Well, this afternoon, it was back to work in Central Texas. One of the tasks for the afternoon was to search for the remains of the 1877 surveyor's mark at the NE corner of the 211.4 acre Lot 17.
Fortunately for me, a county work crew had cut some of the cane along the sides of the road in the search area, but there was still the thick mat of roots that had to be chopped through to dig in the sticky black clay soil.
Here is what I finally turned up by careful work with a probe. This is what I take to be the remains of the original stone mound, now buried about 16 inches down by soil that had washed in and/or that had been pushed over it by road work.
The 1877 surveyor's plat gives data which makes a distance of 2258 varas (6272.22 ft) from the reentrant corner on the East line of Lot 22 that I found marked by an old stake and mound corner to the NE corner of Lot 17. The actual distance from the old stake and mound to this is 2260.275 varas (6278.54 ft.), which was fairly good chaining for 1877 in that terrain.
Explanatory Note for Easterners
You know, I posted the above before recalling that some Eastern surveyors in places like New Hampster may not ever have occasion to dig for a corner unless it has snowed recently. When I get a chance, I'll post a photo of the high-tech implement known as a "shovel" that was used in this work.
BTW this search location was narrowed using, among other things, the 1938 surveyor's field notes that indicated he had found a fence corner nearby. While the fence has since been moved about 10 ft. back from its location in 1938, I was able to pick up the stubs of a couple of posts and used them to refine the search area as a strip along the former fence falling about a vara either way from the position in which the 1938 surveyor had reported finding a fence corner that he accepted as the NW corner of Lot 17 for his work on Lot 19 about half a mile SW.
thanks, I was wondering
4 rocks next to a roadway? That's a mound? I cannot image that the mound would still be undisturbed by the roadway construction. Was the road there in 1877? I bet you were relieved to find it after all the digging? How many holes have you dug in Texas?
thanks, I was wondering
> 4 rocks next to a roadway? That's a mound?
No, but more than ten are. I just exposed the top stones and probed the rest to verify the top stones were resting on others. To fully excavate the mound would be nice, but not necessary.
I haven't yet checked when the road was originally established, but it's highly unlikely that it was there in 1877. The odds are considerably better that it dates from a time after the subdivision was made (and after the railroad arrived).
Kent : nice find. Just as a point of curiosity, are there random stones of the size and shape of those found defining the mound scattered about in that area or did the surveyor making that mound have to haul the stones in from elsewhere?
> Just as a point of curiosity, are there random stones of the size and shape of those found defining the mound scattered about in that area or did the surveyor making that mound have to haul the stones in from elsewhere?
Alan, the prairie in 1877 was probably littered with limestone and chert cobbles like that (fist to grapefruit-sized) that a mound builder could collect and lay in a pile. What is unusual about that pile is that it is of cobbles stacked on top of cobbles. That's the clue that it's artificial.
Kent : just playing devil's advocate. I was in court today and I haven't completely geared down, yet.
>just playing devil's advocate.
In my experience, it isn't usually warranted to assume that a stone mound will be in perfect shape 100 years later, particularly in a location on the shoulder of a road, but you do have to insist that what you find satisfy some elements in order to be considered a mound. They are:
1) artificial-looking arrangement,
2) more than ten fist-to-grapefruit-sized stones or more than four cantaloupe-sized stones in a cluster, with some stones resting on other more embedded stones,
3) cluster has center,
4) prior history of recovery or facts tending to show that the position isn't inconsistent with other more definite evidence.
I'd certainly call that a mound-there doesn't seem to be other rocks turning up on the way down and it looks just like all the 1880 era mounds I've seen.
6' in 6000', chained in 1877, that would be so close for what I'm used to that I'd start to wonder.....
Are you going to leave the cap buried because of the cane?
We usually bury any monument about 18" in a cultivated field and that looks about the same depth.
> Are you going to leave the cap buried because of the cane?
> We usually bury any monument about 18" in a cultivated field and that looks about the same depth.
I set that rod and cap about 14 inches down, just a few inches above the top of the mound, so that another surveyor can uncover the mound for himself or herself without taking my word for it, but leave the rod and cap in place while doing it. The other element is that while the county road hardly looks over-maintained, there's a chance that the shoulder will get dressed up when the road is worked. More likely, a future widening will just bury the mound and rod and cap.
As for the chaining, the line most likely ran in prairie in 1877 and the quality of the measurement is not unlike what I've seen other chainmen do on lines run in the area in that period.
That is my Great Great Uncle Charley, buried there after being killed by the Comanches in 1854. That stone mound was to mark his grave and to keep the local predictors from digging him up. Had you done more digging you would have made that discovery. Best go back and check, while you are there, say hello for me.
jud
Explanatory Note for Easterners
Your right Kent we wouldn't use a shovel to dig up a monument that is only 16" down. We save the shovel to recover monuments that were set when Texas was still answering to the Queen of Spain and which probably 2 or 3 feet down.
