Currently, Cambados wants to know if the remains found on San Benito Street are part of one of Fefinans’ missing arches. If the council found that it was a loose stone that had been removed from its original location, that it was not present anywhere else in the area and that it did not conflict with the opening of the trench, no excavation would be carried out to discover it and install the stormwater pipes. Heritage Commissioner Liso González explained this, saying that it had been cataloged and would be covered.
However, virtually everyone believed that this architectural element as defined in official reports would form part of the arch. One of them is the historian Sindo Mosteiro, who has collaborated with the archaeologists responsible for the urban reform projects that controlled the square, such as the project to restore the staircase. In 1842 it was ordered to be demolished, along with the building in the Raya Bar area. “Be prepared for everything because even if you are in your position, you have to be at the bow. “I heard there was some pipe work in nine years but they didn’t check to see if there was something there, or they removed it,” he lamented road.
Defensive blocking?
He and his colleague Maribel Iglesias took a closer look at the history of the heritage complex, whose first builder was Gonzalo de Varada in the 17th century Gonzalo de Valladares, they point out that the main access to the important market where the square once stood passed through there, coming from Carreiras Street – an obvious reference to the passage of cars – as early as in Villa Vila García Avenue was distinctly modern before it existed. However, they disagree as to whether the arches should be three or four. It’s an ancient struggle, but it doesn’t go beyond hypothesis, because currently, the only thing recorded is that there were three – and the third still exists. Of course, they left the decision of victory or defeat to the nobles and possible future tests, rather than to themselves.
The historian is one of those who defended more numbers for the “beauty, symmetry and logic, observing the street” and that the fourth would be located on Villa Garcia Avenue. In fact, one of his recent books proposes an even controversial theory, stating that the entire esplanade will be enclosed with arches, walls, or walls with a defensive function, similar to the Pazo de Oca.
Remains of Riancella
In his defence, he pointed to several issues, such as the fact that Lord Ferfinans was involved in battles against the Turks and was attacked by the British during that century. So much so that he believed that the remains of a wall that had appeared at Rianxeira during the same works, and indeed had forced a change in the route of the pipeline, might have been part of that structure. “They are so wide and a meter thick that they are worth naqueles tempos dun pazo or unha igrexa. This would be impossible for an ordinary house,” he explains.
Mostello admitted that the dimensions were inappropriate, but he found its shape and construction odd and suspected that it might have been the wall of Casa Pedrosa, “We know it was used to support the alps used by basket makers. of” “.
Based on the results of his research, Iglesias concluded that a fourth arch or passage could have led the lords from the manor directly to the church. Among other things, he pointed out the “sudden” interruption of the walls of the estate at that time, while Fefiñáns was a complete complex, and he wondered why “that space was left?” and then was “overly “strreita”. You The only feasible solution I can think of is that it takes up the space it used to have.
In addition to emphasizing that its foundations were too strong for a house of this type, he also noted the appearance of some of the moldings during the restoration of the San Benito staircase that were similar to other existing moldings in the area.Bridge arches and mansion walls
Precisely, Mostello was involved in this discovery and does not agree with it here either. He explained that during the excavation, in addition to these, other reused materials from different periods emerged – the staircase was dismantled in the 1970s – which, in his opinion, more likely came from temple renovations The way it looks before is aesthetically pleasing. Be consistent with the rest of your environment. But most importantly, it shows that the original height was “lower than it is today”, differing by about two meters from the estate’s walls, which seems to have a lot to do with it. Arch or passage.
2018: “Missed Opportunities”
And the works continue to surprise people. Yesterday, the remains of new interest seemed to know how the square was configured and, of course, as Mostero pointed out, it can be seen that it was completely urbanized over a long period of time. This time, it was a section of drainage ditch about four meters long, also next to Rovira’s house. However, they can be very ancient or very modern, as “this type of channeling has been used for centuries, even as late as the 1950s.”
The historian also regrets that the council has done nothing to correct some of the inconsistencies or uncertainties about local history that appear in the brochure and official website. Furthermore, no further excavations were carried out in 2018 on Calle Real: “It was a lost opportunity.” Some walls that may have come from the arches emerged.