MAP RESEARCH BULLETIN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: R
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 26, 1999
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: June 1, 1952
• Content Type: BULL

Sanitized - Approved ForrRelease : CIA-RDP79-0100M 0200010005-8
COPY NO -
MAP INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
CIA/RR MR-32
,CGOMENT NO.
NO CHANGE IN GLASS. C~
DEGlASS FtI C
CLA S? CHANG ~) TO: TS S
NEXT' REV;EW D41 E:
RUTH HR 7()-2 pG514
r~ 7$F. Vt WER: ----`_
D~T
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND REPORTS
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP79-01
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
WARNING
This material contains information affecting
the national defense of the United States
within the meaning of the espionage laws,
Title 18, USG, Secs. 793 and 794, the trans-
mission or revelation of which in any manner
to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For I uM IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
CIA/RR MR-32
Beginning with this issue, the name
of the Map Research Bulletin is
changed to Map Intelligence Review.
The series designation, MR, is re-
tained, however, and the numbers
continue in the same sequence.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Office of Research and Reports
Sanitized - Approved For a {CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Fo ?PCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Map Representation of Boundaries and Similar
Lines in Water . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1
II. Progress in the Demarcation of the India-
East Pakistan Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
III. Budapest Administrative Divisions . . . . . . . . 25
sentation on Soviet Maps: 1951
re
ep
d R
roa
il
IV. Ra
and 19+7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. Brief Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Mapping Project in Iraq . . . . . .
B. Aerial Mapping of Liberia . . . . . . .
C. Communal Map of Italy . . . . . . . . .
D. Land Area of the Greek Nomoi . . . . . .
. . .
29
. . .
33
. . .
33
. . .
33
. . .
34
. . .
35
Following Page
Budapest: Administrative Districts
(CIA 12162) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sanitized - Approved For . CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For _!I! 1
A-RD 00200010005-8
I. MAP REPRESENTATION OF BOUNDARIES AND SIMILAR LINES IN WATER
The cartographer is faced with somewhat of a dilemma in attempt-
ing to represent the limits of sovereignty in water. Where two or
more countries adjoin along straits or narrow seas studded with many
islands or along braided rivers, the representation of sovereignty
limits is difficult. It is also difficult to indicate the units of
sovereignty or administration for widely scattered islands in the
expanse of the oceans. Boundary lines or lines resembling boundaries
drawn across water areas are convenient graphic devices for indicat-
ing the extent of sovereignty or control in these areas, but in many
cases boundaries do not actually exist. The cartographer, conse-
quently, runs the risk of creating a false impression by careless or
uncritical use of boundary lines across water. Use of the interna-
tional boundary symbol to represent lines in the high seas on official
US Government maps might be exploited by foreign governments to
support unjustified claims. It is the-purpose of the present article
to suggest a method of representing boundaries and analogous juris-
dictional limits in water on the basis of the legal character of the
lines themselves.
Proposed Types of Lines to Be Used
Three types of lines may be considered as boundaries in the
true sense because they divide water areas over which, according to
international law and custom, the adjacent states may claim sover-
eignty and because the lines have been defined as boundaries by
Sanitized - Approved For IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For eTF. IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
agreements between the states concerned. These lines are (1)
boundaries from the mainland through the territorial sea to the
high sea or in narrow straits between two countries; (2) boundaries
through lakes; (3) boundaries along rivers. Another type of juris-
dictional limit in water is the line of allocation. The kinds of
allocation lines referred to here are delimited by agreement between
states as an aid in defining land areas over which sovereignty is
conveyed; they extend through water but do not effect jurisdiction
over the water. Finally, there is a type of line which, for want
of a better term, may be designated as a line for grouping insular
territories. It has no legal basis but is merely a cartographic
device for separating islands under one sovereignty from islands or
continental areas under another sovereignty.
The three types of true boundaries may be combined and repre-
sented by one symbol. This symbol would be the same as that used
for international boundaries on land, although in certain situations
an interrupted boundary symbol might be used across water and a con-
tinuous one on land. Each of the two other types of line -- namely,
the line of allocation and the line for grouping insular terri-
tories -- would be represented by a distinct symbol. The type of
symbolization that could be used is illustrated in the sample
legend:
(1)
International boundary in
territorial seas, lakes,
and rivers
Sanitized - Approved Fo . CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Fo ? CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
(2) - - - - - - - - - - - Line of allocation (by international
agreement)
(3) . . . . . . . . . . Line for grouping insular
territories
The symbols used in this legend are chosen for illustrative pur-
poses only. It might be found that three other symbols would fit
more conveniently into the general symbolization used on any par-
ticular map.
In the following paragraphs the different types of lines are
discussed in greater detail. Examples are given of situations in
which each type of line might be used, but a complete listing of all
places where the line might be used has not been attempted.
Boundaries through Territorial Seas
The territorial sea is the belt along the coast over which
maritime states exercise sovereignty. Foreign vessels have the
right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, and states
may make special agreements regarding fishing, pilotage, and other
activities by foreigners in their territorial sea, but for most
purposes this belt of coastal waters is as much a part of the na-
tional territory of the state as is the land. The width of the
belt varies according to the claims of individual states. The
United States and over 40 other independent states claim a limit of
3 nautical miles, but some 19 other states claim limits of 4, 5, 6,
Sanitized - Approved ForiRjgdbsw~ CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Forietas CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
9, or 12 nautical miles. J Furthermore, there is no general agree-
ment among states regarding the coastal base points or base line
from which the width of the territorial sea should be measured or
regarding other technical matters entering into the determination
of the width of the belt. In view of this lack of precision re-
garding extent of the territorial sea, it is not advisable to at-
tempt to represent the outer limit of the belt as part of the base
material of maps.2 Where the territorial sea of one state adjoins
that of another, however, the boundary in the water is in many cases
defined as precisely as is the land boundary, and it is practicable
to indicate the water boundary on maps.
