission of San Fernando de Velicat, at the cen-tre of the peninsula, was the final point in the abovementioned territorial restructuring order dictated byViceroy Gaspar de Portol. This led to the arrival ofthe Dominicans in the eighteen seventies to close the

itinerary designed as the Camino Real de lasMisiones, which connected this mission with thefirst Franciscan mission in Alta California, SanDiego, also founded on the same date. In this way, itwas the responsibility of the Dominicans to close

this itinerary, which is currently the most completeset of earth structures that can be found in Baja Cali-fornia.

5 ADOBE MISSIONS IN BAJA CALIFORNIA

Although in the existing descriptions we can see the

variety of materials used and the many buildings thatformed them, let us examine the most outstandingexamples that have lasted till our days to understandthe physiognomy and characteristics of their earthstructures.

As regards these missions, we have already pointed out that each of the three religious ordersthat went to Baja California left their adobe struc-tures within an integral occupation process thatforms part of a perfectly established general dy-namic. In the case of the Jesuits, we have said thatonly one of them remains today, scantly protected bya metal structure: San Francisco de Borja, the re-mains of a spacious building in the shape of a Latincross similar in size to those later built by the Do-minicans.

All the knowledge we have of the other Jesuitmissions is indirect. In this sense, in the letter wementioned above from Padre Piccolo to Juan MaraSalvatierra, he has the following to say about theadobe structure of San Francisco Javier Biaund(2000): Mientras se iba tomando lengua y noticiadel camino y distancia que haba desde este paraje a

la mar de la contracosta quiso el capitn [AntonioGarca de] Mendoza con los soldados ocuparse enhacer unos adobes para la nueva capilla de San

Francisco Javier. Divididos, pues, en dos cuadrillasde a siete soldados [cada una], hicieron en dos dasdos mil y quinientos adobes. Y el capitn, que dio

principio a la obra, con su compaero hizo quinien-tos adobes la primera maana, y la otra cuadrilla,

por la tarde, fizo seiscientos adobes .The exact measurements of this building are given

here (2000): En fin, los compaeros en dos das le-vantaron la capilla de siete varas de largo y cuatro ymedia de ancho. En otros dos das quisieron levan-tar para m, indigno de todo alivio, un aposento y un

salita, y en otros dos das se tech la capilla que,aunque de zacate, qued hermosa .

As we have said, the Dominicans had the mostimportant group of missions. Rosario Mission is oneof the most important, both because of the valley inwhich it was situated and which it controlled and be-cause it is a mission made in two building stages,which meant that it was moved from the initial site,which was also the case of other foundations such as

San Francisco Javier and Nuestra Seora de losngeles, the first and the last missions founded bythe Jesuits.

In the case of the mission in Rosario, there arehardly any remains left of the two buildings, al-


4/6

though it is one of the best examples to allow us un-derstand the mission in its geographic context, per-mitting us to see the reason why this location waschosen, away from the irregular flow of the riversand streams of Baja California described by Meigs(1994).

This same author (1994) explains that the basicstructure of these missions was made around a

courtyard in general terms, but it was not applied inall cases. In the first mission at Rosario. the mainfeature of the site was a spacious enclosure or court-yard, around three sides of which buildings were placed, while all the openings not closed by build-ings were filled in with sections of wall []. In thecourtyard, activities could be performed withoutdanger of robbery or attacks by wild Indians and atthe same time the people would congregate in a place where it would be easy for one of the priests towatch them. The church stood out among these buildings for its size and physiognomy, which usu-ally meant it was the most clearly identifiable struc-ture, as the author himself says: In the north of thecourtyard, standing out from it, was the largest build-ing, the church, running all along the main entrance.This building can be identified by its size [44 x 9metres]

The very structure of the site denotes some of thefeatures of these missions, which are very well de-scribed in the chronicles the priests wrote after theirexpulsion. As regards the sleeping quarters of part ofthe native population, Meigs says (1994): The long

row of rooms three and a half metres wide in the eastof the courtyard was probably the dormitories for theIndians living at the mission This reference sug-gests that part of the floating population of nativesthat went to the missions stayed there for a given pe-riod of time to help with the building works andmaintenance.

Similarly, the role the military garrison played inthese buildings can be seen from the space dedicatedto their quarters, which leads us to believe that thenumber of soldiers was larger at this mission than atothers, where the sources speak of two or three sol-diers.

