Yesterday's field work involved looking for a corner of a 160 acre land grant from the State of Texas originally surveyed in 1882. The corner was described by the surveyor who originally established it as "a pile of rock on East side of a hill". From other evidence found a half-mile away, I calculated a search position which did indeed fall on the east side of a hill. In the aerial photos, the corner appeared to fall in terrain where it should be easy to spot the rock mound if it still existed.
The calculated position fell about 12 feet East of a North-South wire fence that appeared to have been built some time in the last decade. There was no obvious trace of a rock mound to be seen from the search position and I could see a fair amount of the hillside. It was mostly limestone, with sparse tufts of short grasses and a few stunted cedars and live oaks just to break things up a little bit. The fence of recent origin appeared to have replaced a much older post and wire fence that had been laid to the side, mostly ending up on the side of the fence on which the search position fell, which led me to wonder how closely the newer fence had been built to the line along which the older fence ran.
Fifty-eight feet Southwest of the projected position of the corner, the new fence made the corner shown in the photo below, looking East from the fence corner.
Using a probe, I found the socket of a fence post hole a foot West of the fence corner post. From its size and depth, I concluded that the post hole probably had held a cedar post of the older fence. I went ahead and set a rod and cap monument (stamped "101, POST HOLE") in the post hole to have it as a reference point.
The fence running East from the old post hole made a jog in the first six feet and then continued East offset about 2.5 ft. South of a line run East from the post hole. The fence running North from the old post hole snaked back and forth as if some drunks had laid it out. I headed North along the fence to search along the West side, having turned up nothing conclusive on the East.
The GPS receiver in the photo below is about 17 ft. West and 24 ft. North of the original search position. The photo also shows the irregular alignment of the fence running North.
A jeep trail had been bulldozed along the West side of the fence, and in the process a windrow of rock, gravel, and soil had been pushed to the side along the fenceline.
At first impression, I saw nothing. Then I examined the material in the windrow more carefully and saw that virtually all of it looked like this:
That is, it was an ungraded mixture of the materials in the native soil, rocks of all different sizes from good-sized chunks to gravel, and mixed with soil in which native grasses were established, typical bulldozer debris for that setting.
But, among that bulldozer-placed material was a 2.8 ft. diameter cluster of something different enough that I set a rod and cap marker at its center.
It was a pile of more than 14 large rocks that looked pretty much exactly like what I would have expected a surveyor's rock mound in that setting to look like. It was a pile that had to have been placed by hand rather than machine.
There are other ties to other corners yet to be made, but so far the other evidence is confirming that this is in fact the 1882 surveyor's mark.
For the record, this rock mound is about 92 ft. East and 70 ft. South of the position of the corner shown in the Texas GLO GIS.
> For the record, this rock mound is about 92 ft. East and 70 ft. South of the position of the corner shown in the Texas GLO GIS.
Oh, and it's about 81 ft. North of the fence corner.
That is very cool Kent. It's interesting to me, that while what I search for in terms of boundary evidence here in New England is different, our overall methods are the same.
I don't know.
You are there with a better 'vision' of the situation. But if you look at the clouds ...do you see a surveyor rock pile in some formations?
Best regards from your favorite wiseazz
> You are there with a better 'vision' of the situation. But if you look at the clouds ...do you see a surveyor rock pile in some formations?
That was actually the novel feature of this one. When I glanced at the windrow the first time, all I saw was what looked like a windrow made by a dozer. Then, when I actually examined the thing, I realized that the windrow was camouflage for the rock mound that was still pretty much intact.
The rock mound in a cluttered background, such as along a rock fence with rocks fallen to the side of the fence, is usually a challenge, but if one looks carefully and filters out all the stuff that doesn't have the typical characteristics of a rock mound, i.e. rocks of a particular size, laid up in a mound or pile about a vara in diameter with the rocks arranged around an apparent center, the mound can be found if it still exists.
> > You are there with a better 'vision' of the situation. But if you look at the clouds ...do you see a surveyor rock pile in some formations?
>
> That was actually the novel feature of this one. When I glanced at the windrow the first time, all I saw was what looked like a windrow made by a dozer. Then, when I actually examined the thing, I realized that the windrow was camouflage for the rock mound that was still pretty much intact.
>
> The rock mound in a cluttered background, such as along a rock fence with rocks fallen to the side of the fence, is usually a challenge, but if one looks carefully and filters out all the stuff that doesn't have the typical characteristics of a rock mound, i.e. rocks of a particular size, laid up in a mound or pile about a vara in diameter with the rocks arranged around an apparent center, the mound can be found if it still exists.
Excellent.
:gammon:
I found a stone mound with square hole which was missed by a few inches by a Dozer making a skid trail. I found the black oak BT first then the stone mound. It fit the field note distance at about 14' in the nominal mile through a very steep and deep canyon. That Deputy did good work. His bearing was way off, though. The corner is on a township line, he closed on it. I'm not sure why his bearing was way off. His bearing put the corner about 200' east into a clear cut. The call to a draw to the west didn't fit that spot so I hiked west and found the stone mound pretty close to the call distance.
