victor
major thanx for all these great new details & reflections
more below
> I never paid a whole lot of attention to the
> 'reconstructed' phrase on the monument but I feel that
> I would have noticed something. Once the thought did
> cross my mind briefly so I poked around a bit but
> didn't find what had been reconstructed so i just blew
> it off. The entire monument looks as if it is of the
> same age, in my opinion, not 2-tone like the
> Washington Monument in DC as you suggest.
ok i am persuaded by your fresher & closer impressions here
but then what would you attribute the discoloration to
if we determine there is no part of the 1849 original here
then we would have to look elsewhere on mxus for its oldest
working rock
> I've also read somewhere that it was imported directly
> from Italy (marble?)
yes marble per bus&ss
> and then placed there. I am not
> convinced that reconstructed is the proper word as it
> seems it may have been replaced unless the very small
> square of cement that it sits on is original. I dont
> recall inspecting it closely.
>
> I say that i would have noticed something because
> there was something else i did notice there. i came
> across an old undated photo of the monument enclosed
> in a gate and noticed that the cement foundation that
> the monument sits on today is the same as in that old
> photo. you can still see where the posts where in that
> foundation and the surrounding half circle of cement
> is clearly much newer.
yes
great pic & observations
& funny that the old monument itself is invisible in the old cage
except
perhaps
for a shadowy trace of what appears to be
perhaps
the pedestal
itself
so i am still scratching my head over our difference here
but lets continue anyway where the trail would lead next
assuming as you evidently do that nothing remains of the
original initial monument within the present monument 258
but first your other questions below
> To me a much greater question is why the 'initial'
> point started as marker #258; in 1849 the final piece
> of the continental USA puzzle still wasn't in place
> (gadsden purchase) making any numbering system
> counting down instead of up obsolete pretty quick.
well of course that true observation just proves that the
numbering system wasnt devised until some time after the
gadsden purchase
or well into the 1850s at the earliest
but i believe the numbering may actually have waited until 1891
& that the 1894 reconstruction & numbering of monument 258
may thus actually have been the culmination of a 4year boundary
maintenance & improvement project
& of course the numbering system established then was simply
sequential traveling east to west
& not at all chronolgical
so never obsolete
> assuming monuments were placed equidistant from each
> other then we would see today strange monument
> numerations but that isn't the case.
true
tho incidentally
on most of mxus
monuments tend not to be equidistant but to mark ridge lines or
skylines at variable distances
for maximal intervisibility & minimal monumentation
> maybe the
> numerations took place after placement of monuments.
absolutely after many of the placements
but probably not after all
since i gotta figure there must have been some additions
inserted after 1894
tho i cant point to one
come to think of it
i cant remember having seen any lettered monuments on mxus
depicted by the usgs topos
as there are on caus
like say 1a or 1b etc
indicating subsequent insertions into a preexisting sequence
so maybe mxus does just have a much lower level of
monumentation maintenance than caus does
> that then leads me to believe that after 258 was
> placed then the inscriptions on it were made at a
> later time, as opposed to inscribing it before it was
> placed.
perhaps but i think not necessarily
> Mexico and USA disputed an area called la mesilla for
> years after the 1848 war and today is southern NM and
> El Paso, TX. so marking that 'final' point on the Rio
> Grande last makes sense. so why isn't that one #258
> and the 'intial' point on the pacific #1?
>
> vc
well i think it may be clear now
monument position 258 really was number 1 chronologically
& monument 1 may have been the chronologically last one to be
settled
as you say
but if so then that would be only coincidental
so
finally
cutting back to the chase for oldest working rock
assuming if you do that 258 isnt the winner after all
then here first are some relevant extracts from bus&ss
aka
boundaries of the united states & the several states
a 1976 usgovt publication
there was much difficulty in the interpretation of the 1848 treaty of
guadalupe hidalgo
a joint commission of the 2 govts was formed
etc
under the direction of the commissioners the initial point of the
boundary between upper & lower california was established on
the pacific coast & marked by a substantial monument
a similar determination was made at the eastern extremity of this
line
at the junction of the gila & colorado rivers
where another monument was placed
aka monument 206 today per usgs topo i assume
between these points the line was run & marked with 5
intermediate monuments
numbers unknown but probably the 5 most major ridge stones
next
the gadsden purchase line was run & marked in 1855
tho it isnt said in which direction
so the oldest position on this line if not also the 8th oldest
working rock on all of mxus
should none of the aforementioned oldest 7 positions pan out
may be either monument 1 or monument 205
etc etc
as settlement increased in the territory which this line traverses
it became evident that the line was insufficiently marked
because some of the monuments had disappeared & because
there were many large areas in which no monuments had ever
been placed
the necessity of rerunning & marking the line became apparent
for this purpose a commission was created in 1891
under which the line was recovered from the original
monuments
as far as possible
& between these monuments was rerun & fully & durably
marked
so in summary
there were at least 3 waves of monumentation by 1894
& if 258 is not the oldest rock
then 206 may well be
& if neither of these looks very convincing
then perhaps one of the 5 most prominent skyline markers in
between them may remain in its original condition thanx to its
remoteness
tho their modern numbers & original sequence is unknown &
would be difficult to research
& then
either of the gadsden purchase boundary terminal rocks
205 at san luis
or 1 at mesilla
with 205 being more likely than 1
for the reasons you gave above
so there are all the best hopes
but i have no idea how i would proceed from here with any
confidence
tho happily nothing very important hinges on it