One example of a boundary defined through the territorial sea
is the eastern segment of the boundary between the United States and
Canada. The line, extending from the mouth of the St. Croix River
through Passamaquoddy Bay to the high sea in Grand Manan Channel,
3 nautical miles from land, was defined in the convention of 11
April 1908 and in the treaties of 21 May 1910 and February 1925.
The boundary consists of a series of straight lines connecting 15
fixed turning points. Representation of this boundary on maps
1. See articles by S.W. Boggs reprinted in Submerged Lands: Hear-
ings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular AffairsiUnited
States Senate, 82d Cong., lst Sess., S.J. Res. 20, February 1951,
pp. 507-555.
2. On nautical or aeronautical charts it may be desirable, however,
to represent specific zones that are closed to foreign vessels or
aircraft.
Sanitized - Approved Fo M : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For RdM c' UA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
is desirable because of the many islands in the border area and
because the line is precisely defined by agreement.
The line between the territorial waters of Denmark and Sweden
in the Sound, the narrow strait between the two countries, may also
be shown as a boundary. This line was defined by the Danish-
Swedish declaration of 30 Jehuary 1932. The boundary runs midway
between the two coasts to a point somewhat northeast of Copenhagen.
From this point southward it is a series of straight lines connect-
ing defined points. Judging from the phraseology of the agreement,
it seems that not all of the Sound was considered to lie within the
territorial sea of either Denmark or Sweden. It is nevertheless
stated that "the line in question shall form the boundary in the
Sound between the territorial waters of the two countries as far
as those territorial waters extend."
A boundary similar in some respects to the Danish-Swedish line
is that between the Greek island of Kastelldrizon (Castellorizo)
and the mainland of Turkey. Kastelldrizon and several adjacent
islets and rocks, formerly belonging to Italy but now a part of the
territory of Greece, are located less than 1 nautical mile from the
Turkish coast. A convention of 4 January 1932 between Turkey and
1. Text of the 1932 declaration is in League of Nations Treaty
Series, Vol. 127, 1932, pp. 58-65; see also Royal Danish_Hydro-
graphic Office, Charts No. 131, Sundet Nordli a Del. March 1943,
and No. 132, Sundet, Sydlige Del, February 1 44, 1:70,O0008 wedishJ
Royal Hydrographic Service, Charts No. 272, Oresund Norra Delen,
1936, and No. 271, bresund, S8dia, Delen 193 4., 1,. ,000. Both
Swedish charts have been corrected to 1950.
-5-
Sanitized - Approved For CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved ForiRe CM CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Italy designated the islets and rocks in the vicinity that belonged
to each of the parties and defined a line that separated the terri-
torial waters of each. The line consisted of several straight seg-
ments connecting points defined as midway between designated land
points in Turkish and Italian territory, respectively. J Since
recent Greek maps show a generalized version of the line, it is
assumed that the 1932 agreement is still considered valid as between
Turkey and Greece. Turkish topographic maps show the line in some-
what more detail than do Greek maps, but neither Turkish nor Greek
maps are completely adequate for this purpose.
A boundary that has been defined through the territorial sea
is rarely represented on official maps of the countries concerned.
An example of this situation is the France-Italy boundary. Although
the 1892 agreement between the two states defining this line
described it as a line delimiting fishing zones, the Italian author-
ity on boundaries, Vittorio Adami, seems to consider it a true
boundary separating the territorial sea of France and Italy. 2J
The boundary extends in a straight line seaward from the end of the
land boundary, and its bearing is marked by two large colored
triangles on the shore. The line is not generally shown on'French
1. League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 138, 1933, pp. 245-249.
2. Vittorio Adami, Storia Docuaentata dei Confini del Regno
d'Italia. Vol. 1, Rome, 1920, pp. 220, 397-398, including map; and
Adami, National Frontiers in Relation'to International Law, London,
1927, P. 50.
-6-
Sanitized - Approved For ReMWgWA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For RW'CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
and Italian charts or maps, possibly because there are no islands
and few rocks lying off this coast. The insertion of the water
boundary on the map would not aid materially in clarifying the
limits of French or Italian sovereignty over land areas in the
vicinity.
The USSR-Norway boundary demarcation agreement signed 18
December 1947 presents an instance of two states that did not com-
plete their common boundary to the seaward limit of the. territorial
sea. The protocol describes the boundary as extending through the
estuary of the Jacobselv stream and thence to a buoy in the Barents
Sea, somewhat over one-third of a nautical mile northwest of the
mouth of the Jacobselv, where the boundary stops. I The question
of a further extension of the boundary was probably left in abeyance
because Norway and the Soviet Union are not in agreement on the
extent of the territorial sea, the former claiming a 4-mile limit
and the latter a 12-mile limit.
