Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: delu condo
Date: Jul 09, 2001 @ 01:03
Author: Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>_________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: delu condo
>Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:55:18 -0000
>
>I just had yet another look at Wolfgang's documents, and it is clear
>from those that:
>1. At the time of the fixing of the boundary, there _was_ no
>condominium. It is explicitly stated that the boundary is formed by
>the main channel of the boundary rivers, and that all islands therein
>are either Dutch or Prussian territory according to their position in
>relation to the main channel. The little sketches show this, too.
>Thus, the condo is of later date. A peculiar thing is, by the way,
>that 1:20k Luxembourgish maps do show the condo, but 1:25k German
>(topo!) maps I've seen draw the border in the middle of the river(s).
>2. The Emmerich protocols dealt with the boundary between Prussia and
>the part of the Netherlands which was the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
>Which means it didn't concern the boundary between Prussia and other
>parts of the Netherlands. But it probably _did_ concern the Rippach
>boundary, as it was the northernmost border of the G.D. of
>Luxembourg, and to the north was at that time Prussia (now it is
>Belgium).
>3. There were placed boundary markers: A) One per number when it was
>a land boundary (i.e. Vianden), B) Two when they were on both sides
>of the river, and C) Three at river mouths, where the tributary was
>also a boundary river: At the mouth of the Sauer, and at the mouth of
>the Our. But there are _also_ three markers at the mouth of the
>Rippach!!
>
>A question: when the condominium was formed (when was this, by the
>way?), did all the islands in the boundary rivers automatically
>belong to it? Or are they de or lu exclaves in condominial waters
>nowadays? In other words: are there dry parts in the condominium
>(apart from the small dam at Apach/Perl/Schengen, and the extended
>bridgeheads, like the one with the tourist info building at
>Keppeshausen, these things possibly being man-made and therefore more
>recent than these islands)?
>
>I still would very much welcome a detailed map of the bedelu "thing",
>like Wolfgang provided for the defrlu one (btw, I know I still owe
>you some pictures of that spot, but as they are slides, I'll first
>have to have them made into photographs, and than scan them. But I've
>not forgotten about them, you'll see them). My guts say it would be
>ridiculous that the Rippach would be a condominium, but for now all
>the evidence I've seen suggests otherwise. These three stones at
>bedelu are intriguing. They used to be "Abzielsteine" (Targeting
>stones?), but that is from the time there was no condo, and the
>boundary was spot in the middle of the two (and here three) stones.
>
>And finally: those stones have dilapidated a fair deal since the time
>the photographs I've seen now have been taken. Perhaps not the stones
>themselves, but the vegetation and dead wood at these places don't
>suggest the three states care a lot.
>
>Peter S.
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Michael Donner" <barbaria_longa@h...>
>wrote:
> > jesper
> > it is my guess that there are actually 2 delu condo areas
> > one running north from defrlu almost up to vianden
> > & the other running north from just above vianden to bedelu
> > & that both defrlu & bedelu are actually trilines not tripoints
> > m
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>