What makes you say that the point of the first green arrow does not
correspondent to the reds in the other maps?
Map 2, 3 and 4 have the same scale, and therefore I believe that the corner
of the lot (where the cross should be or was) is now no longer the corner of
the new lot. It looks smaller. So the cross would have been inside the
present field, somewhere around where the red cross points.
There were many of these enclaves, and it's been very difficult to track
down even a poor scale map. Noone ever made the project of mapping these
enclaves. So this is the only detailed topographic map I have ever seen.
It's from a book on the enclaves in the village of Rødding. The origin of
some enclaves are unknown, some are known. An enclave could have started
with a murder. To save the soul of the killed person, the murderer should
give his property to the church. Later at the reformation, all church
property was given to the crown, and so they became an exclave of the
Kingdom of Denmark inside Schleswig. The law, rights, taxes etc. were
different from the two entities, and even though the DK parliament tried to
solve the problem, the people living in the enclaves protested heavily.
The enclaves were partly why DK and DE made war in 1864, and just like in
modern day soccer, the small kingdom of the Danes have problems beating our
neighbour in the south. At peace negotiations DK tried to save the enclaves,
but (sadly for a border freak's point of view) that didn't happen and land
particulary south of Kolding was given to DK in exchange. Article 5 gave DK
a change to vote for a border change, they didn't and later article 5 was
cancelled.
But article 5 was still not forgotten, and after WW1 the referendum of
Schleswig reunited North Schleswig with DK in 1920.
Jesper
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:09 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Ghost binational quadropoint Denmark-Schleswig
> on closer examination
> the green arrow in your first map does not appear to point to the
> same point as the red arrows in the subsequent maps point to
>
> but even assuming that detail is correct or corrected
> still the second map
> which is presumably the most historically accurate one
> shows the possible border cross rather as a near miss
> if indeed i am reading it correctly
>
> so i think you may need better proof on this one
> as i believe you yourself have also suggested
> but i just wanted you to have my best attention & opinion too
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper Nielsen" <jesniel@i...>
> wrote:
> > http://www.nicolette.dk/diverse/rodding.htm
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>