Use of the international boundary symbol for a line in the sea
should be made only if the line is through the territorial sea and
only if the line is documented by international agreements. Absence
of such agreements may indicate that the area is in dispute. The
boundary should also be plotted with as much precision as would be
used for a land boundary, and generalization should be avoided.
1. (Norway] Overenskomster med Fremmede Stater, No. 4, 10 May 1950,
pp. 151-273.
-7-
Sanitized - Approved For WA% CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For i'eum CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Italy designated the islets and rocks in the vicinity that belonged
to each of the parties and defined a line that separated the terri-
torial waters of each. The line consisted of several straight seg-
ments connecting points defined as midway between designated land
Boundaries through Lakes and Inland Seas
The surface of a fresh-water lake that is bordered by more than
one state is generally divided between the bordering states, al-
though the entire lake or designated portions thereof may be de-
clared open to the vessels of all the states and provision may be
made for point use of the lake waters for other purposes. The same
general observations seem to apply to the smaller inland seas, but
only a few of these that lie along boundaries. In rare instances,
one riparian state possesses sovereignty over all or part of the
surface of a lake, to the exclusion of another riparian state.
Examples of large lakes that are divided between bordering states
include the four Great Lakes that lie between the United States and
Canada; Lake Geneva between Switzerland and France; Lake Hanks, be-
tween the USSR and China; and Lake Victoria between Uganda, Kenya,
and Tanganyika.
The United States-Canadian International Waterways Commission
established a series of straight lines and lines following parallels
of latitude as the international boundary through Lakes Ontario,
Erie, Huron, and Superior. In Lake Victoria the Tanganyika-Uganda
boundary coincides with the parallel 20S, and the Kenya-Uganda
boundary is an irregular line defined in such a way as to include
specific islands within the boundaries of Kenya. Formerly it was
customary in many instances to represent a boundary through the
Dead Sea between Palestine and Transjordan, even though such a
Sanitized - Approved For R a TBDIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Foriftleas CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
boundary between the two territories was never actually defined in
detail. At present a portion of the armistice demarcation line be-
tween Israel and Jordan extends through the Dead Sea, but this
boundary is not yet considered to be final.
Lake Nyasa is located entirely within Nyasaland, although two
other territories also lie along its shores. The Nyasaland-
Tanganyika boundary and the Nyasaland-Mozambique boundary lie along
the northeastern and eastern shores of the lake, thus placing the
entire body of water under the jurisdiction of Nyasaland.l/
The Caspian Sea, which is the largest inland body of water, is
considered as somewhat like the open seas and oceans from the
juridical point of view, although for most practical purposes the
Soviet Union controls the Caspian. The Iran-USSR boundaries end at
the shoreline of the Caspian, both on the east and the west side of
the sea. Iran appears to claim a zone 6 miles wide in the Caspian,
just as it does on the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of
1. The Nyasaland-Tanganyika boundary is incorrectly shown on many
maps. The British Directorate of Colonial Surveys map of Tanganyika
in the Colonial Office List, Map Supplement, London, 1948, is one
that does not show the boundary correctly, but the map of Nyasaland
in the same publication is correct in this respect. This boundary
was first defined by an agreement between the United Kingdom and
Germany on 1 July 1890. See Sir Edward Hertslet, The Map of Africa
by Treaty, 3d edition, London, 1909, Vol. III, pp. 899-906. The
Nyasaland-Mozambique boundary was first defined in a treaty of 11
June 1891 between the United Kingdom and Portugal. See Hertslet,
Vol. III, pp. 1016-1026, and Colonial Office List, 1951, London,
1951, PP. 322, 375.
-9 -
Sanitized - Approved For I g 'CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For FIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Boundaries along Rivers
The scale at which the cartographer works will often automati-
cally solve the problem of representing river boundaries. The width
of his boundary symbol may be as wide as or wider than the line or
band representing rivers and may completely cover the river symbol.
At medium or large scales, however, the cartographer will wish to be
precise in locating the line within the river and around or across
islands. Many river boundaries are delimited with exactness, but
others are defined only in general terms. The cartographer should
not attempt to be more precise than the situation warrants.
The United States-Canada boundary from the Lake of the Woods
eastward, in all of the portions where it coincides with rivers,
consists of well-defined straight-line segments. As a general
rule, however, boundaries in rivers are defined as following either
the median line or the thalweg of the stream, but each of these
terms is subject to conflicting interpretations. In addition,
changes in the course or the shape of a stream may cause either the
median line or the thalweg to change from the position that it oc-
cupied at the time the boundary agreement was made.
The United States-Mexico boundary follows the "center" of the
Rio Grande, and the international commission administering the
boundary is empowered to shift the boundary back to the river when
the cutting off of a meander by the stream leaves a small bit of
territory isolated from the country to which it belongs. In the
Sanitized - Approved For ILIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For
it
glCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
case of the Thailand-Indochina boundary along the Mekong, the
France-Germany boundary along the Rhine, and on other river bound-
aries, provisions were also made for accommodating the boundary
line to changes in the river. On the other hand, it was provided
in 192+ that the Austria-Switzerland boundary should continue to
follow the old bed of the Rhine, even after new artificial channels
had been cut.
In some "boundary" rivers there are no defined boundary lines.
