ok jack i think i can streamline the picture now

first i have provisionally concluded your 1821 & my 1823 survey &
monument are just 2 different descriptions of the same things
pending your opinion

& continuing to reason as follows
thanx to your book
we know the present armook monument was first erected in
1915

& we also believe the 1823 stone was originally installed
4 chains & 83 links or a total of about 319 feet
due north of the present monument
per bus&ss

also
the earliest known marker on the present site dates only from
the 1840s & was a 10x5 mound of earth

& the embedded rock couldnt have been installed there til after
that original construction was in place
hence my earlier guess at its oldest possible date

now the usgs topo indicates no marker 319 feet north of armook
so it is a good bet the 1823 original has at least been removed
from its original position
tho that is one thing i would like to check on my next visit

& admittedly absence from one place doesnt confirm presence
in the other

but even tho it might be considered poor boundary management
practice to move an old rock
it still isnt so hard to imagine that someone
during the process of the resurvey & ratification in the 1840s
may have thought it advisable to just barely relocate this
decades old landmark rather than leave or destroy it

nor so hard to imagine that it may have been relocated or
retrieved from storage for the remonumentation in 1915
nor indeed at any time between 1845 & 1915

& no matter whether such poor practice was officially sanctioned
or just someones freelance inspiration
it does appear from the rough hewn looks of the old stone that it
could well be old enough to be the original 1823 rock

& if all the above proves true
then we have discovered quite an unusual situation here
& at least i cant think of any similar occurrence anywhere