Subject: Re: DELU<br/>
Date: Apr 26, 2001 @ 14:44<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="2177.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3181.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2175.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="2177.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2179.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-731032012">Thank you, Wolfgang. Very valuable information indeed. Still, it not <br/>
only answers questions, but creates some new ones, too:<br/>
<br/>
1. All islands in the boundary rivers were allocated to either <br/>
Prussia or the Netherlands. Some got a boundary marker, but there <br/>
were ones without a boundary marker as well. The border was formed by <br/>
the main course of the rivers. So no mentioning of the condominium at <br/>
all, wet or dry! Was the condo situation created after the boundary <br/>
treaty was concluded, then? The spit at Apach probably wasn&#39;t there <br/>
at the time. So is it or isn&#39;t it a condominium?<br/>
<br/>
2. The little map no. 7 shows the boundary continuing to the north <br/>
following the Rippach (or Reibaach, or Rhiebach, the spelling is not <br/>
really consistent in the different sources). This looks like the <br/>
boundary at the time Sankt Vith was still German. So is the Rippach <br/>
brook a condominium as well then? Probably not, because it is now the <br/>
belu boundary, but you never know, as it was once the Dutch-Prussian <br/>
boundary. The Sauer is, after all, a tributary of the Mosel, the Our <br/>
a tributary of the Sauer, and the Rippach a tributary of the Our.<br/>
<br/>
3. It looks like the numbering of the boundary markers changed since <br/>
1818. dedelulus now is no. 19, but back then 21! Which could explain <br/>
the fact that on my map nos. 22 and 23 are missing... Or my map is <br/>
wrong, of course.<br/>
<br/>
4. I saw the word &#39;Bannmeile&#39;, when referring to the Vianden <br/>
bridgehead. Does it mean the bridgehead was part of some sort of <br/>
pale? This would bring the feudal times back in sight. My dictionary <br/>
(German-English) gives for &#39;Bannmeile&#39;: Inviolable precincts (of <br/>
city, Parliament etc.).<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Gartner Wolfgang &lt;WGartner@k...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; now enclosed as MS Word-file i present some additional <br/>
information&#39;s in<br/>
&gt; german language.<br/>
&gt; You will find an explanantion for the several treaty-dates 1815, <br/>
1816, 1818,<br/>
&gt; 1964.<br/>
&gt; 1815 is based on Vienna Congress<br/>
&gt; 1816 the treaties betweeen the Netherlands (including Luxemburg an <br/>
Belgium)<br/>
&gt; and Preussen<br/>
&gt; 1818 the special border arrangement with two  authentic cards.<br/>
&gt; 1964 the treaty between Luxemburg and Germany.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Special: Vianden - border stone situated on the german village<br/>
&gt; Bollendorf/Eifel. This stone dosn&#39;t belongs to the recent DELU-<br/>
Border.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt;  &lt;&lt;DE-LU.doc&gt;&gt; <br/>
&gt;    Wolfgang Gärtner<br/>
&gt;    c/o Carl Kliem GmbH<br/>
&gt;    An der Hauptwache 7<br/>
&gt; D 60313 Frankfurt am Main<br/>
&gt; Telefon 49-69-9201622<br/>
&gt; Fax       49-69-92016312<br/>
&gt; Email  mailto:wgartner@k... </span></blockquote></div>