Soviet territory, for example, lies on the north and east banks of
the Amur and Ussuri rivers, respectively, and Chinese territory
lies on the south and west banks of both rivers, but there is no
agreement defining a boundary in the streams or designating the
islands that belong to each country. Consequently, there have been
serious disputes about the ownership of the islands, especially the
large islands near the confluence of the two rivers. The Yalu and
Tumen rivers form the northern limits of Korea, but here again no
boundary line has been legally defined in either stream.
The above observations point'up the necessity for exercising
the greatest care in the choice of source materials for plotting
river boundaries. The most recent material available should be
consulted respecting alignment of river channel, the location and
configuration of islands, and the relation of these features to
the boundary. Even maps that are current and detailed regarding
the physical features of the river may be ambiguous in representing
Sanitized - Approved For CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Re s eTOIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
the boundary. If there is doubt regarding the location of the line
in the stream or the sovereignty over islands, it would be advisable
to use an interrupted boundary symbol in the approximate middle of
the stream, but the symbol should be omitted in portions of the
stream that contain islands of questionable sovereignty.
Lines of Allocation
Rather than attempt to name all the islands, islets, and reefs
over which sovereignty is conveyed by a treaty, it has sometimes
been considered more convenient to designate them by stating that
they comprise all the territory situated within or to one side of
specified lines of allocation. The sovereignty conveyed extends
only to the land areas and surrounding belts of territorial sea and
does not extend to the high seas within the allocation lines. The
lines are not boundaries, although they are often incorrectly shown
as such on maps.
The convention of 1867, by which the United States acquired
Alaska, defined the western limit of the ceded territories by means
of an allocation line. From a point on the parallel of 65?30'N
the line extends northward midway between Big and Little Diomede
islands and southwestward from the same point through Bering Strait
and Bering Sea, passing through several specified points and ending
at the meridian of 167?E. All land to the east of the line was
transferred to the United States, and all to the west was retained
by Russia. US Government mapping agencies have agreed to uniformity
Sanitized - Approved For RSA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For RgIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
of treatment of this line in respect to both alignment and symboli-
zation. The symbol to be used is a short dash, as distinct from
the long dash and two short dashes used for boundaries.. The nota-
tion "U.S.-Russia Convention of 1867" is to be placed along the
line. _!
Soviet maps show a sector of the Arctic Ocean bounded on the
east and west by lines designated as boundary of "Polar Possessions
of the USSR." These lines extend northward along meridians to the
North Pole, the western line beginning approximately at the northern
end of the Norway-USSR boundary and the eastern line beginning at
the northern end of the Alaska-Siberia line described above (which
Soviet cartographers often treat as an international boundary).
The symbol used to represent these sector lines is similar to but
not exactly the same as the international boundary symbol. Pre-
sumably the intention is to indicate that all land areas within
this sector, both known and undiscovered, are claimed by the USSR,
but it is also possible that jurisdiction is claimed over pack ice
and water areas. The United States does not acknowledge the valid-
ity of Arctic sector claims such as this, and representation of
these Soviet-claimed lines should be avoided on US maps.
1. Finalized Report on Conference Held at HQ ACIS, 28 March 1951;
Subject: Delineation of US-USSR Treaty Line on Maps and Charts,
with Amendments Submitted by Department of State and US Navy Hydro-
graphic Office. The conference included representatives of US Coast
and Geodetic Survey, US Navy Hydrographic Office, Army Map Service,
US Geological Survey, Department of State, CIA, and Aeronautical
Chart and Information Service.
- 13 -
Sanitized - Approved ForRl WM CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For lfthwevoCIA-RDP79-01005AO00200010005-8
Some lines of allocation, as defined by agreements, serve very
well to show the limits of jurisdiction for general mapping purposes,
but others do not. The Alaska-Siberia line, the lines around the
Philippines, and those around Svalbard may be used effectively on
general maps. Not similarly useful, however, are the lines defined
in the 19+7 Italian Peace Treaty for purposes of designating the
Italian islands in the Adriatic Sea to be ceded to Yugoslavia. One
of the allocation lines of the Italian Peace Treaty runs west of the
western coast of Istria and the islands of Gres (Cherso) and Loginj
(Lussino); the other forms a frame around Lastovo (Lagosta) and ad-
jacent islets and rocks. In the treaty text these lines served the
purpose for which they were intended, but when placed on a map to
show jurisdictional limits, they confuse rather than clarify the
picture, since they lie too close to Yugoslav islands and too far
away from Italian islands.
The line of allocation symbol, like the international boundary
symbol, should be used only if the line can be documented by inter-
national agreement. It should be plotted with as much precision as
possible. Ordinarily it should be used only for high-seas areas.
Lines for Grouping Insular Territories
It has long been customary for some map makers to enclose
widely scattered Pacific islands belonging to the same country by
boundary lines or bands of color. The practice is objectionable
when the lines or bands are so prominent that they give the
-14+-
Sanitized - Approved For e7IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For F eTzOIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
impression that vast reaches of the Pacific are under the sovereign-
ty of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, or some other
country. This objection does not apply, however, if the line used
is inconspicuous and different from the international boundary line
used on the map. Enclosing lines could also be used for island
territories in the Atlantic and Indian oceans..l/
The same type of line might be used on medium- or large-scale
maps to indicate sovereignty or administration where islands lie
close together or close to the mainland and where boundaries or
lines of allocation do not exist. The Greek islands (other than
Kastellorizon) in the Aegean Sea that lie close to the coast of
Turkey furnish an. example of this situation. A search has failed
to reveal any formal agreement between Greece and Turkey delimiting
the territorial sea to the east of these islands that is comparable
to the agreement regarding Kastellorizon. Lacking definite knowl-
edge of such an agreement, it appears desirable to use the line for
grouping insular territories between Turkey and the Greek islands
as far south as Rhodes.
