← Atlas catalogue V3 · Sonnet

Supraśl · Kopanica canal

A mill proves the work of water. Does it prove a stream?

The material on this page describes the Kopanica as a canal dug by people, and mills, sawmills and fulling mills beside a pond. It contains no document about a stream that might have vanished.

Section of a canal — schematic drawing Two straight, parallel banks with a blue band of water between them. The band ends at the right edge with a thin vertical line. A diagram, not a map.

Canal

Kopanica — a canal dug by people, called the New River or the Dug River in the town's history.

FACT according to the V1 note · to be checked in the source text

gap: the material does not give the course

Section of a pond with works — schematic drawing An oval pond filled with blue; to its right a thick, curved line for the dam, and further on three small squares marking the works, with a circle in the first one as a mill wheel. A diagram, not a map.

Pond · works

Mills, sawmills and fulling mills are described beside the pond. The canal, pond, dam and impoundments have been protected since 2009 (a reprint of a text by a Wody Polskie spokeswoman).

FACT according to the V1 note · to be checked in the source text

No line has been added here. The connection between the canal and the pond is an assumption in the diagram — this material has no map that would show it.

A document reveals only its own piece

Open the documents. Water is drawn only on the reaches that a document describes; the rest stays empty — even when you open everything. Then see what changes in the thesis when you are allowed to add something.

Fact
A statement in the source text according to the V1 notes. This is not a fresh check of the source, and the assignment to a particular document is a demonstration here.
Hypothesis
A line we have added, always dashed or hatched. No document describes it.
Missing
There is no document in the material supplied. This is not zero, nor proof that something did not exist.
To be read
The document is in the set but is closed — the reach is waiting.

Without JavaScript you see the state after both documents are opened; the buttons are disabled. This is a demonstration: the assignment of content to Document 1 and 2 rests on earlier notes, not on reading the sources; the actual scope of each needs checking.

Documents

This is a demonstration, not the result of a check. The assignment of which document describes what rests on earlier notes (V1/V2). The source texts were not read; the actual scope of each needs checking.

There is no Document 3. The set contains no map, plan or field description of the course. The page does not pretend otherwise.

What may be added in the gaps

Thesis after what has been revealed

In this material the Kopanica is a canal. There is no evidence of a stream.

Revealed: the Kopanica canal, the pond with its dam, the works beside the pond. In this demonstration assignment the canal and the pond have two texts, the works one; the actual scope of the sources needs checking. The intake, the outflow and the question of a stream still have no document — opening further texts from this set does not close them.

The four questions that must be asked before a stream is drawn in ↓

Reaches described in open documents
3 of 5
Reaches with a document, not yet read
0
Gaps with no document at all
3 — intake, outflow, question of a stream
Lines added without a document
0
Place for a stream from before the canal — schematic drawing Two vertical lines at the ends of an empty band. When the stream hypothesis is selected, a hatched background and a dashed, wavy line appear in the band; its shape is arbitrary and measures nothing.

MISSING

not in the material

Stream from before the canal (natural watercourse)

Did a natural watercourse flow here before the canal was dug? The notes on the documents in the set say nothing about this — neither that there was one nor that there was not. The texts themselves were not read.

  1. MISSING

    not in the material

    1 · Water intake

    Where the Kopanica took its water from: the material supplied says nothing directly about this.

  2. FACT

    assigned to 2 texts (demonstration)

    2 · Kopanica canal

    Doc. 1 (demonstration, per notes): the town's history calls the Kopanica the New River or the Dug River; a canal dug by people.

    Doc. 2 (demonstration, per notes): the canal belongs to a system protected since 2009.

  3. FACT

    assigned to 2 texts (demonstration)

    3 · Pond and dam

    Doc. 1 (demonstration, per notes): describes a pond beside which works stood.

    Doc. 2 (demonstration, per notes): the pond, dam and impoundments as part of a system protected since 2009.

  4. FACT

    assigned to 1 text (demonstration)

    4 · Works beside the pond

    Doc. 1 (demonstration, per notes): mills, sawmills and fulling mills are described beside the pond.

  5. MISSING

    not in the material

    5 · Water outflow

    Where the water went back to after the works: not in the material supplied.

The order of the reaches (intake → canal → pond → works → outflow) is a simplified model from V2, not a description of a course taken from a map. The spaces between the drawings are not distances or proof of connections.

Four questions before anyone draws in a stream

Order of investigation: a dated historical map → terrain relief → type of watercourse → installations.

  1. A straight course or a dam? A straight line and an embankment can be the trace of a millrace, but natural rivers were also straightened and embanked. Relief alone does not settle it; archival evidence or a study of sediments is needed.
  2. Its own source or a side intake? Many old mills had no stream of their own — water was taken by a weir from a larger river and led by a canal to a pond. This is a general pattern; the specific intake of the Kopanica is not among the three V1 facts and needs checking.
  3. Could the pond have disappeared on its own? A pond needs a dam and sluices. A neglected dam is eroded after a works closes, and the pond dries up — without any stream disappearing.
  4. What does the closure of a works mean? Dismantling a mill wheel or a sawmill is a fact of economic history. The absence of installations does not prove that a watercourse has vanished.

What this page does not establish

  • It is not a map. The shapes and the order of the reaches are a diagram; the geometry has not been checked.
  • The assignment of statements to the two documents is a demonstration based on earlier notes from V1 and V2, not a conclusion from checked sources. The sources were not opened when this version was built, so what each of them actually covers (including whether it describes the works) needs checking.
  • The absence of a document about a stream in this set does not prove that there was no stream. It says only that this material does not show one.
  • It does not describe the present condition of the site, access to it, or the extent of legal protection, beyond a sentence from the 2020 reprint.

What was removed compared with V2

  • Completeness score 0–100% — replaced with visible gaps and labelled counters. The percentage measured how many fields were filled, not how true the reconstruction was.
  • Four drop-down lists, an empty matrix and a “detector” — replaced with documents and three drawing modes. Their meaning was kept: a mill with no demonstrated inflow is a gap (intake), a declared stream alongside documents describing a canal is a discrepancy (hypothesis mode), and a dam does not settle origin (question 1).
  • In-browser notebook and copying of the summary — dropped. The page saves nothing; the only action apart from reading is “Reset”.
  • Photograph of a mill from the open-air museum in Chorzów — removed: it is a different object, not Supraśl, and needed a network connection to display.
  • Five reaches as a “source fact from V1” — corrected. The V1 notes contain the canal, the pond with its works, and protection; the intake from the Supraśl river and the outflow are marked as missing.

Sources

  1. Supraśl Municipal Office · Historia Supraśla [History of Supraśl] — in the notes: canal, pond, works and the continued existence of the system (Document 1; scope according to the notes, not to a reading).
  2. Supraski System Wodny dawniej i dziś [The Supraśl Water System, then and now] — reprint of an article by a Wody Polskie spokeswoman (2020): composition of the system and protection since 2009 (Document 2; scope according to the notes, not to a reading).

The links were carried over from V1 and V2. They were not opened when V3 was built, so nothing on this page is presented as re-checked. These are links to external sites; the page works without them and without a network connection.