I'm absolutely positive that there are older ones than those we have found up to now. Lots of these
will probably have been moved, or they are still there and the border has moved, so they are not
functioning as border markers anymore. But a fair number are probably still on their own spot and
working.
I can remember that as a kid, when our family went over to visit my grandparents, we always passed a
field in which an old seigniorial border stone stood (that was near Arnemuiden in Zealand province).
I read on Eefs site that the stone has since then been removed by the farmer, but is not lost, and
will be put in some place where people can have a better look at it.
There must still be hundreds of these in Europe. And I don't know anything about the other
continents.
As for man-made boundary markers: what about the great walls? There is the Great China Wall, there
are the Roman Limes, Hadrian's Wall, Offa's Dike, The Berlin Wall...... Some are still there, some
only partly, but I wonder whether at least parts of them still have a boundary marker function.
Peter S.
michael donner wrote:
> truly fab pet
> & i say that as one who just watched his fierce old tomcat expire
>
> but it is eloquent testimony to what a long way we have come baby
> even just this week
> that your newfound rocks dated 1680 & 1672 stand to cop only a silver & a
> bronze medal respectively in the dated category
>
> last week i for one still imagined there were no dated boundary rocks in
> the world before 1791
> nor even any monumental rubble older than 1720
> & there still doesnt appear to be anything surviving around here at least
> from before then
>
> btw i do think the munster rock will hold up at 1659
> & should therefore maintain its claims on all the gold
> because even tho your sources indicate it was commissioned unilaterally
> it still does carry all 3 coats of arms
>
> & i think its only known rival in any category may be the breintenstein
>
> another remarkable thing about all 3 of your presumptive medalists
> until next week perhaps when we might find older ones
> tho i dare again to doubt it
> is how they already begin to crowd up against the treaty of westphalia &
> the 30 years war
> which are widely thought to mark the birth of modern boundary development
>
> tho we know the pyrenees were already cranking centuries before that
> only to have since lost all their original teeth
>
> & the idea of a seignorial tp
> well that is too cool
>
> it seems only the day before yesterday we reached for multi imperial
> then almost immediately multi regal
> & now multi seignorial
> all in a single weeks play
>
> what next
>
> & yes i certainly agree it is a nice stone
> with a fascinating doodle on it that is really beyond compare
>
> also please never hesitate to double post if in doubt
> especially about stuff as fine as this
> because i am sure no one would want to miss a beat
> now that you & therefore we are really rocking
>
> m
>
> >
> >FAB = Franz Anton Berka, one of the three lords whose seigneuries met
> >at the tripoint that you can see at:
> ><http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/tourist8.html#Utri>
> >http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/tourist8.html#Utri .
> >At least that's what I think.
> >I don't know whether this seigniorial tripoint stone is still on an
> >international (czde) border, but it might well be. Anyway, it's a
> >nice stone, isn't it? It is from 1680. In the vicinity of it, it says
> >here, there are some other stones with similar age, but most are
> >newer ones, from 1723. Which I happen to find very old, too....
> >
> >BTW: I posted this earlier, but apparently it didn't arrive. If it's
> >still going to with a delay, please forgive the doubling.
> >
> >Peter S.
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=148462.1016293.2712017.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=18
> >9183/?http://insurance.yahoo.com/ target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
> >Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
> >of Service.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/