Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: final indian checkerboard & cross counts
Date: Mar 31, 2001 @ 02:15
Author: Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: peter.smaardijk@..._________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: final indian checkerboard & cross counts
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:20:47 -0000
>
>I've been following this quest for a while now, and not knowing a lot
>about Indian reservations and regulations concerning these, I am
>getting a bit curious about the principles you Americans (or should I
>say Yanks - just not to mean native Americans) apply when defining
>boundaries. Is it just a case of "there is a certain area of land,
>and we get half, and you get half as well, and we don't want to split
>up the area arbitrarily in a way that one people get the best half,
>and the other people the less than best half, so we do it the
>chequered way", or is there another principle applied here? Just
>enlighten me, an ignorant inhabitant of the so-called "Old
>Continent", of your unitedstatish ways.
>
>Peter S.
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> > after further experimentation & checking against state topo index
>maps
> > & also against individual topo quads
> > i can report that the zoomable indian reservation map
> > representing some great fun & timely reinforcement from arif
> > http://www.gdsc.bia.gov/districts
> > may leave a bit to be desired in some respects
> > & may even raise more questions than it answers
> > but
> > it does appear to be the best available map & plaything in this
>whole field
> > & it has proved to be entirely credible in some cases at least
> > so i couldnt help but proceed to complete a first estimated indian
>cross census
> > despite my several misgivings about it
> > & am just reduced to hoping that all the data are in fact correct
> >
> >
> > the turning point in my experience of this site came when i was
>pleasantly
> > surprised to find it indicating an indian cross right here in
>connecticut
> > which i do very much want to believe is the truth
> > despite the fact that the public land system grid
> > which was the proximate cause of just about all the crosses
> > was never used in connecticut
> > & even tho this cross like many of the others is unsubstantiated
>by topo
> > evidence
> > & moreover forces me to swallow so much else along with it
> >
> >
> > before proceeding with the boundary cross census report tho
> > it may be important to note that the staggering numbers i have
>racked up
> > here are not so much the result of the checkerboard or sectional
> > alternation that is so plain to see at agua caliente & torres
>martinez
> > & which got me into this ridiculous business in the first place
> > as they are the result of the much more widespread sort of random
> > scattershot property ownership
> > which however is curiously also called checkerboard
> >
> > while crosses were found to be rampant in the many scattershot areas
> > precious little new evidence of true checkerboard patterning was
>found anywhere
> >
> > in fact the only new such finds of any consequence
> > are the arizona portion of the tristate mojave reservation
> > & part of the laguna reservation in new mexico
> >
> > some navajo areas also seem almost to break into pure checkerboard
>at times
> > but they are nowhere very coherent or convincing
> > so i have not counted them in this bunch
> >
> >
> > all of which brings the updated cross counts of the true
>checkerboard
> > tribes to the following very probably final results
> > agua caliente 57
> > torres martinez 43
> > laguna 40
> > mojave 33
> > hualapai 13
> > morongo 12
> > plus some minor cases involving a few dozen crosses in all at most
> >
> >
> > several tribes have more crosses but none are so distinctly
>checkered as these
> >
> >
> > the single peneclave with the greatest known number of crosses
> > 8 in all
> > occurs at agua caliente
> >
> >
> > another highlight
> > many of the more complex boundaries cant even be drawn in a single
> > continuous line
> > a fact which presents the philosophical question of exactly what
>they are
> > if they are not lines
> >
> > presumably some fundamentally different kind of continuums
> >
> >
> >
> > & finally the piece of resistance
> > the staggering indian cross totals
> > of all types
> > by state
> > az 47
> > ca 125
> > co 1
> > ct 1
> > mi 5
> > mn 57
> > ms 11
> > mt 73
> > nv 25
> > nm 280 approx
> > nd 20
> > or 24
> > sd 160 approx
> > ut 8
> > wa 8
> > wi 34
> > total 880 approx
> >
> >
> > the only remaining question is how to evaluate these in relation to
>the
> > bicountry crosses & the bicounty cross & the bimeridian cross
>previously
> > found
> >
> > m
>