Native land conveyances
yes indeed good fun only & i thank you sincerely for it
as well as for so generously sharing your original thinking & broad experience
you are just the kind of informant i need & seek
so i continue with high hopes for more of same
& without thought of winning or losing anything
but only of validating or surpassing my own findings & best hopes to date
which are admittedly still concentrated if not stalled in 1640s massachusetts
getting more deeply into or preferably beyond that would be win & fun enough for me
or rather frankly just trying is winning & fun
& why i remain your constant friend
& have taken your previous advice & written to the rhode island historical society for their experience too
i think i might pass or at least postpone the puerto rican bar tho
& you are also right that my quest will end in an erroneous conclusion
til just a few years ago it had ended in 1731 new york
& til a few months ago in 1656 new hampshire
so i fully expect & indeed hope to smile back on past & present erroneous conclusions again & again
it is in the nature & comes with the territory & fun of oldest known anything
Alethia
It's on the line between Texas and Louisiana. However, I guess since you're so well traveled, it doesn't qualify.
Enjoy!
Alethia
The historical marker indicates otherwise.
Alethia
yes thanx i appreciate that
& didnt mean to be rude but only riotous
& the texas sign only does say it is believed
so i respect that too
especially as a seeker of earliest knowns
Native land conveyances
It will be a fun excercise.
Probability is low, but that adds spice to the detective work.
I have done surveys for archaeologists in the past, but mainly up in the far north, and we cross paths often. I might sick a few of those hounds on the trail.
Please keep us poted on what you find.
Native land conveyances
ok great & wonderful again
&
by way of a first posting & summary
i have also just traced the 5 partidos of puerto rico of 1580 to a purely military function in organizing the dozen tiny isolated outposts
san juan being the partido where nearly all the spanish population was concentrated
totalling but a couple thousand til well into the 17th century
& under almost continuous threat or siege etc
& with spain in decline after the 1588 armada bust etc
so overall
it is still not seeming to be a very likely venue for early political subdivision or demarcations
& a puerto rico historical society is elusive
etc
st augustine has a historical society but even less early pop & seemingly less probability of early subdivision
being just a single fortified settlement or outpost really
as compared to the dozen in puerto rico
cant rule out cuba tho
nor peru or mexico etc
especially if one wanted to embrace the entire western hemisphere
which does have some appeal for its simple comprehensiveness
but only if it were easy enough to just write the spanish off as a sufficiently plausible source to bother about
which btw at this point i just about do
along with the portuguese
tho all of this is of course additional to the main deal anyway
still it would make a nice bonus if it proved true that there arent even any warm leads to be had anywhere in latin america
as i do suppose might be the case at this point
the quebec seigneurial system of 1627 looks like a possible source of contemporaneous demarcation that could have endured in later political boundaries tho the original subdivision appears more cadastral & ecclesiastical than legal administrative
& with the possible exception of the northwest coast & a few small california groups
western indians at least appear to have been separated from each other by lots of open space
& tended evidently to have intertribal & even intercommunal frontiers rather than actual boundaries per se
& so it is hard to imagine any clearly marked point or alignment within such vague territorial divisions enduring up to the present
to make even a cameo appearance among the rank & file of working geopolitical boundary markers
but i will continue to hope for your nanaimo or any similar or dissimilar probability
in fact i would call that a very warm lead for an all western hemisphere quest
& of course hawaii could yet surprise & predate & upend everything
or at least command a very large asterisk
back on cape cod
all 5 of the purportedly earliest rocks are in barnstable
with 3 being nrhp members
all on the sandwich side
& the other 2 being officially unrecognized so possibly less venerable
both on the yarmouth side
& a perusal of usgs topos & a mass town line atlas suggests there might be a few dark horse candidate rocks along both town lines that could be added to that short list of possibilities
of stones not to be left unturned
but the leading candidate per nrhp dating is this one on the sandwich line on race lane
shown at the center of this map cut
together with one of those dark horses on newtown road to its south
http://tinyurl.com/6hd4jb9
& searching for 29 race lane sandwich at google maps gets you to within street view
where the monument may even be discernible
hypothetically standing beside a fire hydrant & pavement change
on the south shoulder of the road
what fun
no clear photo is yet available but i have wheedled the sandwich historical commission for one
or anything else they can provide
on what is now looking like the single leading candidate sight unseen
what with its official guess date of 1639 surpassing all other official guess dates by 5 years
& even all unofficial ones by a couple
but
what i have found photos of are the 2 most probable near agemates & near classmates of the above leading sandwich barnstable rock
on the yarmouth side of barnstable
standing near route 6a & mill pond respectively
& both dating maybe from 1641 per mike farber
http://www.ccas.ws/morsepayneproject.html
so
there you have at least a peek at the presently oldest probabilities i have actually caught any sight of
&
my high hopes
that these pix will soon be improved upon by others & better
of a rock that is probably at least a couple of years older
while i await replies from three state historical societies & various other high powered sources for older & thus better still
best for now
a
this just in from colonial virginia per your suggestion & my request
In 1634 the political divisions of the colony of Virginia changed. Eight counties (or shires) were created by the General Assembly but the bounds were not set forth in the act. For instance, James City Shire was described as "on the south side [of the James River] from Lawne's Creek to Upper Chippokes Creek.”
As the population grew and dispersed, these lines followed creeks and rivers, and later, roads. Two good sources on county formation are: Morgan P. Robinson, Virginia Counties (Bulletin of the Virginia State Library, IX, nos. 1,2 and 3, Richmond, 1916) and Martha W. Hidesn, How Justice Grew: Virginia Counties, an Abstract of their Formation (Williamsburg, 1957).
The earliest boundary markers or stones that we have information on are for the ones marking the boundary of the District of Columbia in 1791. Fourteen of the boundary stones are still located today in the city of Alexandria and Arlington and Fairfax counties. These markers are listed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register. Also on the Landmarks Register is the Octonia Stone which marks the westernmost boundary of the 24,000 acre Octonia grant. This grant was made in 1722.