1. The method was used on The World,, 1:30,000,000, American Geo-
'graphical Society, 19+7 and 1950 editions.
Sanitized - Approved For FtasIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved ForiCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
25X1A
II. PROGRESS IN THE DEMARCATION OF THE INDIA-EAST PAKISTAN
BOUNDARY
Demarcation activities along the India-Pakistan international
boundary thus far have been confined to the East Pakistan-India
section. East Pakistan, now the Pakistan Province of East Bengal,
consists of the eastern two-thirds of the former Province of Bengal
and a small part of western Assam. The Indian states having common
boundaries with East Bengal are West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, and
Tripura.
Along most of the East Pakistan-India boundary the definition
of the Radcliffe Award of 19+7 was accepted as the basis for de-
marcation. Different interpretations of the Radcliffe Award, how-
ever, led to an arbitration by an international tribunal established
for that purpose. The Bagge Award issued by this tribunal on 4
February 1950 dealt with disputes at four points on the line.
The surveys and demarcation activities, which began in November
1950, were based on the two awards, with the Directors of Land
Records for East Bengal and the adjacent states of India being
responsible for the undisputed portions of the boundary (Radcliffe
_ 17 -
Sanitized - Approved MogmtgLCIA-RDP79-01005AO00200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Fo : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
25X1A
proposals) and the central Governments of India and Pakistan being
responsible for the disputed sectors of the boundary (Bagge pro-
posals).
Demarcation of the boundary has been a slow process not only
because of disputes but also because of (1) the character of the
climate, which limits activities to the months from October to
April, and (2) the minute irregularities in the boundary course,
which correspond with the limits of tax-paying, village, or farming
units throughout much of the course. J
Specific information on the exact course of the boundary between
India and East Pakistan, particularly with reference to some of the
disputed areas, is not available and probably will not become avail-
able until the entire line has been demarcated. The demarcation of
the entire East Pakistan-India line is scheduled for completion by
March 1953.
The following paragraphs are a summary of progress on demarca-
tion of the East Pakistan-India boundary as indicated by available
3. FBIS, Far East, 15 February 1951, p. FTF-5 (Restricted).
Sanitized - Approved Fq l g : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved ffthm@mCIA-RDP79-01005AO00200010005-8
25X1A
reports. For purposes of discussion, the boundary is broken down
into three sectors based on the Indian states lying adjacent to the
Pakistan Province of East Bengal: (1) the East Bengal-West Bengal
sector; (2) the East Bengal-Assam sector; and (3) the remaining
sectors, which include the East Bengal boundary with the Indian
states of Tripura and Bihar.
East Bengal-West.Bengal Sector
The work of demarcation began in November 1950 along the East
Bengal and West Bengal boundary, which is reported as having a
length of about 765 miles. By the latter part of February 1951,
over 100 miles of the undisputed portion of this boundary had been
surveyed and pillar locations suggested. / At this time, work also
was progressing on the two major disputed sectors of the boundary:
namely, (1) between the districts of Murshidabad in India and
Rajashahi in Pakistan, where the boundary follows the Ganges River,
and (2) at the junction of the Mathabhanga and the Ganges rivers,
which is the northern point of the line that separates the Indian
section of Nadia Prom the Pakistan section (now called Kushtia). J
1. FBIS, Far East, 23 February 1951, p. GGG-1 (Restricted); and
2. The districts referred to in this report are shown on the fol-
lowing map: India: Showing Political Divisions in the New Re-
public; lf4,435,200; Survey of India, 1950; CIA Map Library Call
No. 72118.
- 19 -
Sanitized - Approved Fore CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
25X1A
As of February 1951, aerial photography of about 90 miles of the
Murshidabad-Rajashahi sector had been completed and hydrographic
surveys had been begun. J According to the Bagge Award the mid-
channel of the Ganges was to be determined by these surveys, and
reference markers were to be placed on the land so that, regardless
of future changes of the course of the river, the boundary would
remain fixed. J In April 1951 the hydrographic surveys were com-
pleted, and in May 1951 the findings establishing both the mid-
channel of the Ganges and its junction point with the Mathabhanga
River were approved by both India and Pakistan. 1
The actual demarcation (placing of boundary pillars) of only
the sector of the line dividing Nadia from Kushtia is confirmed by
available information. The demarcation of this sector was completed
on 26 March 1951. / There is a possibility that demarcation of the
undisputed Malda-Rajashahi sector of the East Bengal-West Bengal
boundary has also been completed, since plans had been made to pro-
ceed to this sector immediately after the work on the Nadia-Kushtia
1. FBIS, Far East, 23 February 1951,_ p. GGG-1 (Restricted); and
3. FBIS, Far 11 April 1951, p. ffi-2; 9 May 1951,
pp. GGG-8-9 (Restricted).
