Summary of the Old San Antonio Road Markers

Summary of the Old San Antonio Road Markers

Also see Summary of the Old San Antonio Road Route


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 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.

map legend's interactive map of Zively's route of the Old San Antonio Road.
Zoom in to show granite markers, survey posts, and site photographs.

Summary Information

Existence and Documentation

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

  • 106 were documented by 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 project (#4, #16, #17, #30, #46, #47, #61, #62). found 5 previously undocumented markers (#9, #11, #12, #114, #120).
  • 3 were documented by the DAR, and while 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.

Table of OSR Markers

Marker #CountyLocationDistance From PostOn Route? First Doc. By1 At This Location SinceDimensions
(H x W x D)
1SabineSH 21 on the west bank of the Toledo Bend Reservoir1.2 mi westYesDARcirca 196938" x 29" x 13"Has an additional line of text reading "TEXAS LOUISIANA BOUNDARY." The reservoir covers its original location. The marker's present setting was completed circa 2008.
2SabineSH 21 between the Toledo Bend Reservoir and Milam1.9 mi westYesDARunknown36" x 24" x 17"
3SabineSH 21 in MilamAt postYesDAR191839" x 25" x 13"
4SabineSH 21 in Geneva1.4 mi northNoNHTA1972?37" x 27" x 14"
5San AugustineSabine-San Augustine Co. line(missing)----Surveyed location is on private property.
6San AugustineSH 21 east of San AugustineAt postYesDAR191829" x 25" x 12"
7San AugustineMission Dolores in San Augustine300 ft eastYesDAR193629" x 24" x 16"
8San AugustineSH 21 between San Augustine and Denning0.1 mi southYesDARunknown31" x 27" x 16"
9San AugustineSH 21 west of DenningAt post?YesCarsoncirca 201122" x 25" x 13"The DAR mistook a concrete block 0.4 mi west of this location for Marker #9. The marker's whereabouts prior to 2011 are unknown.
10NacogdochesSH 21 on the west bank of the Attoyac River0.1 mi westYesDARunknown45" x 25" x 12"
11NacogdochesSH 21 west of ChirenoAt postYesCarson191828" x 23" x 14"
12NacogdochesSH 21 near Melrose2.0 mi westYesCarsonunknown37" x 25" x 13"This marker may actually be #13.
13NacogdochesBetween Melrose and Nacogdoches(missing)----This missing marker may be the one catalogued as #12.
14NacogdochesUpper Melrose Rd in east NacogdochesAt postYesDAR191824" x 26" x 13"
15NacogdochesMain St in downtown NacogdochesAt postYesDAR191831" x 26" x 13"
16NacogdochesSH 21 west of NacogdochesAt postYesNHTA191830" x 27" x 14"
17NacogdochesSH 21, 5 miles east of DouglassAt postYesNHTA191832" x 25" x 17"
18NacogdochesFM 225 at SH 21 north of Douglass0.5 mi eastYesDARunknown26" x 26" x 16"
19CherokeeWest bank of the Angelina River(missing)----Presumed washed away in a flood long ago.
20CherokeeSH 21 east of AltoNear postYesDAR191833" x 25" x 15"
21CherokeeSH 21 in downtown AltoAt postYesDAR199154" x 32" x 17"This marker was located 0.7 mi to the east until 1991, when it was moved back to its original location.
22CherokeeSH 21 east of the Caddo mounds0.3 mi westYesDARunknown32" x 26" x 13"
23HoustonSH 21 west of the Neches River0.7 mi southeastNoDAR1934?26" x 27" x 13"
24HoustonSH 21 west of Weches2.0 mi southYesDARunknown33" x 25" x 13"
25HoustonSH 21 4.6 mi west of WechesAt or near postYesDAR191826" x 28" x 11"
26HoustonSH 21 at BelottAt postYesDAR191836" x 30" x 14"
27HoustonSH 21 7 mi northeast of CrockettAt postYesDAR191831" x 21" x 17"
