Sources of vara chains and/or a vara standard
I have heard that as well and I think there were times that it was actually included in the manual. However, I do not believe many actually followed the rules all that closely. A piece of unused equipment could not be tolerated when you were miles and miles from "civilization" and your other piece of equipment was broken.
Sources of vara chains and/or a vara standard
another avenue - The vara value (33.33333") established by Texas law was in 1919. Most nominal values of the vara (Mexican) in the 1800's were either at 33 inches, or very slightly under. A 0.33" diff alone can make 20 varas difference over course of a mile.
Catalog entries for Vara chains
I went through a bunch of my old catalogs today and the 1874 Gurley catalog is the oldest one I have that lists Vara chains. Other catalogs started with them shortly there after. I don't want to say that there are no prior entries, but my collection of old catalogs is about as good as any.
Dave
> The county surveyor in each county, by statute, was to set up a baseline where all chains could be calibrated and an observation line where each compass could be adjusted.
>
> Whether or not it was done is up for grabs, but the intent was never to have to travel across Texas to see if your stuff was on or not. It was the county surveyors job.
This land I'm dealing with was in Bexar Land District in 1847 and the District Surveyor and the chain standard was in San Antonio, about 200 miles away from the land being surveyed. There were other parts of Bexar Land District that were more than 400 miles from San Antonio.
They didn't sweat the little stuff back then. LOL!
Length of vara
> The vara value (33.33333") established by Texas law was in 1919.
Actually, the length of the vara that was formally adopted by statute in 1919 (after the Texas public domain had already been entirely appropriated) merely recognized the value of 33-1/3 inches that in 1837 the first commissioner of the GLO, John Borden, instructed all County Surveyors and their deputies to use. Commissioner Borden was within his authority to issue that instruction and thereafter you'll see that the GLO recognized a mile as being 1900.8 varas (or 1900 varas for those who thought the extra 0.8 vara was slicing the baloney a bit thin).
John Borden's instructions Kent
> However, the Mexican definition for the vara was "3 geometrical feet".
Well, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a set of field notes filed in the Texas GLO of a survey made after 1836 (and independence from Mexico) that has other than 1900.8 varas (or the round 1900 varas that saved time and ink when it was being written thousands of times in a West Texas block of surveys) as an English mile.
Kent
Obviously, I agree as I said "Mexican Grant". 🙂
I can't find (and I've looked) a definitive source that would define a "geometrical" foot for and around the time from 1800 to 1836. I only note that many Mexican grants I survey around seem to be VERY long using the standard vara definition but VERY close using 3 feet/vara.
Kent
> I only note that many Mexican grants I survey around seem to be VERY long using the standard vara definition but VERY close using 3 feet/vara.
If you're mainly surveying land in one former colony, you're probably following just a handful of the same surveyors, all surveyors of that colony. So it wouldn't be surprising at all that they were using the same length standards, even if those standards were somewhat arbitrarily derived. It would be interesting to know who exactly was making vara chains back before 1836 and how widely braided rope was used as an alternative.
Kent
That is entirely possible as most of the Mexican Grants that I've retraced have been in and around the old San Antonio Road in Cherokee County. All were surveyed between 1820 and 1834, and all from the Nacogdoches Area at that time. The one that comes to mind the most is the Senior Mexican Grant the Peter E. Bean League. It's actually recorded in Nacogdoches County Surveyor Records, but made it into our Deed Records some time later. It's all in Spanish, but not hard to figure out. 5000 varas square. However, when I measure it, instead of it being 13888.89 feet, it's actually closer to 14,800 feet nearly on all sides.
While it's not according to hoyle, I had the opportunity to measure every adjoiner to this and several other grants in my O&G work. While I know that rivers move, every other survey around it, has either it's call or some excess to where I come up with the boundaries of the Bean League.
It was a long winded project, and I was looking in some books for something else when I ran across the Mexican definition of the vara. When I then went back and looked at it again, I found, using 3 feet/vara, that the measurements worked then.
Whose foot they used to standardize the cordel is unknown to this surveyor. I always start out with 33 1/3 inches though.
Kent
> While I know that rivers move, every other survey around it, has either it's call or some excess to where I come up with the boundaries of the Bean League.
So, if I understand you, you're saying that you located the senior league from the junior surveys supposedly adjoining it? Was there some other evidence aside from the calls of the junior surveys that made you think that was the thing to do?
Kent
I figured you'd jump on that one. Actually, in a sense, yes. I located a junior mexican grant by 5 years off of the old san antonio road in a very visible spot and used it to create "search areas" for the original corners of the bean. Then the other lines were checked to other natural objects that were there at the time of the survey.
It wasn't according to hoyle, but I wasn't doing it for the GLO either.
🙂
Kent
> Then the other lines were checked to other natural objects that were there at the time of the survey.
Okay, so you found that the lines of the senior league located by that method intersected creeks and bayous (what other kinds of natural features are there in East Texas? :> ) in the ways consistent with the original surveyor's calls? That's not failing to give proper regard to the orignal surveyor's footsteps.
One thing that would interest me a bit would be whether the junior surveys actually made a sufficiently convincing report of having found the senior corners you assumed that they had. It can go both ways.