4. FBIS, Far East, 27 March 1951, p. HHH-2 (Restricted).
Sanitized - Approved For Rak=eTaTIA-RDP79-01005AO00200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For IRIM@IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
sector had been finished.. A dispute arising during the demarca-
tion of the East Bengal-West Bengal boundary in the vicinity of
Jalpaiguri, India, has been settled, and this sector of the boundary
may also have been demarcated. J
East Bengal-Assam Sector
Surveys of the undisputed sectors of the East Bengal-Assam
boundary were well advanced by February 1951, but disputes regard-
ing a portion of the East Bengal-Assam boundary between the districts
of Cachar (Assam) and Syhlet (East Bengal) -- in the areas of the
Patharia Forest Reserve and the Kusiyara River -- had not been com-
pletely resolved as of that date. Apparently there was some dis-
agreement on interpretations of the Bagge Award.
In June 1951 a dispute arose about the police administration
and tax collection on three islands in the Brahmaputra River, which
is crossed by the boundary at a point between the districts of
Goalpara (Assam) and Rangpur (East Bengal). This dispute was bas-
ically similar to many other post-partition disputes along the
boundary. The absence of a demarcated line often led to so-called
violations of the international boundary. The most effective
25X1A
Sanitized - Approved For Ri a rCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
solution of such problems is the demarcation of the boundary at the
earliest possible date. In the case of the three islands in the
Brahmaputra, demarcation was begun in August 1951. Though difficul-
ties were encountered with regard to survey markers that had been
laid the previous winter, the demarcation was expected to be com-
pleted soon after a theodolite survey had been made. J
The most recent official information on any part of the India-
East Pakistan boundary concerns the Assam-East Bengal sector. At
the close of 1951 it was reported that an aerial photographic sur-
vey of 400 miles of the East Bengal-Assam boundary had been started.
According to plans this survey will result in a system of permanent
boundary markers. 2
East Bengal Boundary with Tripura and Bihar
No specific information has been received regarding the actual
laying of markers on either the Tripura or the Bihar sectors of the
boundary with East Bengal. In October 1951, however, a Pakistan
report stated that the delimitation of the boundary between Tripura,
Assam, and West Bengal with East Bengal, including surveys and
FBIS, Far East, 10 August 1951, pp. GGA-3-4;
13 August 1951, p.HHH-2; 15 August 1951, p. GGG-5, p. HHH-2; and
29 August 1951, pp. GGG-3-4 (Restricted).
2. FBIS, Far East, 2 January 1952, p. HHH-1 (Restricted); and
Sanitized - Approved For Reb asem CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
suggestions for the location of markers, was nearing completion. J
No mention was made of the Bihar-East Bengal sector in this report.
1. FBIS, Far East, 2 October 1951, p. HHH-2 (Restricted).
- 23 -
Sanitized - Approved For R2 IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
III. BUDAPEST ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS
On 1 January 1950 the boundaries and identifying numbers of
the, wards or districts of Budapest were changed and the area of the
city was nearly doubled by annexing numerous suburban towns and vil-
lages. This revision, of city boundaries was much broader in
scope than any of the previous adjustments made since modern Buda-
pest was formed in 1873. Although a few of the 22 new units have
boundaries similar to those in effect under the old system, not one
of the 14 districts existing in 19+9 was unaffected by the changes.
Within the limits of the old boundaries the 19+8 population of
Budapest was 1,058,288. The 1950 annexations raised this figure to
over 1,500,000.
By the early 1920's, suburban development around Budapest was
sufficiently important to require the delineation of a "metropolitan
district" for planning purposes and for collecting statistics.
This entity included the city-and about 20 adjoining towns and
districts which remained legally separated from the metropolis.
The administrative reform of 1950 joins to Budapest most of the
communities that made up the peripheral belt of the former metro-
politan district. Some of these were farm villages of long stand-
ing which became suburbs after they were linked to Budapest by
1. A brief announcement of these changes appeared in Map Research
Bulletin, No. 17, August 1950.
Sanitized - Approved For U&WdMCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Ml einCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
railroads; others are fairly new developments which have always been
suburban in character. The new boundaries also bring within the
city limits almost all of the outlying industrial districts, as well
as several residential areas inhabited chiefly by industrial workers.
The residents of the newly incorporated areas will probably benefit
by receiving improved municipal services.
Although the extensive annexations might at first appear to be
merely another reflection of Communist zeal for centralization, the
move marks the culmination of a long historical process, and it is
likely that the city limits would have been extended in a similar
manner even if the postwar government had not developed along Com-
munist lines. The idea of molding the administrative system to the
Soviet pattern probably played an important part in working out the
details of the new district boundaries. The need for tightening
control over the population may not have been a primary considera-
tion, but it undoubtedly received attention, as did the propaganda
value of eradicating all traces of the old regime. It is likely
that long-range plans for industrial expansion also figured promi-
nently in the drawing of the new boundaries.
The new districts and the scarcity of adequate maps portraying
them have caused confusion in interpreting current reports on Buda-
pest. It is often difficult, for example, to tell whether a refer-
ence to a numbered district is keyed to the old or the new system.
It is believed that the accompanying map, CIA 12162, which shows
- 26 -
Sanitized - Approved For R ec.'r 1A-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Re & 4-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
the new boundaries superimposed on the old, will, in some cases,
alleviate this difficulty. In compiling the map the old boundaries
were taken from a 1949 map at the scale of 1:15,000, whereas the
new boundaries were drawn from a small-scale official map that ap-
peared in Hungarian newspapers shortly before the changes became
effective.
