The Pankian Metaphor wasGoodbye to USENET 3157

Here we leave the Ural (river) definition that has been the clbuttic one.

This is the most contested part. Does it follow the high point of the mountain chain, thereby having the border almost entirely inside Russia (and making Elbrus a Europe-Asia border point).? This would be the normal choice for a Victorian cartographer.

It could also follow a similar route, but divide on the north-south watershed. This would generally move the border 5-40 km south of the last one, and bring bits of Georgia into Europe. This is what Lewis&Clarke's contemporaries would think.

It can also follow the valley with the Kura river and turn into the Black Sea at the shortest-lowest traverse. This would bring almost all of Georgia, and bits of Armenia and Azerbadjan into Europe.

Or should it follow political boundaries? In which case there is a very good case for including Georgia, which lies on the European side, and has had close ties with western powers for longer than Russia. There is an almost as good case for Armenia, which has it's dominant face towards the European side. The case for Azerbadjan is weak, it geographically and culturally is facing Iran and the east, and is predominantly muslim. However, we get into a hairy mess with the borders around Nagorno-Karabach (an Azaeri enclave totally surrounded by Armenia). Continents do not have enclaves within other continents.

Again, it departs. The pre-WW1 definition included the dodekanese islands (right next to Asia minor, most; but not all Greek) as Asia, but conidered Astipalea and the Cyclades European. The greeks have painted huge EU flags on the side on Kos, Samos and Kalymnos to refute this thinking.

And Cyprus is in ?

The islands in the Arctic are not that clear cut.

The Novaja Zemlja arcipelago is a continuation of the Ural mountains, but where do we continue the border north?

People have made wars for less. In fact, once there was a war over a football match.

-- mrr