28HoustonSH 21 northeast of Crockett city limits1.5 mi northNoDARunknown32" x 30" x 14"
29HoustonSH 21 southwest of Crockett city limitsAt postYesDAR191826" x 25" x 12"
30HoustonSH 21 8.4 mi southwest of Crockett0.5 mi southwestYesNHTAunknown29" x 26" x 16"
31HoustonSH 21 midway between Crockett and the Trinity RiverAt postYesDAR191839" x 27" x 15"
32HoustonSH 21 northeast of the Trinity RiverAt postYesDAR191831" x 25" x 13"
33MadisonSH 21 southwest of the Trinity River1.4 mi southwestNoDARunknown32" x 31" x 12"
34MadisonSH OSR in Midway1.9 mi southeastNoDAR1936?33" x 25" x 19"
35MadisonSH OSR near Elwood0.8 mi southwestYesDAR1936?36" x 38" x 12"A mistake on Zively's survey makes it impossible to ascertain this marker's original location. It may have been in Elwood, 0.2 mi southwest of its current location.
36MadisonSH OSR at SH 75250 ft westYesDAR1936?31" x 23" x 15"
37Leon-Madison lineSH OSR west of I-45At postYesDAR191835" x 29" x 14"
38Leon-Madison lineSH OSR east of Normangee1.5 mi southwestYesDAR1936?32" x 25" x 19"This marker is approximately halfway between the original locations of #38 and #39 and could be either one of them. It has been moved to the Madison County side of the line.
39Lean-Madison lineIn Normangee(missing)----See note for Marker #38.
40Leon-Madison lineSH OSR between Normangee and the Navasota RiverAt postYesDAR191832" x 28" x 17"
41Brazos-Robertson lineSH OSR west of the Navasota RiverAt or near postYesDAR191832" x 25" x 18"
42Brazos-Robertson lineSH OSR at Little Cedar CreekAt postYesDAR191832" x 25" x 18"
43Brazos-Robertson lineSH OSR near WheelockAt postYesDAR191837" x 28" x 12"
44Brazos-Robertson lineSH OSR between Wheelock and SH 6At postYesDAR191835" x 27" x 16"
45Brazos-Robertson lineSH OSR northeast of SH 6At postYesDAR191835" x 27" x 16"
46BrazosSH OSR southwest of SH 60.6 mi northYesMoorecirca 200534" x 28" x 20"
47BrazosSH OSR at SH 211.0 mi eastYesMoore1973?35" x 28" x 14"
48BurlesonSH 21 south of the Brazos River0.2 mi southYesDAR1975?31" x 28" x 18"
49BurlesonBrazos River, upstream of Marker #48(missing)----Zively showed the road forking on both sides of the Brazos River. Markers #48 and #49 were placed where each fork crossed the river. Consequently, Marker #49 was not between #48 and #50, as its sequence number would indicate. The original location of Marker #49 is now on private property. Though listed as missing, it could be the "extra" OSR marker in Lee County, which we have called #57B.
50BurlesonSH 21 in Cooks Point0.3 mi southwestYesDARunknown35" x 25" x 19"
51BurlesonSH 21 northeast of CaldwellAt postYesDAR191834" x 27" x 11"
52BurlesonSH 21 in Caldwell0.2 mi southNoDARunknown30" x 25" x 17"
53BurlesonSH 21 southwest of CaldwellAt or near postYesDARunknown40" x 26" x 15"
54BurlesonSH 21 northeast of the Burleson-Lee County lineNear postYesDARunknown36" x 28" x 13"
55LeeSH 21 at East Yegua CreekNear postYesCarsoncirca 201135" x 31" x 14"The DAR documented a marker in this vicinity, but it was at a different location, and the marker they photographed is not the same one.
56LeeSH 21 southwest of Old Dime BoxAt postYesDAR191827" x 31" x 15"
57LeeSH 21 northeast of Lincoln0.2 mi southeastNoDAR1986?36" x 28" x 13"
57BLeeSH 21 at West Yegua CreekN/A (see note)NoDARunknown36" x 30" x 15"This marker is not on Zively's survey. It was probably moved here from one of the "missing" marker locations, with Marker #49 from Burleson County being the most likely one.
58LeeSH 21 southwest of LincolnAt postYesDAR191835" x 25" x 16"