-27-
Sanitized - Approved Forr Jj CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
22
Llber
Pcsrs_cnrerzscher
S=rgetrzentmikldc
19' 00,
RESTRICTED
SECURITY INFORWATION
BUDAPEST
ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS
h?n". New city limit 1950 .........?. New district 1950
(Elie d- Jan I (Eff-i e i J-)
Old clly limit 1949 -- Old District 1949
15 New distrkt number 711 Old district number
Carpel Main suburban lows annexed 1 Jan 1950
Selected main street or route
Scale 1.185,000
SOURCES
BASE. MN gyaark rtlyl Terk phsSheets zeli Inltcel,,1929 1933
BOUNDARIES 1 a MAGYAR KdZLONY, 20 Oecember 1949
2. BUDAPEST ES KORNYCKE 1-..15.000,
Istvan turner, 1949
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For P40pIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
IV. RAILROAD REPRESENTATION ON SOVIET MAPS: 1951 and 1947
The 1951 Soviet map at 1:8,000,000, Soyuz Sovetskikh
Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(CIA Map Library Call No. 76614), provides new railroad information
not given on the 1947 Soviet political-administrative. map at
1:4,000,000 (reprinted as CIA 11043), which is regarded as the best
general reference map available for railroad information on the USSR
as a whole. The 1:8,000,000 map shows nine new lines, one of which
is under construction, and indicates changes in the alignment of two
lines that were under construction as of 1947. In spite of this
additional information and the recency of the new map, it is less
complete than the 1947 map and should be regarded as supplementing
rather than superseding it.
The existence of seven of the new lines shown has been con-
firmed by the 1950 Soviet railroad timetable or by the 1951 map
Politiko-Administrativnaya Karta SSSR (Political-Administrative Map
of the USSR) at 1:5,000,000 (CIA Map Library Call No. 74996) that
was used for comparative purposes even though its railroad repre-
sentation is inferior to that on either of the other maps. Details
concerning the location, administering railroad system, trackage,
and length of each of the nine new lines are given in the accompany-
ing table (see p. 31).
It seems probable, however, that the positions given for the
two lines under construction may be more accurately presented on
-29-
Sanitized - Approved For I IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Forj j CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
the 1:4,000,000 map than on the 1:8,000,000 map, since the lines on
the former cross areas of denser population or greater economic sig-
nificance.
The alignment of the railroad being constructed from Mointy
(47?10'N-73o33'E) to Chu (146?36'N-73?42'E), as shown on the
1:4,000,000 map, runs directly south from Mointy, passing in the
vicinity and to the west of Lake Balkhash and serving 10 populated
places. On the 1:8,000,000 map the line runs more to the southwest,
crossing the sparsely populated Muyun-Kum desert. The greatest dif-
ference in distance between the lines is about 100 kilometers. The
former alignment is in closer agreement with official Soviet state-
ments than is the latter and is further supported by a map published
in Kazakhstanskaya Pravda on 12 November 1950.
The Akmolinsk (51010'N-71?26'E)-Pavlodar (52?17'N-76?57'E)
line, as shown on the 1:4,000,000 map, runs through fairly rough
terrain but at Ekibastuz-Ugol' passes near strip coal mines that
are expected to produce 600,000 metric tons of coal yearly. On the
1:8,000,000 map the railroad follows a more northerly course. Al-
though it passes through relatively gentle terrain, the only known
mineral resource of this area is copper ore, which has been described
as lean and of unknown quantity. The more northerly course would
also bypass the town of Zelenaya Roshcha.
The following table gives brief descriptions of the new lines
shown on the 1951 map at 1:8,000,000.
Sanitized - Approved FoIHjjWIjWV9MW CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved Fo'r Release :
CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Railroad
System
Trackage
and Gauge
1.
Ilya-Uuksu (61?30'N-31?35'E)-
Olonets (60O59'N-32?59'E)
Kirov
Single,
Broad Gauge
2.
Okhochevka (51?53'N-36?44'E)-
Dzerzhinskiy
Single,
0
Kolpny (52?14'N-37002'E)
Narrow Gauge
3.
Ryazan' Pristan' (54?38'N-39?45'E)-
Gor'kiy
Single,
Tuma (55009'N-4o0331E)
Narrow Gauge
4.
Lenkoran' (38?45'N-48?51'E)-
Azerbaydzhan
Single,
Astara (38?27'N-48?52'E)
Broad Gauge
5.
Ishimbay (53?27'N-56?00'E)-
Yermolayevo (52?43'N-55048'E)
Kuybyshev
Single,
Broad Gauge
90 Km
(approx.)
6.
Seyda (67?05'N-63?07'E)-
Labytnangi (66039'N-66?30'E)
Pechora
Single,
Broad Gauge
170 Km
(approx.)
Kurgan Tyube (37?50'N-68?47'E)-
Stalinabad (38?35'N-68?47'E)
Ashkabad
Single,
Narrow Gauge
90 Km
(approx.)
8.
Kulunda (52?35'N-79?00'E)-
Malinovoye Ozero (51?48'N-79?45'E)
Single,
Broad Gauge
9.
Malinovoye Ozero (51?48'N-79?45'E)-
Semipalatinsk (50025'N-80?16'E)
(under Construction)
Single,
Broad Gauge
135 Km
(approx.)
