also 12237 & 12243

but for an actual boundary demarcation
in the sense in which this term is technically used today
i think a verbal or especially a textual description or definition
of the entire delimitation or delineation in process
must precede the demarcation of the line on the ground

which however may of course incorporate preexisting monuments

& i imagine the prefix de which occurs in all the above words
but especially the de in demarcation
suggests or even explicitly refers to this process
of getting something that is initially abstract down onto solid ground

otherwise what you may have is just a frontier marker
or even less
an ordinary landmark or feature that has become associated with a frontier

for without all or at least some of this technical procedural baggage up front
a marker may be just a mark
& not really a demarcation in the technical sense
notwithstanding all the other baggage that may have accrued to it on the ground

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
wrote:

> Mike D. wrote:
>
> > this is not to say there were no frontier markers
> > whatsoever in ancient times
> > since markers of some sort must have existed & been
> > recognized as such in just about all places & times
>
> An example of an American Indian frontier maker was recorded by Pierre le Moyne,
> Sieur d'Iberville on March 17, 1699. As he ascended the lower Mississippi
> River, he noted a 30-foot tall cypress pole, red in color, with the heads of
> fishes and bears hanging from it. It marked the limit between the ranges of the
> Bayagoulas and Oumas Indians. He named the place "le Baton Rouge."
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA