Subject: Cooch Behar
Date: Oct 06, 2004 @ 23:22
Author: Brendan Whyte (Brendan Whyte <bwhyte@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


At 09:46 AM 16/09/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:46:25 +0200
> From: "chris schulz" <23568@...>
>Subject: cooch behar
>
>Hi,
>
>just looked for cooch behar and found the following link:
>http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/india/250k/ng45_8.jpg
>unfortunately there are shown only a few of all those numerous enclaves.
>you can compare the shown map with the wellknown map,
>http://www.home.pages.at/maxifant/Frames/coochbehar.htm
>
>regards, chris


Look at the compilation info in the bottom left: compiled form 1930s
half-inch mapping (British). These maps did show more enclaves [The british
mapped india at 1, 1/2 1/4 inch scales: 1:63,360, 1:126,720 and
1:253,440)]. But the US army has removed lots of them. This probably
explains atlases like the Times World Atlas only showing these two large
enclaves.
But given the scale of the US map, 1:250,000, the smaller enclaves would
just clutter the map. You really need to view the original British 1inch
maps (or current Indian 1:50,000 ones), to see the enclaves in their full
glory.
The ?Russian 1:200,000 maps were also compiled from the British ones, and
made some sections of the border a straight line!
So the lesson is clear: use original sources (the British maps compiled
fomr original surveys) rather than secondary sources (compiled fomr the
primary sources, or from other secondary sources), which, like a cassette
recording of a song on the radio, introduce errors, distortions and
simplifications, intentionally or not.

OF course this applies to arguments over whether enclaves exist or not.
Evidence based on secondary sources is not authoritative, but may be
corroborative if correctly applied.


Dr Brendan Whyte
Assistant Map Curator
ERC Library
University of Melbourne
Vic 3010
AUSTRALIA
bwhyte@...