I did not photocopy Ellicott's strip maps all the way to the Chattahoochee, but
I did copy them all the way to the Pearl. His first encounter with the Pearl is
shown as just over 106 mounds from point D. That is exactly how far I determine
it to be on two different maps.

If the count is off at the Chattahoochee, it might possibly be that the reason
has more to do with the following than with a standard mile of different length:
Perhaps a mile would occasionally fall in the middle of a stream or other
similarly inhospitable site for mounding. In such cases, it might have been
thought best to build the mound beyond the obstacle, say so in the field notes,
and resume the measured miles from there.

Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] slight correction Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott

> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
>> ok but be aware that ellicotts measurements
>> & 18th century measurements in general
>> do not exactly equal modern measurements
>>
>> the discrepancy becomes clearest if you compare the
>> number of his mounds with the actual mileage today
>> there between the mississippi & the chattahoochee
>>
>> it is something on the order of 10 percent off
>> i seem to recall
>
> well
> yes & no
> as i see 381 is given as the number of the mounds
> & i can estimate 395 or 400 as the number of miles
> so we are looking at something more on the order of 4 or 5 percent than 10
> percent
>
> but tho smaller
> thats no less of a wild card to have to insert in your maths
> whatever it is
>
> but just a different constant of aberration
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>