I think even the good Deputies cooked up a lot of the so-called field note record in the office. Maybe to make it look like they met standards?
I'm just amazed the big yellow machine missed that stone mound.
> I'm just amazed the big yellow machine missed that stone mound.
You just never know what will survive until you look. In the case of that Texas rock mound I posted about, the sequence of events probably was:
1882 - Rock mound built for corner,
1910 - Landowner builds fence running nominally North and South a vara East of mound.
1950 - Bulldozer arrives to make jeep trail along fence
2000 - Old cedar post and barbed wire fence replaced with new pipe and wire fabric fence
2014 - Surveyor rediscovers rock mound / rock pile.
"There are other ties to other corners yet to be made, "
Let is know how those other ties work out, please.
Until then, I'm of a mind with Mr. Hill:-)
Don
> Let is know how those other ties work out, please.
> Until then, I'm of a mind with Mr. Hill
Somehow, I don't get the idea that Robert has seen *any* Texas rock mounds in person. :>
I've mentioned this other detail before, but one reason why it is very good practice to leave rock mounds in the same configuration as they are found is that the patina on the weather side of the rocks remains intact. In the case of that mound, the stones are growing decent amounts of lichen, which is typical of old mounds. The lichen seems to to grow better on stones that aren't fully in contact with the ground, presumably because moisture condenses on them more readily.
An alternate theory for the lichen would require that the bulldozer operator carefully stacked the rocks weathered side up to confuse suveyors from Loosiana or Californio.
doubts about Kent's "pile"
From the pics and info Kent has posted I can see how some folks might think that Kent might have a case of "buck (stone pile) fever" of sorts when it comes to identifying a historic monument.
However, I look at it in a filtered sort of light.
Take into consideration Kent's insanely precise mathematics.
Take into consideration the amount of time Kent spends in investigating the available collateral evidence, like a fence. (He's the first surveyor I've ever seen that recovered the hole from a fence post.)
Take into consideration the research this man does with the available historic records.
Take into consideration the years that Kent has crawled all over the Texas outback with copies of obscure grants and their chain of title.
In that filtered light, I believe this man is qualified. Oh, he's probably been wrong before. We all have. But my money is that he's usually spot on by the time that perfectionist brain of his makes a decision.
I believe I've said this before, but if I were surveying down there, I would rather have Kent's notes over anybody else's. Working with him would probably drive a man insane, but I bet his notes are gold. 😉
This is great post. It's (to me) what boundary surveying is all about.
These are the sort of jobs that make surveying so rewarding.
Kent did you probe that stone pile? Not that the lack of any hole or other matter below ground would deter me from adopting it as 'best evidence' if so determined.
May have missed, but assume it would have been pegged and stoned.
Any chance the blade could have slid the lot across the terrain?
I've seen it happen once where the lot (stones and fence line - fallen) was displaced by the blade and with passage of time looked extremely authentic.
> This is great post. It's (to me) what boundary surveying is all about.
> These are the sort of jobs that make surveying so rewarding.
>
> Kent did you probe that stone pile? Not that the lack of any hole or other matter below ground would deter me from adopting it as 'best evidence' if so determined.
> May have missed, but assume it would have been pegged and stoned.
Actually, in that area in 1882 a wood stake at the center of a rock mound/pile of stones was uncommon. The measuring tools were usually a 6-inch vernier compass and a 10 vara (27.78 ft.) chain. The chainmen were usually residents in the area hired for the job, not specialist employees of the County Surveyor.
The typical rock mound will have at least ten rocks or more, depending upon the size of the rocks, will be in a pile about a vara (2.78 ft.) in diameter, and will be stacked to make a form with a pronounced center to the pattern. When you're measuring 950 or 1900 varas with pick-up chain carriers, measurements to the nearest vara are more of an aspiration than a reality. So a rock pile a vara in diameter was perfectly consistent with the quality of the original survey.
The construction of the rock mound is almost invariably something that can be done without spending a great deal of time on it. So the rocks tend to be as large as a person can easily carry two at a time, and the level of craft in actually laying up the rocks is just sufficient to leave a monument on the land that is obviously artificial and easy to find.
> Any chance the blade could have slid the lot across the terrain?
I don't think so. I don't know exactly when that jeep trail was cut, but I'd guess it was done after WWII. That was when a fence was reported to have been in place for at least 40 years.
The fence wasn't replaced until about ten years ago, so my assumption would be that the dozer operator was taking care not to push debris into the fence.
> I've seen it happen once where the lot (stones and fence line - fallen) was displaced by the blade and with passage of time looked extremely authentic.
The old rock mound/pile of stones falls about 2.8 ft. off the old fenceline, which is a common pattern for fence construction, i.e. setting the fence back from the marked boundary by a vara. I don't think it is very likely at all that the rock mound was originally elsewhere. About the only disturbance to the mound I could see was that a large limestone flag that had probably been set on the mound as a capstone (but without any identifying mark) had slid to the downhill side of the mound. That happens.
doubts about Kent's "pile"
> I believe I've said this before, but if I were surveying down there, I would rather have Kent's notes over anybody else's. Working with him would probably drive a man insane, but I bet his notes are gold.
