aha interesting thank you
& it is certainly true that boundaries in our modern
sense did not develop until comparatively
er
modern
times
but what exactly do you mean by victim
& who do you mean by you all
like
do you mean you see all of us here at bp as victims of
our own mistaken beliefs about boundaries
or
do you just mean you see jesper & dominic & me here in
this thread in such a dim light
or
is your block of thought here not actually teetering
atop ours
as it appears
but is rather just afloat in its own neighboring
bubble
--- Wolfgang Schaub
<
Wolfgang.Schaub@...> wrote:
> You all seem to fall victim of the Western belief
> that a boundary is always
> a defined legal confine. In the East, as well as in
> the Soviet-influenced
> zones, boundary points are more like monuments to
> commemorate the strength
> and vigour of a country or a political system. It
> was the same in the old
> Roman empire: Neither the Limes nor Hadrian's wall
> were boundaries in our
> modern sense.
>
> Wolfgang
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: aletheia kallos [mailto:aletheiak@...]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Februar 2005 00:45
> An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [BoundaryPoint] afcnpk pic fallout
> was Re: Anglo-Scottish
> Border Images
>
>
> yikes
> i dont believe chillinji & kilik are the same pass
>
> & i dont yet see why chillinji even entered the
> discussion in the first place in
>
> http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/15843
>
> nor am i at all sure your attachment here depicts
> or
> even contains the area of kilik pass in any case
>
> but i do believe i have found kilik pass on your
> berkeley map also in the above link
> written perhaps kilikdaban or kilikdawan in
> cyrillic
> at the intersection of 4106 on the vertical grid &
> 13471 on the horizontal
> where a dashed line trail crosses the cnpk border
> at a boldfaced elevation point of 4765 meters
> marked x
>
> this map is problematic tho in indicating india
> where
> we expect pakistan or pakistani control
> as well as in not showing the tripoint as a
> distinct
> peak
> so i should modify my earlier assertion about that
> tho the elevation is about right for afcnpk as
> given
> in the ibs studies
>
>
> another thing i just noticed on closer examination
> of
> the photo is that the date of the monument is
> rather
> more likely 1964 than 1984
> oops
> but it makes much more sense if the demarcation
> followed directly on the 1963 cnpk cession &
> border
> agreement
>
> so all in all
> i feel we have some good corroborations here
>
> but it would sure be nice to get some more overall
> data on this mysterious cnpk demarcation of which
> this
> marker 2 is evidently just a part
>
> --- Jesper Nielsen <jesniel@...> wrote:
>
> > Attchment: Kilik pass with AFCNPK
> >
> > Jesper
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: aletheiak
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:41 PM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] afcnpk pic fallout
> was
> > Re: Anglo-Scottish Border Images
> >
> >
> >
> > ok i believe i may have resolved this question
> > about the
> > purported afcnpk pic as follows
> >
> > since we know afcnpk is a mountain peak
> tripoint
> > from both the topo & page 3 of
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/LimitsinSeas/IBS089.pdf
> > & pages 2ff of
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/LimitsinSeas/IBS085.pdf
> > the pictured location in a mountain pass could
> not
> > be afcnpk
> >
> > & tho there is no known pass anywhere by the
> name
> > of kilit
> > there does happen to be a kilik pass
> > only a short distance east of afcnpk
> > on cnpk
> > or rather actually pakistani controlled
> kashmir
> >
> > so i think that is what you most probably have
> > here dom
> >
> > marker 2 of a fascinating & previously
> unreported
> > 1984 cnpk
> > demarcation
> >
> >
> > moreover your remarkable discovery suggests
> afcnpk
> > may be
> > marked by a similar rock
> > hypothetically marker 1 of the same series
> > & that the numbered sequence may proceed
> eastward
> > from
> > afcnpk thru kilik pass toward some unknown
> > destination
> >
> > perhaps all the way at the east end of the
> 1963
> > pak cession to
> > china of the indopak disputed land shown in
> > crosshatching here
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir
> > _disputed_2002.jpg
> >
> > but i havent been able to find any other
> evidence
> > of this
> > extraordinary cnpk demarcation of 1984
> >
> > so i am thinking there could be something a
> bit
> > unusual & even
> > secretive going on here at these remote
> locations
> > with china & pakistan cooperating to cut india
> out
> > of several
> > disputed areas
> >
> > fascinating in any case
> >
> > > also can you provide any more info on this
> other
> > > fascinating page of yours
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/sdrawkcabdom/Border-Images-Afghan
> > PakChina.html
> > > which was evidently the source of the
> following
> > > unresolved try for a more precise
> identification
> > >
> >
> http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/15844
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> > email to:
> > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250