Subject: further delaware circlings & musings<br/>
Date: Feb 19, 2005 @ 23:12<br/>
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next<br/>
<a href="16799.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16801.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-969952825">tho mason&dixon themselves didnt actually create any<br/>
of the delaware arc sectors from scratch<br/>
bus&ss indicates <br/>
they did at least mark in 1765 the original demd arc<br/>
surveyed by their immediate predecessors <br/>
whose work m&d simply approved & extended<br/>
in creating & marking the north line & all of demd<br/>
<br/>
& <br/>
their mdpa or west line job specs evidently didnt<br/>
require them to relate in any way to the original 1701<br/>
depa arc<br/>
<br/>
so<br/>
being unconcerned with it <br/>
they could have remained relatively unaware of it<br/>
& of the potentially inconvenient fact that it was<br/>
fortyfold more erratic & oversized than their own 1765<br/>
demd arc<br/>
<br/>
for indeed it wasnt their job either to equalize or<br/>
connect the demd arc with the depa arc in any way <br/>
even tho both arcs were nominal parts of the same<br/>
notional 12mile cicle<br/>
<br/>
& the more than 3quarter mile disparity in the actual<br/>
radii of these 2 arcs could easily have gone unnoticed<br/>
or even gotten swept under the carpet in the 1760s <br/>
but could not remain unnoticed & unresolved forever<br/>
<br/>
so it was probably unfair of me to characterize m&d as<br/>
actually fudging anything <br/>
when all they probably really did was allow the<br/>
unknown depa arc terminal to keep flapping in the<br/>
breeze &or simply presume it met the intersection of<br/>
their north & west lines at demdpa<br/>
in a coincident quinticonvergence<br/>
<br/>
but rather <br/>
i think now <br/>
that all the actual fudging was more likely done by<br/>
graham in 1849 & 1850<br/>
when at the same time<br/>
also according to the bible<br/>
he unfortunately disregarded the well known rule that<br/>
an actual line upon the ground is to be preferred to<br/>
the written description of the same line in a deed<br/>
&<br/>
he changed the position of the 1701 depa arc<br/>
as well as of the 1765 demdpa<br/>
& assigned the wedge to pennsylvania <br/>
etc etc<br/>
<br/>
what is still not clear in this tho is <br/>
exactly what <br/>
graham disregarded & changed depa from<br/>
anywhere west of point e in<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.udel.edu/dgs/graphics/IS06FIG2.jpg">http://www.udel.edu/dgs/graphics/IS06FIG2.jpg</a><br/>
& indeed whether there even were any extant 1701 depa<br/>
arc markers that far west to be disregarded by him in<br/>
1850<br/>
<br/>
i dont believe perry discusses this explicitly<br/>
but i do think he mentions that the 1701 arc was not<br/>
completed in the west<br/>
<br/>
which is probably why i still have this question<br/>
outstanding<br/>
<br/>
but a new old article in the bus&ss bibliography<br/>
promises to shed light on it & possibly beyond it into<br/>
the whole class of ghost arc stones generally<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
a historical account of the boundary line between the<br/>
states of pa & de <br/>
by wc hodgkins 1895<br/>
in usc&gs report for fiscal year ending june 1893<br/>
part 2 appendix 8 pp177 thru 222<br/>
<br/>
it is the official report of the 1892 resurvey of the<br/>
depa arc <br/>
including for some reason a historical sketch of the<br/>
m&d line<br/>
<br/>
yum <br/>
ghost arc stones<br/>
if i could only find one<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
		<br/>
__________________________________ <br/>
Do you Yahoo!? <br/>
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://my.yahoo.com">http://my.yahoo.com</a></div>