As far as the techniques and materials used thereare concerned, as Meigs also points out (1994): Al-though the traces of walls make it possible to recon-struct partly the floor plan of the mission, there is nosimilar proof to give us an idea of its vertical outline.Besides, as far as the author knows, no sketch orother image of this or any other mission built by theDominicans in Baja California before they were de-stroyed has been conserved (if it ever even existed).We know that the buildings at Rosario Mission had

mud-covered girders in the roofs. This can be de-duced from the fact that no fragments of roof tileswere found near the buildings. The walls were probably plastered like in other missions, becausenear the exterior embankment the remains of a kiln

that was probably used to fire lime were found. Thelime could be extracted from the large numbers ofshells at hand, or poorer quality lime from caliche.They are both used occasionally nowadays. An in-teresting description, especially since no mention ismade of the adobe structures that have lasted untilour day, one of the features that best defines bothtypes at the present time.

Figure 2. San Fernando de Velicat Mission. 1769.

Figure 3. Mission of Nuestra Seora del Rosario. 1775.As regards the second Rosario Mission, it is lo-

cated in a more advantageous spot than the first andis believed to have been founded between 1799 and1802. Its floor plan is less pretentious and unifiedthan the former, without its multifunction courtyardMeigs (1994) describes how at the very edge of theterreplein where it was built, there stands a build-ing a bit apart, which measured 4 by 17 metres(probably divided into rooms), which might have been a storeroom. Further up, completely on the ter-race, was the main courtyard surrounded by walls,with one end forming a pen and a three-room build-ing on the opposite side. The largest room in this building is believed to have been the church, for it isnot only higher than the building mentioned above

but seems to have been more painstakingly con-structed. The adjacent room, which measures 6 by 10metres, was probably the sacristy, and the little roomthat measures 2 by 3 metres a cell or a confessional box.


5/6

As in the first case, the area of the military garri-son is different from the mission itself: Behind themain courtyard, as usual, was the military courtyard,at a corner of which, according to tradition, stood thesoldiers living quarters (1994). But what leaves noroom for doubt is the fact that the building systemused counted on the use of earth as a basic material, besides others to be found near the mission. (1994):

As a whole, the ruins of the second mission are lessdeteriorated than the first, as was to be expected, andallow us to have a clearer idea of the constructiondetails. The foundations of the solid earthen wallsare stones from the river bed, gently stuck withadobe mortar. The superstructure is adobe brick(made up of a mixture of earth and chipped organicresidues), mostly 30 by 30 by 7 centimetres, laid outin rows and held together by twenty-five or twelvemillimetres of mortar of the same material. The timber that could have been used in the mission forroofs, doorframes and similar things has disappearedentirely, either because it has rotted or because it wasused as firewood. Timber could not have been animportant element in the structure, because the onlysupply available was weak little willow branches.

Another important mission founded by the Do-minicans is Santo Domingo. It is again an exampleof the selection process of the final site thanks to afirst building. It is one of the most outstanding mis-sions in Baja California to judge from the remainsthat still exist. The description given of it by Meigs(1994) provides quite a clear idea of what it was like

in the early 20th

century and of its conservation proc-ess until the present day: The courtyard is a quad-rangle, smaller than the one in the first Rosario mis-sion, for it only measures. 58 by 53 metres. Thechurch is small too, 15 by 8 metres. Along withother adjacent buildings, it occupies all the side ofthe quadrangle giving on to the stream. The buildingdetails worth noting are: foundations of cornerstonesfrom the nearby hills, roughly connected to form afairly smooth exterior surface; adobe walls one me-tre thick, containing large pieces of rock, plasteredinside and out; heavy wooden lintels and built-inshelves; at least one of the buildings (next to thechurch) had an attic; and a buttress made of stonesroughly joined together to prop up the attic in thewest.

Furthermore, in this mission there are traces of theuse of earth in infrastructures like: the solidadobe and stone terreplein two metres high and up tothree metres thick that seems to have served as adyke to divert waters flooding down from the hill-side (1994). And we find the same system also inone of the diversion channels of the irrigation

ditches (1994): According to local tradition, therewas a low adobe dyke across the stream near the cur-rent upper ends of the irrigation ditches. This use iscomplemented by the presence of adobe in a kiln be-lieved to have been used to burn lime, where the but-

tresses and some andirons were made by this tech-nique.

The San Vicente Mission, the largest of thosefounded by the Dominicans, is one of the most out-standing adobe buildings in the peninsula, alwaysaccording to the Dominican model (1994): Themost remarkable feature of the layout of the SanVicente Mission was its size. San Vicente was the

largest of the Dominican establishments, despite thefact that its population was not particularly numer-ous. The layout of the buildings according to the plans suggests a few reasons for this size. Within thesurrounding wall, threevaras high (Spanish meas-ure .84 m) with towers (Sales, report 3:70), whichfollows the irregularities of the boundaries of thenatural platform of the buildings instead of all beinggathered around a central courtyard, the buildingsare grouped in two unconnected similar-sized quad-rangles (1994).

Figure 4. San Vicente Ferrer Mission. 1780.

