Is this difference in the terrain, or only in the legend?
Object under study (pinned on both sheets)
Sheet legend
Editors' note (modern)The right-hand side is empty because no Kingdom document was supplied. This is a lack of material, not a lack of objects in the terrain.
GaliciaBełżec and Narol borderland
1815
date of the event (after the congress), not the date of the document
Document
Description of the change to the road in the municipality's history [1] — text, not a map
Scale
not applicable — verbal description
Purpose
road and postal (editorial assumption)
Editorial schematic based on the description [1], not a reproduction of a map. The frame and the border are shared by both sheets; positions are approximate.
Kingdom of Polandon the other side of the cordon
—
year unknown — off the timeline (unknown ≠ zero)
Document
No document supplied
Scale
unknown
Purpose
unknown
Empty field = year unknown (not zero).
Without a Kingdom document there is nothing to set against the Galician sheet. Choose a purpose and a year to see how the comparison changes.
Editorial schematic. Dashed drawings, when they appear, are a model of a kind of document, not a description of any particular archival document.
Before you say “it is the border”
The four conditions of comparability are worked out from what you have set on the desk: the object, the year and the purpose of the Kingdom document. Choose what you want to claim and see what the material allows. The result is qualitative: there are no points and no certificate of a correct interpretation.
You set the year and purpose of the Kingdom document on the sheet: go to the fields.
On hold
Conclusion about the border on hold: there is no second document
No document was supplied for the Kingdom side, so there is nothing to set against the Galician sheet. This is a lack of material, not proof that there is or is not a difference in the terrain. The municipality description [1] speaks of one side only.
Counter-argument.The contrast may be a difference of dates, legends or an older settlement layout, not of the cordon. The border may also only have added functions (customs house, post office) to what was already there.
What to look for.Accounts of clearance at the customs house and road plans from both sides from years close to 1815. For the Kingdom this is an archive search still to be done; the material contains no call numbers or documents.
1. Contemporaneity of sources
unknown
Do the documents come from a single decade (a difference of up to 10 years)?
The year of the Kingdom document is not known. An unknown date is not zero and has no place on the timeline.
2. Symmetry of purposes and legends
unknown
Do both documents record the same features?
There is no Kingdom document, so its legend and purpose are unknown.
3. Earlier settlement
unknown
Has it been ruled out that the object existed before the 1815 border?
The material has no source from before 1815 on this object. The lack of a source does not prove that the object is new.
4. Later railway
unknown
Are both documents from before the 1884 railway?
The event described in document G (event year 1815) is earlier than the railway (1884), but it is not known when the Kingdom document was made.
Four objects, four different arguments
These are not four filters of one table. Each object misleads for a different reason and needs a different third document. The object pinned on the desk is marked with a red rule.
pinned on the desk
Road
The only object with a described link to the border
Apparent difference
On the Galician side a junction with a customs house and post office, on the Kingdom side nothing.
Why it misleads
The municipality [1] links the new course of the Warsaw–Lwów highway to the border after 1815. This is the account of one side, not a comparison of two maps.
Third document
Accounts of clearance at the customs house and road plans from both sides from years close to 1815. An archive search still to be done; I give no call numbers.
Status in the material
Municipality text, to be checked at the source. No Kingdom document.
The building axis (łańcuchówka, row village) visible on the 1854 plan on one side only.
Why it misleads
The plan shows the state in 1854, not the beginning of the village. The material gives no date for the origin of the Bełżec layout [1]. The hypothesis of its pre-partition beginnings needs checking.
Third document
A source from before 1815 on the village layout (founding charter, earlier map) and a village plan from the Kingdom from a decade similar to 1854.
Status in the material
Description of the plan from the municipality; the original was not viewed.
Strips of land drawn on one sheet and absent on the other.
Why it misleads
A tax document records the division of land; a road or military map usually does not (a general assumption, not a description of specific maps). A difference in drawing is not a difference in the terrain.
Third document
On the Kingdom side, liquidation tables or estate plans at a similar scale. First compare the legend and scale, then the plots.
Status in the material
Blocked by the lack of a second document. The pattern of “narrow strips” in Bełżec is a hypothesis, not an established finding.
Buildings and roads near the station look like a relic of the border.
Why it misleads
The 1884 line and the 1887 connection [1] are 69 and 72 years younger than the 1815 border. A trace of transport has to be distinguished from a trace of the partition.
Third document
Station plans and documents on the construction of the line; for the Kingdom, information on transport in the same years.
Status in the material
Dates from the municipality description, to be checked. The influence of the border on the location of the station is a hypothesis.
Successive points in the material are separated by 43, 39 and 30 years, and the railway dates 1884 and 1887 by 3 years. The 1854 plan and the opening of the railway in 1884 do not describe a single moment. The width of the segments below corresponds to the number of years; the descriptions are in the list.
Bełżec in Galicia; Narol, Lipsko and Lipie in the Żółkiew circle [1][2].
The border with the Kingdom north of Krynica, by the road to Narol and Lipsko. An approximate description, not a surveyed location [1].43 years after 1772
The cadastral plan shows Bełżec as a łańcuchówka (row village) [1].39 years after 1815
Jarosław–Bełżec railway, later the connection with Rawa Ruska [1].30 years after 1854; 1887 is 3 years after 1884
Kingdom document: date unknown. An unknown date does not lie on the timeline, neither at 1815 nor at any other point.
Limits of this page and what was removed
What is not here
There are no reproductions of maps or their legends. The material contains no map of Galicia or the Kingdom with metadata, so the sheets are editorial schematics, not copies.
Scales and dates of documents beyond the municipality description [1] are unknown. They are marked as such, not with a number.
The assignment of features to kinds of document (tax, military-topographic, road and postal, railway) is a general assumption of the model, not a description of specific archival items. The 10-year threshold for contemporaneity is also an assumption.
Sources [1]–[3] were not opened or re-checked here. Their content needs checking in the original.
The result on the desk is neither proof nor an assessment of an interpretation. The border remains at most an admissible hypothesis.
What was removed relative to V2, and why
A notebook saving to the browser (key atlas-v2-47): dropped. The page stores nothing on the reader's side; the counter-argument within the material itself matters more.
The “Galicia only / Kingdom only” switch: replaced by a simultaneous side-by-side comparison, because it hid precisely the asymmetry at issue.
A button loading a ready-made comparison for an object: replaced by pinning the object. A ready-made preset set the answer for the reader.
The green result “documented influence of the cordon”: replaced by the words “admissible” and “on hold”.
A photograph of the Orthodox church from an external server: removed from display, because it is not a document of the border and required a resource from the network. It remains as a link in the sources.
V2 theses without support in the supplied descriptions (e.g. a medieval pattern of narrow strips, no railway on the Kingdom side) are not claims here.
[3] Marek Sobczyński: Granice polityczne w krajobrazie [Political borders in the landscape]Studia z Geografii Politycznej i Historycznej [Studies in Political and Historical Geography], 2018; a way of studying relict borders: the effects of a division may persist after the barrier disappears, but not every difference in buildings or fields results from the partitions. To be checked at the source.
