Subject: st martins stone<br/>
Date: Mar 08, 2001 @ 20:14<br/>
Author: michael donner (michael donner &lt;m@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="1576.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="1600.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic1554.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="1588.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="1590.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-469895316">peter recently confirmed<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;<br/>
&gt;The St. Martins stone is probably a very old one, but in 1856 they<br/>
&gt;obviously decided to put another<br/>
&gt;marker beside it.<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;The treaty between the two valley was concluded in 1375.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>which raises the questions<br/>
is the older mark technically supplanted & replaced by the newer<br/>
or are the markers cumulative<br/>
  meaning the older ones continue to mark the border also<br/>
& what other date than 1375 might this stone have<br/>
<br/>
m</div>