One of these quadrangles, which runs along thefront edge of the south side of the platform, was un-doubtedly the main religious centre, with a churchmeasuring 22 by 6 3/8, the priests cells, sleepingquarters for the Indians and probably some ware-houses. The second quadrangle, at the foot of the promontory, is not well conserved. It was probablythe guards headquarters (1994)

In the case of San Miguel Mission, we find severalaspects of interest (1994). Not only the techniqueused to build it, but its structure, which is laid outaround a courtyard and reuses a Pre-Hispanic spaceas a referential element for reducing and indoctrinat-ing the native people..

6 CONCLUSIONS

Today the series of adobe buildings in the Baja

California missions constitute an important part ofwhat their structures originally comprised. Althoughone of the factors that have most affected them isweathering, they have also suffered from acts ofvandalism.


6/6

Immerse in a deterioration process from the verymoment they were abandoned in the first half of the19th century, the fact that they constituted a source ofreusable materials, like the roofs, was the reason thattheir degradation started immediately.

At the present time conservation works are being performed on them. Since the nineteen nineties,there have been attempts to stop the deterioration

process by means of stabilising interventions. A preservation method created by the INAH, whichconsisted in covering the adobe structures with a paste made out of clays from the region with the ad-dition of a natural adhesive of vegetable, animal ormineral origin, such as cochineal nopal sap, manureor lime. The small amount conserved, less than 40%in some cases, makes it impossible to reconstructthem in the literal sense of the word.

REFERENCES

Abbad y Sierra, I. 1981. Descripcin de las costas de Califor-nia . Madrid: CSIC.

Baegert, J.J. 1989. Noticias de la pennsula americana de Cali- fornia . La Paz: Gobierno del Estado de Baja California Sur.

Barco. M. 1988. Historia natural y crnica de la Antigua Cali- fornia . Mxico: UNAM.

Bolton, E. H. 1990. La misin como institucin de frontera enel septentrin de Nueva Espaa. Francisco de Solano &Salvador Bernabu Albert. Estudios (nuevos y viejos sobrela frontera). Anexo 4 de Revista de Indias: 45-60. Madrid:CSIC.

Clavijero, F.J. 1970. Historia de la Antigua o Baja California .Mxico: Porra.

Coronado, E. M. 1994. Descripcin e inventarios de las misio-nes de Baja California, 1773 . La Paz: Gobierno del Estadode Baja California Sur.

Len Portilla, M. 2000. La California mexicana. Ensayosacerca de su historia . Mxico: UNAM-UABC.

Lpez Guzmn, R. & Ruiz Gutirrez, A. & Sorroche Cuerva,M.A. 2007. Sistemas constructivos en la arquitectura reli-giosa del siglo XVIII en las misiones de Baja California delSur (Mxico). In M. ARENILAS & C. SEGURA & F.BUENO & S. HUERTA (eds.). Actas del Quinto Congreso

Nacional de Historia de la Construccin , Burgos, 7- 9 Ju-nio 2007 : 577-586. Madrid: Instituto Juan de Herrera SedHC CICCP CEHOPU.

Meigs, P. 1994. La frontera misional dominica en Baja Cali- fornia . Tijuana: Universidad Autnoma de Baja California.

Nieser, A. N. 1998. Las fundaciones misionales dominicas en Baja California. 1762-1822 . Tijuana: Universidad Aut-noma de Baja California.

Ortega Soto, M. 1999. Colonizacin de Alta California. Prime-ros asentamientos espaoles.Signos Histricos (1): 85-103.

Palou, F. 1994.Cartas desde la pennsula de California (1768-1773) . Mxico: Porra.

Ro, I. 2000.Crnicas jesuticas de la Antigua California .

Mxico: UNAM.Ro, I. 2003. El rgimen jesutico en la Antigua California .Mxico: UNAM.

Rodrguez-Sala, M. L. 2003. Los Gobernadores de las Califor-nias. 1767-1804. Contribuciones a la expansin territorial

y del conocimiento . Mxico: UNAM/Instituto de Investiga-ciones Sociales.

Sorroche Cuerva, M. A. 2011a. Baja California. El espacio pa-trimonial. In: Miguel ngel Sorroche (ed.), El patrimoniocultural en las misiones de Baja California. Estado de lacuestin y perspectivas de futuro : 39-77. Granada: Atrio.

Sorroche Cuerva, M. A. 2011b. El paisaje cultural como patri-monio en Baja California. Millars. Espai i Histria . (34):119-139.

Vernon, E. W. 2002. Las misiones antiguas. The Spanish Mis- sions of Baja California . Santa Barbara: California MissionStudies Association.

Earthen Estructures

Documents

Transcript of Earthen Estructures