Subject: slight correction Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott<br/>
Date: Oct 14, 2005 @ 23:55<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="18536.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18539.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic18516.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="18536.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18538.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-515799291">yikes<br/>
do you mean you think he didnt skip the streams & other obstacles before the pearl but <br/>
did skip them after it<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt;<br/>
&gt; I did not photocopy Ellicott&#39;s strip maps all the way to the Chattahoochee, but<br/>
&gt; I did copy them all the way to the Pearl.  His first encounter with the Pearl is<br/>
&gt; shown as just over 106 mounds from point D.  That is exactly how far I determine<br/>
&gt; it to be on two different maps.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; If the count is off at the Chattahoochee, it might possibly be that the reason<br/>
&gt; has more to do with the following than with a standard mile of different length:<br/>
&gt; Perhaps a mile would occasionally fall in the middle of a stream or other<br/>
&gt; similarly inhospitable site for mounding.  In such cases, it might have been<br/>
&gt; thought best to build the mound beyond the obstacle, say so in the field notes,<br/>
&gt; and resume the measured miles from there.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Lowell G. McManus<br/>
&gt; Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
&gt; From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt;<br/>
&gt; To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
&gt; Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:53 PM<br/>
&gt; Subject: [BoundaryPoint] slight correction Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, aletheia kallos &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; ok but be aware that ellicotts measurements<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; & 18th century measurements in general<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; do not exactly equal modern measurements<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; the discrepancy becomes clearest if you compare the<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; number of his mounds with the actual mileage today<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; there between the mississippi & the chattahoochee<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; it is something on the order of 10 percent off<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; i seem to recall<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; well<br/>
&gt; &gt; yes & no<br/>
&gt; &gt; as i see 381 is given as the number of the mounds<br/>
&gt; &gt; & i can estimate 395 or 400 as the number of miles<br/>
&gt; &gt; so we are looking at something more on the order of 4 or 5 percent than 10<br/>
&gt; &gt; percent<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; but tho smaller<br/>
&gt; &gt; thats no less of a wild card to have to insert in your maths<br/>
&gt; &gt; whatever it is<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; but just a different constant of aberration<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; Yahoo! Groups Links<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; </span></blockquote></div>