q 
oe. 
DECEMBER 18, 1913] 
Reference was made in the address to the wide- 
spread increase of geographical knowledge during the 
last twenty-five years, and to the appreciation of 
geography as a leading subject for education in the 
universities and schools of England. This was not 
to be accepted as entirely due to an appreciation of 
the fact that the study of geography is an absolute 
necessity in face of the world-wide competition for 
commercial supremacy, or of political discussions 
involving the destiny of nations, or even in the field of 
the military campaign where geographical knowledge 
spells success. The effect of new facilities in the 
matter of locomotion counts for much in this stirring 
up of public interest in geography. People move 
rapidly, and they move widely and in ever-increasing 
numbers, and, to a great extent, they now study the 
map to know how and where they are going. The 
motor-car and the bicycle are responsible for much of 
this newly acquired interest in geography, and the 
mapping of the British Isles, and, in a less degree, 
of the Continent, is now familiar to thousands who 
would never have looked at a map fifty years ago. 
It is satisfactory to observe that the widespread know- 
ledge thus distributed amongst the millions has be- 
come specialised with those whose business it is to 
conduct either political or military campaigns. 
The very first element in the acquisition of geo- 
graphical knowledge is the proper and correct use of 
technical geographical terms. In the course of the 
address instances were given of the disastrous results 
_ which may follow the use in political agreements of 
vagueé and loose geographical definitions or of the names 
of places the existence of which was not properly 
authenticated. The Russo-Afghan boundary settle- 
ment of 1884 was cited as an instance of the latter 
error. That boundary commission has become his- 
torical owing to the occurrence of the “regrettable 
incident’ at Panjdeh, when a Russian force displaced 
the Afghans and secured an advance of the Russian 
frontier thereby which was never disputed by our 
Government, in spite of the fact that the joint com- 
mission was to effect a peaceable settlement of an 
international question. The Gladstone Government 
came to an end, and Lord Salisbury became Prime 
Minister just at the critical juncture when the success 
or failure of the mission hung in the balance. The 
Russian Commission took the field, and the settle- 
ment of the boundary proceeded. Then there ensued 
a useless and most expensive hunt, which lasted for 
months, in order to determine where on the Oxus 
a certain ‘‘post” existed, which was rendered an 
obligatory point in the boundary agreement, and 
which was nowhere to be found. Thousands of 
pounds were spent over that futile quest, which ended 
in the discovery that if such a “post’’ as that de- 
scribed in the protocol had ever existed at all it had 
disappeared long ago into the river-bed—so long ago 
as to be beyond the recollection of the oldest local 
authority. |The prolongation of the Commission’s 
stay in Afghanistan was not only expensive; it was 
dangerous, inasmuch as the temper of the Amir at 
that time was most uncertain. Moreover, the Russian 
Government was then to be as little trusted as that of 
Afghanistan. Useless delay was on every account to 
be avoided. F 
A wrong application of elementary geographical 
terms was instanced in the settlement of the eastern end 
of the same Russo-Afghan boundary in 1895. It wasa 
matter of urgent importance that this boundary should 
be settled in the Pamir region in the short season 
which elapsed between the opening of the passes in 
the spring and the closing of them by snow in autumn. 
There was no reason to anticipate delay or difficulty 
arising from the determination of the geographical 
NO. 2303, VOL. 92] 
NATURE 
465 
position set out in the political agreements. As in 
the case of the ‘‘ Penjdeh”’ boundary, a scientific basis 
for that position had been carried from India to the 
scene of action, and the Russian men of science 
accepted the data of the English surveyors. Trouble 
| came only when the boundary as defined in the agree- 
ment was to be carried in an easterly direction from 
a certain ascertained point to the Chinese frontier. 
This was the crucial point of the boundary inasmuch 
as it covered those passes which were supposed to 
lead from Russia Indiawards. It was the ‘easterly 
direction’ which caused the trouble. Was it to be 
accepted as a little east of north, a little east of south, 
or due east? No agreement with the Russian repre- 
sentatives could be arrived at, and business came to 
an end. There was every prospect of a long and 
risky winter sojourn on the ‘“‘roof of the world” for 
the Commission. Luckily the possible deadlock had 
been foreseen, and the political translation of the 
term “easterly direction’? had been requested in ad- 
vance. The answer came just in time to save the 
situation. The Commission was withdrawn (not with- 
out risk) over the passes, and the boundary 
region left to winter solitude. The expression 
“foot of the hills’’ proved to be a_ stumbling- 
block in the way of another important boundary 
settlement. What constitutes the ‘foot of the hills”? 
Is it where steep slopes end and the more gentle 
glacis, or fan, reaching down to the drainage line of 
the valley, commences, or is it that drainage line 
itself where all slopes end? The latter was once 
adopted as the free translation of that term, and so 
great was the indignation stirred up by that trans- 
lation that it seemed likely to end in war. 
Instances of want of appreciation of the slight 
elementary knowledge of geographical definitions 
such as would save similar mistakes might be multi- 
plied, but, after all, the greatest losses in territory, or 
financially, have accrued from the actual want of 
properly authenticated map information when deter- 
mining international boundaries. No instance per- 
haps exists of a more forcible character than that of 
the boundary dispute between the two great South 
American Republics, the Argentine and Chili. Here 
a boundary dispute resulted from the framing of an 
agreement between the political representatives of the 
two countries without any preliminary examination 
of the geographical features of the country concerned. 
The boundary, according to this agreement, was to 
follow the main range of the Cordillera of the Andes 
which parted the waters of the Pacific from those of 
the Atlantic. There are ‘‘main’”’ ranges in the 
southern Andes of quite sufficient importance to justify 
the conditions required, if they did but part the waters 
of the Pacific from those of the Atlantic. But the 
great rivers that emptied themselves into the Pacific 
had their sources in the flat plains of Argentine 
Patagonia, and traversed the Andes from side to side. 
The dispute involved quite a library of learned treatises 
on the subject, and cost the two countries quite 
120 millions in preparation for war before it was 
referred to British arbitration. 
It is therefore of universal national importance that 
means should be provided for the determination of cer- 
tain absolutely fixed positions in their coordinate values 
of latitude and longitude if international boundaries 
are to be preserved. Great and impassable ranges and 
rivers (if the rivers flow through permanent and 
rocky channels), broad deserts, and certain other 
natural features, such as well-marked water partings, 
may stand well enough for the dividing wall between 
contiguous countries, where they exist; but over flat 
and cultivated plains the only lasting artificial 
boundary mark must be one the position of which is 
