In 1915, surveyor V.N. Zively, working on behalf of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and the state of Texas, surveyed the historic Old San Antonio Road from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande. Along the way, he placed 124 oak survey posts, approximately at 5-mile intervals. Some of these posts were placed in towns or at road intersections, some were placed on river banks, and others were left in fields in the country, where all traces of the historic road had vanished. The DAR and the state replaced 123 of these survey posts with pink granite markers in 1918. (For more information about the Old San Antonio Road and the DAR marker project, see our article, Rediscovering and Preserving El Camino Real.)

Over the years, the 123 engraved granite blocks that marked the Old San Antonio Road have met a variety of fates. When paved roads highways were put in, especially in the 1920s through 1950s, quite a few of the markers were moved off to the side. If the new paved road used a different route from the old dirt road, the marker was usually moved to some nearby spot along the new road. Some markers were moved by property owners who found them in their way. Unfortunately, some were moved to places unknown, and haven't been seen in decades. Some of these massive stones have sunk deep into the earth and are now almost covered by weeds, all but forgotten. Others, in contrast, have been raised, set in concrete and made the center of attention, adorned with shrubs and flowers in front of a special parking area marked by signs visible in every direction.

From 2013 to 2015, Mr. David Carson of TexasCounties.net conducted a project to document the Zively/DAR route of the Old San Antonio Road. A major aim of this project was to locate, document, and photograph as many of the 123 granite markers as possible.

This page presents a summary of our findings of the 123 granite markers, 106 of which we documented from 2013 to 2015. If you are more interested in learning about the markers in a specific county, you can go back to the index and choose the county you want, or you can begin our county-by-county tour of the Old San Antonio Road Markers in Sabine County.

Existence and Documentation

A total of 110 of the 123 granite markers have been documented:

• 106 were documented by TexasCounties.net from 2013 to 2015. This includes the "extra" marker, #57B. The DAR previously documented 97 of these markers. 5 of the markers the DAR documented had been moved to new locations (#55, #66, #77, #89, #118). 8 markers the DAR did not find were documented by others prior to the TexasCounties.net project (#4, #16, #17, #30, #46, #47, #61, #62). TexasCounties.net found 5 previously undocumented markers (#9, #11, #12, #114, #120).
• 3 were documented by the DAR, and while TexasCounties.net did not document them, we did corroborate that they still exist at the same locations (#92, #119, and #124).
• 1 was documented by the DAR, but no recent confirmation has been made (#99).
• 5 have never been documented, but are believed or assumed to still exist (#5, #125, #126, #127, #128).
• 9 have never been documented and are believed missing or lost (#13, #19, #39, #49, #68, #69, #95, #100, #113). One of these, most logically #49, is presumed to be the "extra" marker, #57B.

Location and Movement

Of the 109 recently documented or corroborated markers:

• 98 markers are on public property, such as highway rights-of-way, or on private property in places that the public can access, such as utility easements or exterior grounds.
• 2 markers (#77, #88) are on restricted areas of private property, but they can be seen from public areas.
• 9 markers (#92, #98, #108, #119, #120, #121, #122, #123, #124) are inaccessible to the public and cannot be seen.
• 34 markers are at or within 100 feet of their original locations. Most of these are in east Texas, central Texas, or the San Antonio area. Only one marker south of Bexar County is at its original location (#98).
• 12 have been moved less than 500 feet.
• 28 have been moved more than 500 feet, but less than a mile.
• 16 have been moved 1 to 2 miles.
• 20 have been moved 2 to 9 miles.
• 1 has been moved at least 34 miles (#57B).
• Of the 65 markers that have been moved more than 500 feet, 31 are no longer on Zively's surveyed route.
• A total of 79 markers are still on Zively's route. This includes 34 that are close to their original locations, 11 that were moved less than 500 feet, and 34 that were moved, but kept on the route.
• Many markers were moved from the 1920s to 1950s, when the state highway system was being built. At least ten markers have been moved since 2000, however (#9, #46, #55, #66, #77, #88, #89, #114, #118, #120). Marker #89 was moved in 2015.
• Markers were placed in or on the boundaries of 21 counties. Three counties - Dimmit, Houston, and La Salle - had ten markers each. All of Houston County's markers are still in existence and are on public property. Eight of them are still on Zively's route, and six of them are at or near their original locations.

Our primary resource was Mr. Zively's book of notes and sketches, which he presented to the state of Texas in 1916. This book showed where the oak survey posts were originally placed, and thus gave a starting point for finding the markers.

The second-most important resource at our disposal was a web site built by the Texas Society DAR. This site contained the results of the DAR's own project to photograph and document the markers, which was conducted from 1995 to 2001. The DAR located and photographed 99 of the markers. The DAR's project made quick work of finding most of those, providing that they hadn't been moved since.

