--- "acroorca2002 <orc@...>" <orc@...>
wrote:

> & it all boils back down to a question of whether
> the quadripoint
> occurs somewhere within the marker 110 complex
> as our eyes would like to believe
> or at the very peak
> as the original treaty evidently says

> [cut] it would seem that [cut] the monumentation
> must therefore simply be of the
> indirect variety

I have reexamined the text of the treaty if 1844, and
there is room for another interpretation.

The treaty describes the border, and says:
"In gerader Linie (�ber 2 Untermarken) zum Mark im
Felsen Nr. 110 (welches wegen Westen sieht) auf den
h�chsten Zinken des Steinberges."

This translates to:
"[From marker 109, the border follows] a straight
line, via 2 intermediary markers, to marker 110, which
is cut into the rock (looking west) on the highest
peak of the Steinberg."

I suppose one could interpret this as:

"The border turns at the marking in the cliff.
The mark constitutes border marker #110.
And, by the way, if you'd like to go there, the mark
is close to the highest peak of the Steinberg."

The text above also specifically states that the
marker is facing west ("welches wegen Westen sieht").
A peak does not face in any direction except up, which
would suggest that the peak is not the turning point.

We have at least three quadripoint candidates:

1. The top of the "110-rock"
2. The black cross.
3. The eyepin (iron bolt)

The interpretation above suggests that the top of the
rock would be a little less likely, but gives no hint
as to what actually constitutes the "Mark im Felsen"
(marking in the rock).

M

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com