59LeeSH 21 east of the Bastrop-Lee line1.0 mi eastYesDARunknown36" x 28" x 13"
60BastropSH 21 at the Bastrop-Lee lineAt postYesDAR191830" x 29" x 19"
61BastropIn rural Paige0.4 mi westNoNHTAunknown33" x 29" x 20"
62BastropSH 21 northeast of Bastrop State Park1.8 mi southwestNoMooreunknown34" x 31" x 22"
63BastropSH 21 in east Bastrop3.0 mi southwestNoDAR191840" x 31" x 16"
64BastropChestnut St in downtown BastropAt postYesDAR191840" x 33" x 12"Moved approximately 6 feet to a new setting in 2010.
65BastropWater St in downtown Bastrop (on the Colorado River)0.1 mi northYesDARunknown31" x 28" x 13"
66BastropSH 21/71 west of Bastrop0.4 mi westYesMoorecirca 200240" x 29" x 19"When the DAR documented the marker, it was 200 to 300 feet west of its current location.
67BastropSH 21 east of Cedar Creek0.1 mi eastYesDARunknown28" x 26" x 23"
68BastropWest of Cedar Creek(missing)----Surveyed location is now private property.
69CaldwellOn the Bastrop-Caldwell line(missing)----
70CaldwellSH 21 at Niederwald Cemetery0.3 mi westYesDARunknown28" x 25" x 12"
71CaldwellSH 21 between Niederwald and Uhland400 ft southYesDAR1940s?31" x 28" x 13"Originally placed on the Caldwell-Hays county line; probably moved when Highway 21 was rerouted.
72Caldwell-Hays lineSH 21 southwest of UhlandAt postYesDAR191831" x 29" x 19"
73Caldwell-Hays lineSH 21 at the San Marcos airport0.9 mi northeastYesDARunknown32" x 28" x 15"
74HaysOld Bastrop Hwy south of the San Marcos River1.4 mi southwestYesDARunknown29" x 27" x 14"
75HaysOld Bastrop Hwy southwest of San Marcos0.4 mi southwestYesDARunknown36" x 27" x 14"
76ComalOld Bastrop Rd at the Comal-Hays lineAt postYesDAR191831" x 28" x 13"
77ComalI-35 northeast of New Braunfels2.1 mi northeastYesDaughtrycirca 200825" x 33" x 14"Had been at or near its original location prior to 2008.
78ComalNacogdoches Rd in Downtown New BraunfelsAt postYesDAR191835" x 28" x 15"New setting was completed in summer 2014.
79ComalFM 482 in southwest New BraunfelsAt postYesDAR191829" x 28" x 14"
80ComalOld Nacogdoches Rd in Garden RidgeAt postYesDAR191831" x 26" x 13"A fence was installed in front of the marker circa 2013.
81BexarNacogdoches Rd at Cibolo CreekAt postYesDAR191828" x 23" x 14"
82BexarNacogdoches Rd in northeast San Antonio0.2 mi northeastYesDAR1980s?30" x 29" x 14"
83BexarNacogdoches Rd in downtown San Antonio0.1 mi southwestYesDAR1979?28" x 24" x 14"
84BexarSan Pedro Park in downtown San Antonio0.1 mi southYesDARunknown54" x 39" x 20"This marker, at the site of the 1918 OSR dedication ceremony, is much larger than the others.
85BexarMission Road in downtown San AntonioAt postYesDAR191831" x 26" x 13"
86BexarEspada Road at IH 4100.3 mi northwestYesDARunknown28" x 23" x 14"
87BexarPleasanton Road west of Mitchell LakeNear postYesDARunknown29" x 26" x 15"
88BexarPleasanton Road south of Medina RiverNear postYesDAR2005?not availableOn private property. A fence has been added since the DAR visited. The marker may have been moved inside the fence when the site was altered in 2005.
89BexarPleasanton Road north of the Atascosa-Bexar County line2.1 mi southYesCarson201532" x 27" x 16"Had been 400 feet north of its current location prior to 2015.
90AtascosaOld Pleasanton Road at the Atascosa-Bexar County lineNear postYesDARunknown26" x 26" x 15"
91AtascosaOld Pleasanton Road south of the Atascosa-Bexar County line4.2 mi northeastNoDARunknown30" x 30" x 13"
92AtascosaNear Atascosa Couty Road 304 south of Poteet3.3 mi southwestNoDARbefore 1953-
93AtascosaSH 173 west of Jourdanton2.5 mi southwestNoDARunknown38" x 25" x 12"