Other resources that aided in finding the markers were Wikipedia, where GPS coordinates for some of the markers had been posted, a web site maintained by the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Association, and various web sites and photographs of the markers made by individuals doing historical research at a local level.

For each marker found, Mr. Carson made several measurements and notations. These included:

• Coordinates - GPS coordinates were obtained for most of the markers in the field with a mobile phone. More accurate coordinates were derived later using mapping tools such as ArcGIS Explorer and Google Maps.
• Distance from road - The marker's distance from the nearest public road was measured. A 300-foot fiberglass tape was used for most of these measurements. A steel tape measure was used for very short distances, while a measuring wheel was used for very long ones. Distances were recorded from the closest surface of the marker to the nearest stripe on the road. If the road was curbed, the inside of the curb was used, rather than the stripe. If the road had neither stripes nor curbs, the measurement was taken from the edge of the pavement. In a few cases of exceptionally long distances, the distance was estimated by driving (using an odometer) or calculated from an aerial photograph. Most distances were taken to the nearest foot.
• Orientation - The direction that the marker faced was taken with a magnetic compass. This reading was rounded to the nearest 10 degrees. The orientation of the marker's face relative to the road was also noted (i.e. facing the road, facing away from the road, etc.)
• Distance from post - The marker's current location was compared with its original location as noted on Zively's sketch to determine whether the marker had been moved since it was originally placed and, if so, how far. Note that in many cases, Zively's sketch only aids in finding the original survey location up to a few hundred feet. "At post" means the marker may have never been moved, and if it has, it appears to be within 100 feet of its original location. "Near post" means it most likely has been moved, but it appears to still be within 500 feet of its original location.
• On or off route - Just because a marker has been moved does not mean it is no longer on Zively's surveyed route. Many markers were simply moved to another location along the route. Others were moved far away. For our purposes, a marker that has been moved, but is still within 500 feet of Zively's route, is considered to be "on route."
• Dimensions - The height, width, and depth of each marker were measured using a steel tape. Most of the markers, while generally rectangular, are irregularly shaped. The height was usually measured from the front, at the highest point from the ground. If the rear was markedly higher or lower than the front, a second height measurement was made. Small differences between the front height and rear height were not recorded. The width and depth were generally measured at the widest and deepest points, respectively. Measurements were taken to the nearest inch.
• Setting - Notes were taken regarding whether the marker was set in earth or concrete, or whether it was in a landscaped plot versus in a natural setting. For markers set in earth, a soil probe aided in determining whether there was concrete or some other hard layer a few inches down. Signs or other historical markers placed at the site were also noted.
• Visibility - An assessment was made of how easy it was to find the marker from the road. Curves, hills, high weeds, and clutter (utility boxes, utility poles, etc.) could reduce visibility, while signs and special parking areas could increase visibility.
• Accessibility - An assessment was made of how easy it was to park near the marker and walk up to it, once it was found. Was there a paved parking area for the marker, or was it on an unimproved shoulder? Was the marker on the other side of a ditch that is frequently full of rainwater? Carson tried to assess accessibility from the point of view of someone who may not be prepared for trudging through thorns, mud, or insects, or who may have difficulty walking up a steep slope.
• Photographs - In most cases, five photographs were made of each marker, a "site" photograph showing the marker as seen from the road, a "setting" photograph showing the marker in its immediate surroundings, a closeup of the marker's face, and two other close views of the sides and/or rear. The photographs portray the markers and the marker sites exactly as Carson found them; no weed or trash removal or any other kind of touch-up was done first.
• Driving directions - Even armed with coordinates, photographs, and a precise description of the location, people need a starting point. The driving distances from some nearby, well-known points of reference was given for each marker found. Numbered highways and farm-to-market roads were preferred, but rivers, creeks, and county roads sometimes sufficed.
• Condition - Such details were noted as whether the marker looked clean, was covered in lichens, whether there was noticeable damage or wear, etc. Several of the markers, particularly in central Texas, showed clear evidence that someone once applied a dark substance, such as paint, to the lettering, evidently in an attempt to make it more readable.
• Other - Carson noted any other information about the marker he was able to observe, such as whether it had been moved since the DAR's visit.

Some of the conditions observed for the markers are liable to be different now, or twenty-five years from now, compared to when we documented them. An attractive landscaping treatment may deteriorate quickly without regular upkeep. A marker rated low for visibility and accessibility may rate much higher following a good mowing. A fence or tree used as a reference point may be gone in ten years. Nevertheless, Carson felt that the best way to document the markers was to show them and describe them exactly how they looked on the day of his visit.