Subject: final indian checkerboard & cross counts<br/>
Date: Mar 30, 2001 @ 20:03<br/>
Author: michael donner (michael donner &lt;m@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="1963.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic1962.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="1961.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="1963.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1662433498">after further experimentation & checking against state topo index maps<br/>
  & also against individual topo quads<br/>
i can report that the zoomable indian reservation map<br/>
representing some great fun & timely reinforcement from arif<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.gdsc.bia.gov/districts">http://www.gdsc.bia.gov/districts</a><br/>
may leave a bit to be desired in some respects<br/>
& may even raise more questions than it answers<br/>
  but<br/>
it does appear to be the best available map & plaything in this whole field<br/>
& it has proved to be entirely credible in some cases at least<br/>
so i couldnt help but proceed to complete a first estimated indian cross census<br/>
despite my several misgivings about it<br/>
& am just reduced to hoping that all the data are in fact correct<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the turning point in my experience of this site came when i was pleasantly<br/>
surprised to find it indicating an indian cross right here in connecticut<br/>
which i do very much want to believe is the truth<br/>
despite the fact that the public land system grid<br/>
  which was the proximate cause of just about all the crosses<br/>
was never used in connecticut<br/>
& even tho this cross  like many of the others  is unsubstantiated by topo<br/>
evidence<br/>
  & moreover forces me to swallow so much else along with it<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
before proceeding with the boundary cross census report tho<br/>
it may be important to note that the staggering numbers i have racked up<br/>
here are not so much the result of the checkerboard or sectional<br/>
alternation that is so plain to see at agua caliente & torres martinez<br/>
  & which got me into this ridiculous business in the first place<br/>
as they are the result of the much more widespread sort of random<br/>
scattershot property ownership<br/>
which however is  curiously  also called checkerboard<br/>
<br/>
while crosses were found to be rampant in the many scattershot areas<br/>
precious little new evidence of true checkerboard patterning was found anywhere<br/>
<br/>
in fact the only new such finds of any consequence<br/>
are the arizona portion of the tristate mojave reservation<br/>
& part of the laguna reservation in new mexico<br/>
<br/>
some navajo areas also seem almost to break into pure checkerboard at times<br/>
but they are nowhere very coherent or convincing<br/>
so i have not counted them in this bunch<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
all of which brings the updated cross counts of the true checkerboard<br/>
tribes to the following very probably final results<br/>
agua caliente   57<br/>
torres martinez 43<br/>
laguna          40<br/>
mojave          33<br/>
hualapai        13<br/>
morongo         12<br/>
plus some minor cases involving a few dozen crosses in all at most<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
several tribes have more crosses but none are so distinctly checkered as these<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the single peneclave with the greatest known number of crosses<br/>
  8 in all<br/>
occurs at agua caliente<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
another highlight<br/>
many of the more complex boundaries cant even be drawn in a single<br/>
continuous line<br/>
a fact which presents the philosophical question of exactly what they are<br/>
if they are not lines<br/>
<br/>
presumably some fundamentally different kind of continuums<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& finally  the piece of resistance<br/>
the staggering indian cross totals<br/>
of all types<br/>
by state<br/>
   az  47<br/>
   ca 125<br/>
   co   1<br/>
   ct   1<br/>
   mi   5<br/>
   mn  57<br/>
   ms  11<br/>
   mt  73<br/>
   nv  25<br/>
   nm 280 approx<br/>
   nd  20<br/>
   or  24<br/>
   sd 160 approx<br/>
   ut   8<br/>
   wa   8<br/>
   wi  34<br/>
total 880 approx<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the only remaining question is how to evaluate these in relation to the<br/>
bicountry crosses & the bicounty cross & the bimeridian cross previously<br/>
found<br/>
<br/>
m</div>