Actually, working with me on that one would make a person a bottle collector. One of the adjacent tracts has been used as a rural tavern since the 1920's and the preferred method of disposal was apparently using a ravine out back as the recycling center. One of the bottles I saw today looked like a syrup bottle, but with an Anheuser-Busch logo on it. I have no idea what it held. [Edit: apparently during Prohibition they were peddling syrup]
doubts about Kent's "pile"
"Bud" Table Syrup...it's a real deal!
My parents use to get fresh milled flour and corn meal in 5 gal. cans..from Anheuser Busch. I always wondered how that eagle got caught in that big "A".
doubts about Kent's "pile"
> "Bud" Table Syrup...it's a real deal!
>
>
That's the bottle. I was guessing that they didn't bother trying to sell syrup after the repeal of the Volstead Act, so was thinking it dated before 1933. On the other hand, some of those Prohibition Era product lines lingered on. Pabst Blue Ribbon was still selling their hop-flavored malt extract back when I had a use for such things.
Thanks Kent
Just aside - Bottles.
they were used in early days for references to corners, buried neck up they survived to modern times.
One thing that sets good surveyors from 'gun-ho' ones (here) is the difference between snapping up evidence and then deciding how to make it fit their idea of the cadaster.
Or ignoring old evidence, yet alone looking for any authentic earlier marks.
Fortunately that's by far the minor minority here, but it has happened and we are left the mess to clean up.
Surveyors that have worked long and hard in a particular area over previous (early) surveyors work get to 'know' their predecessors, their methods and their reliability.
Mix that with the surveyors nous and it can be a very powerful tool in the matrix of things that go to make up reestablishment of old, confused, lost boundaries etc.
Ability to measure accurately doesn't (alone) make a good boundary surveyor in my experience.
> One thing that sets good surveyors from 'gun-ho' ones (here) is the difference between snapping up evidence and then deciding how to make it fit their idea of the cadaster.
> Or ignoring old evidence, [let] alone looking for any authentic earlier marks.
> Fortunately that's by far the minor minority here, but it has happened and we are left the mess to clean up.
Yes, in Texas, the great speed-up in Engineering Surveying that modern technology allows continues to create huge messes when the same attitude is applied to cadastral surveys.
> Surveyors that have worked long and hard in a particular area over previous (early) surveyors work get to 'know' their predecessors, their methods and their reliability.
Absolutely. There is no substitute for local knowledge.
> Mix that with the surveyors nous and it can be a very powerful tool in the matrix of things that go to make up reestablishment of old, confused, lost boundaries etc.
> Ability to measure accurately doesn't (alone) make a good boundary surveyor in my experience.
No, the retracement of old, obscured boundaries is pretty much at the top of the heap as far as difficulty goes. It doesn't make sexy copy in trade magazines and being able to actually find the footsteps of the 19th century surveyors has pretty much become a lost art in Texas where more than 90% of the licensees work on entirely differnt problems in urban areas while possibly never having seen an original patent corner outside of a seminar setting.
"being able to actually find the footsteps of the 19th century surveyors has pretty much become a lost art in Texas where more than 90% of the licensees work on entirely differnt problems in urban areas while possibly never having seen an original patent corner outside of a seminar setting"
That is a very real concern for 'us older' surveyors here.
I never realised they made/ used such short chains.
That would not make for overly accurate work and accumulated errors could no doubt be expected.
Did they (like here) 'throw in' a chain every 100 chains. So in effect a 100 chain line could be expected to measure 101 chains. I'm referring to 20.12 meter/ 100 link chains we used here.
Not all surveys were done that way, but rugged terrain certainly saw some interesting comparisons and that only added to the confusion.
> I never realised they made/ used such short chains.
> That would not make for overly accurate work and accumulated errors could no doubt be expected.
No, the accuracy of the distance measurement in terrain such as where this project I've described is situated would be low enough that errors on the order of 1:100 would be unexceptional. For example the distance from what is probably a fence corner perpetuating the original Northwest corner of the tract to the rock mound/stone pile seen in the photos I posted is about 940 varas (2611 ft.) whereas the record measurement reported by the 1882 surveyor was 950 varas. Considering that the line has total relief of about 61 varas (170 ft.) over its run, the shortage is pretty much consistent with experience.
> Did they (like here) 'throw in' a chain every 100 chains. So in effect a 100 chain line could be expected to measure 101 chains. I'm referring to 20.12 meter/ 100 link chains we used here.
It may well have happened, but probably was not the norm. There were a few surveyors who used chains regulated to a non-standard vara, however, and that has been a gift to posterity.
> Not all surveys were done that way, but rugged terrain certainly saw some interesting comparisons and that only added to the confusion.
Yes, some of these lines run across terrain that would be a challenge to hike, let alone chain over. Of course in the 19th century, the surveyors had the advantage that the land wasn't nearly as well forested as it is today.