Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Another old stone
Date: Mar 16, 2001 @ 15:47
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>
>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>
>> ><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>
>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=148462.1016293.2712017.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=18
>>>> >9183/?<http://insurance.yahoo.com/> http://insurance.yahoo.com/
>>target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>> >Groups is subject to the <<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>> >of Service.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=163100.1357384.2947150.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=5
>24804/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=2629" target="_top">Cick here
>for Classmates.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of Service.