RESTRICTED
Sanitized - Approved For Release :
CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
1950
Timetable
1951 map at
1:5,000,000
Listed
Listed
Listed
Listed
Shown
Not Listed
Not Shown
Listed, No
Shown
Km Reference
Not Listed
Shown
Listed
Shown as Completed
Only to Mikhaylovka
 Sanitized - Approved For FIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
V. BRIEF NOTICES
A. MAPPING PROJECT IN IRAQ
A contract to prepare maps of several thousand square miles of
underdeveloped territory in Iraq has been awarded by the Iraq Gov-
ernment Development Board to Hunting Aero Surveys, a British mapping
firm. The exact area to be covered has not been disclosed, but the
photographic survey reportedly will require 2 years.
The maps, to be prepared over a 5-year period by photogram-
metric methods, are to be used as a basis for planning new Iraqi
development programs, including road construction, land settlement,
and power and water supply. They will also be used in the prepara-
tion of geological maps as part of a survey of the mineral resources
of Iraq.
A Hunting survey team began work in Iraq in November 1951. The-
plane being used for the photographic missions is a Percival Survey
Prince, a two-engined high-wing aircraft with special camera mounts
in the fuselage.
B. AERIAL MAPPING OF LIBERIA
Plans have been made by the governments of the United States
and Liberia for aerial photography and magnetometer surveys of parts
of the Republic of Liberia. Through the Technical Cooperation Ad-
ministration the US Government has contracted with the Aero Service
- 33 -
Sanitized - Approved ForjRCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
ffm
 Sanitized - Approved For RIeas CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Corporation of Philadelphia to make the surveys. Two earlier sur-
veys have been made -- by the "Casey Jones" project of the US Army
during World War II and by the US Air Force in 1949. However, both
of these projects resulted in only partial coverage, owing chiefly
to navigational difficulties and the prevalence of poor visibility
from the flight altitude of 20,000 feet.
The present project for continuing the aerial photography and
surveying of Liberia is a part of the Point IV Program for assisting
in the economic development of the country. It is felt that the
success of this program is dependent, in part, on precise knowledge
of terrain features, minerals, and roads. Currently, one plane,
without Shoran equipment, is making magnetometer surveys and flying
some aerial photography. It is expected that Shoran equipment will
be available by September 1952, at the beginning of the season of
the clearest weather, so that an accurately controlled series of
photographs may be produced.
C. COMMUNAL MAP OF ITALY
A map showing the boundaries of the 90 provincie and some 7,700
communi of Italy -- Carta d'Italia con i Confini dei Communi,
1:500,000, Edizione G. De Agostini, Milano 1951 (CIA Call No.
75016) -- has recently been received in Washington. The publisher
is not to be confused with the De Agostini organization in Novara.
The map is also available at the Army Map Service and the Library
of Congress.
- 34 -
Sanitized - Approved For iDCIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For@ IA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8,
D. LAND AREA OF THE GREEK NOMOI
During the last decade the number of nomoi (second-order ad-
ministrative divisions) in Greece has been increased from 38 to
50. The Greek Government has not yet published the areas of the 15
new nomoi or of the 10 others that have undergone a change in areal
extent. For purpose of plotting densities, the areas of the new
and altered nomoi were planimetered or computed and are included in
the complete list of nomoi on.the following page. The probable
error in the areas given is estimated at plus or minus 2 percent,
owing principally to inaccuracies in the maps and to a lesser degree
in the planimeter. In the list, new nomoi are indicated by
- 35 -
Sanitized - Approved ForA j CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For A-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Nomos
Sq. Km.
Nom4s
Sq. Km.
1.
Aitolia kaf
Akarnania
5,583
26.
Khios
902
2.
Akhafa
2,956
27.
Kikladhes
2,650
3.
Argolis*
2,284
28.
KilkIs
2,508
4.
Arkadha
4,327
29.
Korinthia
2,233
5.
Arta
1,741
30.
Kozani
6,215
6.
Attiki*
3,758
31.
Lakon{a
3,764
7.
Dhodhekanisos*
2,681
32.
Lerisa
5,383
8.
Drdma
3,497
33.
Las(thion
1,911
9.
Evritan'a
2,164
34.
Lesvos
2,166
10.
Evros
4,234
35.
Levkas*
433
11.
Evvoia
3,981
36.
Magnisia*
2,522
12.
Florins,
1,774
37.
Messina
3,821
13.
Fok:s
2,039
38.
Pella
2,802
14.
Fthi6tis*
4,385
39.
Pier(a
1,340
15.
Il(a
2,147
40.
Praveza
990
16.
Imathia*
1,543
41.
Re'thimnon
1,508
17.
Ioannina
5,066
42.
Rodhopi
2,608
18.
Iraklion
2,561
43.
Samos
833
19.
Kardh~tsa*
2,633
44.
Serrai
4,056
20.
Kastoria*
1,729
45.
Thesprotia
1,507
21.
Kavglla
2,169
46.
Thessaloniki
3,426
22.
Kefallinia
717
47.
Trikala
3,232
23.
Kerkira
638
48.
Voiot~a*
3,051
24.
Khalkidhik~
3,204
49.
Xanthi*
1,744
25.
Khania
2,399
50.
Zakinthos
408
Ayion Gros iJ
339
1.
A semiautonomous area, not a nom6s.
- 36 -
Sanitized - Approved Fob 1A-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A000200010005-8
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP79-01005A0002000.10005-8