Recently recovered stones from an 1894 county layout. Three of the sequence were found in the vicinity of the survey for a private property on this road. The one pictured (38) is the nicest one. In fact, it is in remarkable condition.?ÿ
Of course the layout distances will not match those measured exactly, but these stones are still the prize.?ÿ
I am fairly certain the top center of the stone will be called as the point. However, I plan to make observations on the corners of the stones to test if some other position might have been what was intended.
.
?ÿ
Here is a section of the layout where we are working on a boundary. It is in a book of plans archived from the County Commissioners. Presently they cannot be copied and I was allowed to photograph them. There is a plan in the works to scan the layouts at a local university as they are always at risk of being damaged.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I see this is only a few miles from New Hampshire, as the crow flies.?ÿ Getting there by auto adds a fair amount of distance, percentagewise.
Where is the cemetery located with respect to the second map?
We are near New Hampshire. Tully is a village, so named because of the mountain of the same name that is nearby.?ÿ
The cemetery is in the photograph of stone 38. It is behind the black fence.
Perhaps the caretakers are the reason stone 38 is preserved.?ÿ
?ÿStone 39 has its number carved in the top like stone 38. The three is under the lichens that we didn't want to scrape off.?ÿ
Stone 40 has an unusual plug in the front face unlike the others. It may have been a recycled fence post, or maybe it's the point.
?ÿ
I see the cemetery is a bit north-northwest of the intersection in an aerial view.?ÿ Why is there a section way back far from the road and to the right??ÿ Was that a part of the original tract?
The road monuments are on the east side in this county. We are working on a boundary that is on the other side. Perhaps you can post the aerial photograph.
Better yet.?ÿ Here is the lat/long so anyone can explore on their own.
LAT 42.63976
LONG -72.25052
Here's how I found it.?ÿ By finding the route from Royalston, MA to Tully, MA.?ÿ Then zooming in, followed by adding the layers level.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Royalston,+Massachusetts/Tully,+Orange,+MA+01364/ @42.638453,-72.2502694,707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e1425fc3d23985:0x22b93e046582a58e!2m2!1d-72.1878604!2d42.6775856!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e1415b335d251d:0xa57b9d925d4d1fb2!2m2!1d-72.2481392!2d42.6375861!3e0
hope this helps
I saw that too! Looks like a delicate dimple or a mark that some other surveyor made.
Some stones are drawn on the map to indicate the center of the back face is the mark.
Occasionally surveyors will mark these otherwise blank stones in the center anyway.
Unfortunately the 1894 map shows a tick mark at the stone's location and not a symbol.?ÿ
I didn't notice the one Dave pointed out, but it looked to me like there's dimple pretty well centered between the 3 & the 8.
I believe you are in the time frame when the county surveyors in Mass. generally set the stones with the center back at the "point".
Thank you. I had thought that might be the case here. We will still get the corners just to test the thought. It's too bad the county surveyors are gone now. I always had a good time listening to their stories.?ÿ
Great find.?ÿ As Peter Lothian said, I'd lean toward holding back center for road stones.?ÿ Center for stones not on a road.
