Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Saint Martin Stone
Date: Mar 09, 2001 @ 01:10
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


>
>My memory has played a bit of a trick on me. I have just looked at
>the slide I made of the St. Martin stone, and it is the very same as
>that on the picture at <http://www.esj-> http://www.esj-
>lille.fr/atelier/explo/EPOQUE/NEP_06.HTM . So it's not one of those
>modern concrete ones. It is partly covered by a very decorative sort
>of orange moss (well, I'm not very good at biology). It bears an
>inscription, too: a very large number 262, above it the
>word 'Pierre', and below it 'St. Martin' and the year '1858', the
>year it was placed. So this is the boundary marker.
>
>But what about the old stone at 1 m.? I'm not sure, but I can see on
>my slide at approx. 1 m. of the stone a small metallic-like disc (or
>something that looks like it). I am very cautious, but it could be
>the old place of the stone. The thing I think is a disc is on top of
>a rough piece of natural rock.
>
>Anyway, I hope to post the picture within a week or so.
>
>Peter S.

ahh
a bit of a trick on me too
so i am psyched to see the picture

but for now it seems that the stone i have been calling st martins really
is number 262
just as you initially said but didnt initially mean

& yet stranger still
it now appears to date only from 1858
despite its reputation as a sort of rock of ages
& its odd shape & look of great antiquity
& its role as touchstone in the ancient annual ritual

for couldnt this inscription rather be an identification & attestation made
in 1858 upon a much older rock
rather than simply the legend for an atypical but new installation made in 1858
as you seem to be indicating
since why erect such an oddity & name it the st martins stone only then

so i wonder if the text of the relevant treaty wont clarify all this
& i sure hope we can sort it all out somehow
for upon our findings here may hinge the identification of the oldest
working boundary monument in the world

if this candidate is busted
then i believe we may be thrown all the way forward to the 17th or possibly
even the 18th century in search of the next best hope

m


perhaps too there are still older ones i am not aware of
which needless to say i would be thrilled to learn about