Subject: the ongoing quest for the oldest working rock in america<br/>
Date: Aug 11, 2005 @ 16:04<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="18218.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18220.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-688590963">so <br/>
with the new hampshirean bound rock pretty well dated<br/>
to 1657 or 1656 <br/>
the question remains<br/>
where in america is the purportedly older working<br/>
boundary marker hiding<br/>
<br/>
or alternatively<br/>
can the claim of its existence be satisfactorily<br/>
busted<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but first <br/>
there may be a slight defect in the question<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
we have been using the term<br/>
working rock<br/>
to mean any functional boundary marker<br/>
thinking the 2 ideas must be practically synonymous<br/>
<br/>
however <br/>
not every boundary marker is actually a rock<br/>
<br/>
for it could just as easily be a cairn or a blazed<br/>
tree etc<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
still<br/>
a search for<br/>
oldest boundary marker<br/>
yielded the exciting 4th paragraph of<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~maplymou/pcgs/resources.html">http://www.rootsweb.com/~maplymou/pcgs/resources.html</a><br/>
<br/>
which leads by a series of directions or instructions <br/>
to this best guessed treasure hunt destination<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=19&n=4667978&e=338789&s=25&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25">http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=19&n=4667978&e=338789&s=25&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25</a><br/>
<br/>
& bus&ss indicates on page 66 that the mentioned<br/>
border<br/>
between massachusetts bay colony & plymouth plantation<br/>
which is today the norfolk plymouth county line<br/>
as well as the abington weymouth town line shown on<br/>
the topo<br/>
was delineated as early as 1629 or 1628<br/>
<br/>
so<br/>
suddenly it is looking like we may have a winner here<br/>
even if it is only a heap of working rocks rather than<br/>
the singleton we had been seeking & expecting<br/>
 <br/>
<br/>
but still again <br/>
we dont yet have a clear date on the heap itself<br/>
so<br/>
a search for<br/>
an heape of stones<br/>
yielded the equally exciting 4th paragraph of<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://stetsonkindred.org/history.htm">http://stetsonkindred.org/history.htm</a><br/>
which <br/>
in dating this heap to 1664 <br/>
strongly suggests both that<br/>
the heap is not in any case nearly so old as the<br/>
delineation<br/>
nor even as old as bound rock<br/>
yikes<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
so<br/>
is it possible that all we have here is an<br/>
extravagance of miscomprehension<br/>
& only a mistaken claim & false rumor of an older<br/>
working rock <br/>
which in fact fails <br/>
both chronologically & compositionally <br/>
to equal the solidity of the claim of bound rock<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
i think this outcome is highly probable<br/>
especially in view of the similarity of the<br/>
terminologies <br/>
<br/>
& accordingly<br/>
we may very well already have the true winner here<br/>
in the form of bound rock<br/>
aha<br/>
notwithstanding its demotion to second oldest in the<br/>
local imagination<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& i admit that therein still lies a big mystery<br/>
<br/>
for why would anyone ever choose to imagine that they<br/>
were second when they were really first<br/>
<br/>
for that seems so contrary to any normal idea of pride<br/>
in ones place<br/>
<br/>
perhaps it was not deliberate but only from ignorance<br/>
of the true facts<br/>
<br/>
or maybe it is some sort of hertz & avis ploy<br/>
<br/>
or maybe it is in the hope of minimizing visitation<br/>
traffic thru their otherwise quiet neighborhood<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but am still planning to visit both sites next week &<br/>
press the research<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
__________________________________________________<br/>
Do You Yahoo!?<br/>
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a></div>