You're right. We can resume the history of "pedra dreta" as boundary
marker as:
- before 1660: communal border. municipal tripoint.
- from 1660 to 1868: international border marker "de facto"
- from 1868 to nowadays: a new bordermarker was placed next to the
stone, so has lost its border marker condition.
At least, we can be proud that in 1868 the stone was not pulled down,
remaining as "pedra dreta" ( = erect stone ) and was mentioned in the
delimitation act as a sort of homage to an ancient "fetish".
Marcel
Missatge original----------------------------------------
From: orc@o...
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 4:05 am
Subject: Re: Marcel
well marcel you have traced this as well as could be & it really
does ap=
pear to have been a working intermunicipal rock since 1660 at latest
if not=
continuously since even roman times & it could also yet prove to have
been=
de jure at least part of the way back if any of the right
scribblings we=
re ever to turn up
but without evidence of an esfr boundary before 1660 the candidacy of
the =
pedra dreta seems to stall beside harrys 1480 denl rock in overijssel &
othe=
rs less old for even tho they too are still without complete textual
confir=
mation the treaties necessary to validate them do at least stand a
good cha=
nce of being found
or would you not agree
wondering too if there wasnt also a left stone left somewhere perhaps
nea=
rby to go with this right stone
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., <marcelmiquel@n...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Consulted the treaty of Llívia ( nov. 12th, 1660 ), there is no
mention
> to any border marker. From 1660 to 1868 ( delimition act ) the
> spanish/french border at La Cerdanya and Llívia was not defined, and
> the communal borders were considered international borders. There
were
> many frontier conflicts ( see P. SAHLINS: Boundaries: the making of
> Frenace and Spain in the Pyrenees ) because the border was not fixed.
> There are several spanish and french maps from the enclave for
military
> and fiscal purposes, and all marked the enclave limit where the
³pedra
> dreta² is placed, as a turning point. There is a spanish catastral (
> =fiscal map ) of 1732 ( see Sahlins pag. 87, il. 6 ) that marks
³Piedra
> derecha² (=pedra dreta ) at this point. In another map, a french
> military one from 1840 ( Sahlins, p. 211, il. 8 ), the same turning
> point is marked where the old stone is placed.
>
> The treaty of limits ( 1866 ) mentions ³pontarró d¹en Xidosa², the
> place where the stone is placed, but not the pedra dreta. The
comission
> who delimatated the border took the old markers as a reference. From
> Sahlins ( p.252): ³ The problem of determining the comunal boundaries
> was a two-stage process: first, the comissioners sought out documents
> describing communal limits of earlier centuries; then tried to
> determine where those boundaries could be marked on the ground. The
> real issue, as General Callier noted, was the ³signification"²of the
> descriptions- the relation between the text and the terrain.²
Sahlins
> mentions, in the case of Llívia, a dispute of limites with the town
of
> Angostrina. I think the ³pedra dreta² as a undisputed boundary limit
is
> clear, because the marker number 1 is placed there, and according the
> delimitation act :³next to the old stone who has been the boundary of
> Llívia, Ur and Càldegues². So we can assume that from 1660 from 1868
> this stone was a international boundary marker ³de facto², despite it
> was not mentioned in a treaty, just because a treaty of limits didn¹t
> exist.
>
> I¹ve attached a ortophoto map 1:5.000. I¹ve marked the boundary. The
> stone is placed next to the turning point, where the border marker
n.1
> is placed.
>
>
> Marcel
>
> >glad to learn you are pursuing this further marcel & look forward
> to >your=
> > report from the 1660 text for it seems likely you will find this
> >stone men=
> >tioned there with the names & dates of antecedent treaties for
ongoing
> >pursu=
> >it but i agree what better place could there be to dive right in
> >than this=
> > cerdanya treaty not only because you can but also because nobody
has
> >yet b=
> >een able to qualify with treaty texts the rival candidate standing
on
> >the de=
> >nl line
>
> >m
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., <marcelmiquel@n...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> so my question here becomes when did this rock begin its service
> as
>
> > >an
>
> > >> international boundary rock
>
> > >> & that can probably be answered in the treaty texts
>
> > >
>
> > >Probably the treaty that divided the Cerdanya. Sixteen-
something....
>
> > >That's when Llivia town became detached from the surrounding
>
> > >countryside.
>
> >
>
> > >Marcel?
>
> > >
>
> > > so in sum first i do think extreme congrats are in order here in
>
> > any case
>
> > >
>
> > >And from me too.
>
> > >
>
> > >Peter S.
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps the partition treaty of Cerdanya (Treaty of Llívia,
>
> > 12/11/1660), mentions the stone. Next monday I will be able to
> confirm
>
> > it, because I don't have the book near. But the final delimination
> was
>
> > in 1868. Before this delimitation act, the international border was
> the
>
> > ancient municipal border. So, the "pedra dreta" surely was "de
facto"
> a
>
> > international boundary marker
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Personaliza tu móvil con los logos y melodías más divertidos.
> Pincha en http://www.vizzavi.es/portal/ofiweb/melodias/index.htm
__________________________________________________________________
Personaliza tu móvil con los logos y melodías más divertidos.
Pincha en http://www.vizzavi.es/portal/ofiweb/melodias/index.htm