ESFR-markers 401-submarkers

The bordermarkers of the Pyrenees : all markers
The submarkers of bm408
Notice The pages of the day-trips may give additional information on coordinates, localisation, surroundings and access. They also show (additional) maps. Click on the date-links in the right column.
	On 20090608 I thought I had found bm408. I remember being puzzled by the "I" above the number, wondering if it was a submarker. But the description in the "Procès-Verbal" fitted well above the source of a stream. But I discovered later that the real bm408 is a large pillar similar to bm409. In addition, I learned in january 2011 from Charles & Josette Darrieu that this is one of 4 submarkers, placed in 1960 or later after a esfr-dispute over forest-exploitation.
	Bm408-I, revisited on 20110831 (more pictures on that page) Bm408-I stands a few meters higher to the SE of a source. It's the source of a small & steep stream: a sort of cascade. At the bottom of the cascade, the stream soon disappears in a field of fern.
	And this is bm408 II, found on 20110831 with help of the Darrieu's. (more pictures on that page) Bm408 II is about halfway the cascade at its N-side.
	Bm408-III Searched by Charles & Josette Darrieu in april 2011 but not found. Neither by me on 20110831
	Bm408-IV Searched by Charles & Josette Darrieu in april 2011 but not found. Neither by me on 20110831
What's the story of the submarkers bm408 I to IV? (information hereunder supplied by Charles Darrieu, based on this source). The basic IGN-map (concerning this map: the position of bm408 is indicated wrong: the Procès-Verbal tells us that from bm407 the borderline leaves the ridge and heads straight to the source of a stream, the "ruisseau du terme" where the next bm is placed. On this map however, bm408 is on the ridge. This cartographic error is confirmed by the actual gps-localisation of bm408, see the maps hereunder.) Until approx. 1960 the steep forested slope between bm408 and 409 was unused. But problems began when a Spanish forestry company started to deforest the spanish side of the border. A French forester discovered that the company had trespassed the borderline, he knew well that the borderline at the hillside followed a stream, called the "Arroyo del Termine" or "Ruisseau de Terme". But there were several streams on that slope and which one was the right one? The IGN-map above doesn't show the stream well, so we will switch to a better one. The IGN-map with a hydrographic layer (Geoportail), showing far better the waterstreams. Jean Sermet - the great French bordermarker commissioner - put the question forward in a meeting of the "Commission Internationale des Pyrénées". Decided was that the most Northern stream should be considered as the borderline and that submarkers needed to be placed between bm408 and bm409 to prevent further conflicts. If we look again to the map above, the northern stream is clear enough. BUT: the borderline hasn't changed on this map! It still follows the southern stream. The Spanish maps are different, that means: correct. See hereunder. Jean Sermet describes in his "De quelques questions touchant l'abornement frontalier Franco-Espagnol (1949-1998)" that he and his Spanish counterpart - Laureano Alija Llanos - placed in the course of the 1960-ies four submarkers. That wasn't easy - he recounts - because of the steepness of the terrain. There is additional information in a letter (see here the original text) which - confusingly - is stamped with the date 27 june 1960. That suggests that the proces of deforesting, discovery of the trespassing and reporting to the authorities took place before 1960 or in early 1960. In the letter, an 'engineer of bridges and roads' is ordered to fabricate 6 submarkers, anticipating the expected decision of the Commission Internationale des Pyrénéee to place probably 6 of such markers. From Jean Sermet's account we can conclude that eventually only 4 submarkers were placed. The markers should be made in two parts, each 40 cm high and 20 cm square - making transport easier by mules - which could be attached together at the final destination. From the resulting 80 cm high bordermarkers, 30 cm should be underground and 50 cm above. The engineer had to hurry because the actual placement was scheduled for autumn 1960. Apparently it took several years. But where were those submarkers exactly placed and what is henceforth the exact (new) borderline? The IGN-map with the hydrographic layer and the (supposed) locations of the bordermarkers? The locations of bm408 and the submarkers I and II are established with various gps-reading. We see that bm408 is actually at a different place and that 408-I and -II are along a small stream. Where a trail goes N to bend to Cabane des Réchets, that's the bottom of the cascade. But where were bm408-III and IV placed? It makes sense that they were put in between bm408-II and the source of the northern stream on more or less equal distances from each other. If we project them on the map, it fits quite well. I wondered why bm408-II was put halfway the cascade and not at its bottom. But given equal distances, it does make sense. By the way: the source of the northern stream could be the continuation of the cascade which disappears in a field of fern. That field fern is visible on Google Earth. And to be honest: if we project the submarkers on GE, the distances in between are less equal. Now, let's get things together on a next map: Blue = the real borderline in my opinion by connecting existing markers and the course of the northern stream. Yellow = the borderline on the Spanish ICC-map which roughly coïncidides with the blue line. Purple = another option but not likely. I put the geographical data of the borderlines & waypoints etc. in this file: esfr-bm407-409-mapdata.kml (click to open in Google Earth) What surprised me is that the two submarkers are quite close to each other (±45m), bm408-2 standing halfway the cascade. Could it be that bm408-2 is located halfway the cascade because the border is actually bending at that point and traversing the forest to the Ruisseau? See the purple dotted line for this - unlikely - hypothesis. Anyway, I have to return and do a more structured and elaborate search. Four other markers And there's something else interesting which Sermet tells us: the roughly triangular hillside terrain between the borderline 407-408-409 , the border-river between 409 and 410 and the steep cliff between 407 and 410 was in 1862 considered as undivided common ground between the communities of Fos and Bausen. To mark the southern line of it, 4 crosses with double branches and respectively the letters A to D were engraved in the rocks. Sermet found back two of them. And Charles Darrieu sent me a map of this "terrain indivis de Bidaubus" and the locations of A-D.