94AtascosaSH 97 west of Jourdanton1.0 mi southwestNoDARunknown36" x 25" x 15"
95AtascosaBetween Jourdanton and Charlotte(missing)----An error on Zively's sketches makes it impossible to determine this marker's original location with certainty.
96AtascosaFM 140 south of Charlotte0.8 mi eastNoDARunknown36" x 25" x 14"
97AtascosaCR 347 southwest of Charlotte1.0 mi northeastNoDARunknown27" x 26" x 12"
98AtascosaNear SH 97 and San Miguel CreekAt postYesDAR191837" x 26" x 18"On private property.
99FrioNear CR 1582 north of the Frio-La Salle County line(missing)-DARunknown-The DAR found and photographed this moved marker on private property circa 1995, but its exact location is uncertain.
100La SalleSouth of Esperanza Creek(missing)----Surveyed location is on private property.
101La SalleSH 97 near Fowlerton8.7 mi southeastNoDAR1950s33" x 26" x 12"
102La SalleSH 97 west of Fowlerton5.6 mi southeastNoDAR1950s34" x 25" x 18"
108La SalleSH 97 east of FM 4693.2 mi northeastNoDAR1950s24" x 24" x 14"On private property. About a third of the marker is broken off and missing. There were no markers #103 through #107.
109La SalleSH 97 at FM 4692.9 mi northNoDAR1950s37" x 27" x 16"
110La SalleSH 97 between FM 469 and Cotulla4.1 mi northwestNoDARcirca 192636" x 28" x 15"
111La SalleSH 97 east of Cotulla2.7 mi northNoDARcirca 192631" x 26" x 16"
112La SalleSH 97 in Cotulla0.7 mi northNoDAR199130" x 27" x 11"Was in a creek bed ¼ mile east of its current location prior to 1991.
113La SalleCochina Ranch Rd west of Cotulla(missing)----See note for Marker #114.
114La SalleFM 133 near IH 35 near Artesia Wells9.0 mi southNoCarsoncirca 200928" x 25" x 11"This marker's location prior to 2009 is unknown. It may actually be Marker #113, which would mean #114 is missing.
115DimmitFM 133 at the Dimmit-La Salle County line7.3 mi southNoDARunknown38" x 27" x 13"The county line signs are 0.3 miles west of the statutory boundary, so this marker is technically in La Salle County.
116DimmitFM 133 west of the Dimmit-La Salle County line4.6 mi southNoDARcirca 1945?31" x 27" x 12"
117DimmitFM 133 east of Catarina1.7 mi southwestNoDARcirca 1945?41" x 29" x 20"
118DimmitSH 83 in Catarina1.2 mi northeastNoDARcirca 200438" x 28" x 14"Was on private property prior to the DAR's visit.
119DimmitSouthwest of Catarina0.2 mi eastYesDARunknownnot availableOn private property.
120DimmitBriscoe Ranch southwest of Catarina Creek3.2 mi southwestYesCarson2009not availableOn private property. Its location prior to 2009 is unknown.
121DimmitFaith Ranch west of Bonito Creek3.4 mi westNoDARunknown28" x 28" x 12"On private property.
122DimmitFaith Ranch east of San Lorenzo Creek3.0 mi northwestYesDARunknown34" x 25" x 15"On private property.
123DimmitFaith Ranch Road south of the main ranch gate1.9 mi northwestYesDARunknown35" x 25" x 10"On private property.
124DimmitSan Pedro Creek crossing on San Pedro Ranch0.3 mi southNoDARunknownnot availableOn private property.
125MaverickEast bank of San Ambrosia Creek(undocumented)----On private property.
126MaverickWest of San Ambrosia Creek(undocumented)----On private property.
127MaverickNear Eagle Pass Road(undocumented)----On private property.
128MaverickPaso de Francia on the Rio Grande(undocumented)----On private property.


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.

Page last updated: October 28, 2015

1This column, "First Documented By," indicates who, to our knowledge, was the first person or entity to have documented the marker at its current location.