Please see my insertions below.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott
> & the whole flood plain is a big if
> as you must also realize
Yes, I know! Such an important point is worth a try, however.
> not to mention again the unreliability of the
> measurements
>
> & the disagreeableness of the general locality
>
> but i would agree it looks like the mound at point d
> will be the oldest
> in case that somewhat matters to you too
Undoubtedly the oldest! One would pass point D on his way to point z, so both
would get tried at the same time. Access is the only question, but point D
looks good enough in that regard.
> but in view of the great overall difficulty
> nay enormity
> of your quest
> i would just go for the most agreeable & easiest
> looking one
> or few
> from whatever other map synergy you can find
That is why I am selecting a few candidates that combine the right approximate
measurements with apparent accessibility via roads or open areas.
> if you can conveniently share any more data or maps
> please by all means
All in due time.
>> I have determined that the benchmark
>> on the LAMS boundary just
>> west of US 61 is not at a mile interval.
> >
>> ...other
>> elevations on the topos
>> that I have found along the western part of the line
>> are stated elevations, not
>> bench marks.
>
> are you concluding & or precluding something here
I'm concluding nothing one way or the other about the non-benchmark elevations,
only that the US 61 benchmark seems to pertain to highway engineering.
> or do you still imagine all 17 or so specially
> indicated points on the lams line remain equally
> plausible mound guesses
I have studied carefully only the West Feliciana and part of the East Feliciana
portions of the line. In that space, there are only a few such other
elevations. I do not rule out any of them as plausible.
> btw
> the only ones i am shrugging so far are the public
> land survey corners
> since they seem so obviously derivative of the mound
> line itself
> i mean
> rather than being at all necessarily based on the
> individual mounds
Don't be so sure! See below regarding my wild theory.
>> I am now pursuing a wild theory that will require
>> some research for confirmation
>> before I enunciate it. I'll let you know if it pans
>> out. I want to get that
>> straight before planning any travel.
>
> hahaha
> well i will want to check any maths & logics too
> but by all means let us know what you are thinking
Okay, but you've coaxed my theory out of the wild while its legs are still
wobbly--so be kind with the criticism.
I first noticed that the initial points for both the Public Land Survey's
Washington Meridian in Mississippi and St. Helena Meridian in Louisiana seems to
be exactly where Ellicott's strip map indicates his mound 24 should be. (Of
course, Ellicott's LAMS serves as the base line for both meridians.) The
Washington Meridian was established in 1803, just five years post-Ellicott. I
hypothesized that the public land surveyors might have chosen his mound 24 as
their initial point. Next, I noted that the range line 24 miles west of these
principal meridians is at the valley wall, the supposed location of Ellicott's
point D. Since every fourth range line should be a guide meridian, this one
would be of above average importance, and it could be the reason that mound 24
was chosen as the initial point (if indeed it was).
I have an inquiry out now to the Principal Meridian Project (
www.pmproject.org ). I hope that the reference described on that site at
www.pmproject.org/CAlbertWhite.htm will provide solid proof one way or the other
whether the public land survey and Ellicott are in sync. I will let you know
when I hear from the PMP.