The bordermarkers of the Pyrenees : all markers
Print this page

The submarkers of bm408

previous     next

In ±1964 four submarkers were placed on an isolated hillside between bm408 and 409. Nr. 1 and 2 are still there, the other two are unfindable.
Their history is a long and intriguing story. I believe their existence is a misstake.

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 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 ±1964 after a border-dispute involving  forest exploitation.

Bm408-I, revisited on

20110831
and
20120514

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

and revisited on
20120514
and
20140526
and
20150706

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
and
20120514
and
20140526
Bm408-IV

Searched by Charles & Josette Darrieu in april 2011 but not found. Neither by me on

20110831
and
20120514
and
20140526
What's the story of the submarkers bm408 I to IV?  We have a lot of documents available - supplied by Charles and Josette Darrieu - to tell the history although we still miss crucial details.

FIRST: SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Maps: let's show the map of the terrain.

This is the basic IGN-map with the actual gps-waypoints of the bordermarkers added by me. You can see that the position of bm408 is indicated wrong at the map. The Procès-Verbal tells us that from bm407 the borderline leaves the ridge and heads straight to the origin of a stream, the "ruisseau du Terme". Bm408 was placed above this beginning ("birth") of the stream, 312m from bm407. On this map however, bm408 is located on the ridge.

Also very important in this matter: the waterstreams on the hillside:

The IGN-map with a hydrographic layer (Geoportail), showing far better the waterstreams. The southern one is the Ruisseau du Terme, the northern one a stream which merges with the Ruisseau on the lower hillside.


Then the IGN-map with the hydrographic layer and the cadastral map-layer (Geoportail). The calibration of the cadastral map with the IGN-map is not perfect. But what we can see is that there are patches of cadastral plots: private property.


Finally this zoomin of the previous map. We can now read the toponyms and see that there is a "Borne croix de Malafrenor".


Treaty text
And we need the original text in the (additional) treaty of 1863 describing the borderline

407. Borne au cap de Touète
En ce point, la ligne internationale abandonne la crête et descend par le versant septentrional pour aller directement à l'origine du ruisseau du Terme, appelée aussi Riou-Poudét.
408. Borne sur un rocher, au-dessus de la naissance du ruisseau du Terme, à 312 mètres de la précédente.
La frontière descend par le cours de ce ruisseau jusqu'à son embouchure dans la Garonne.
409. Borne à cette embouchure, sur la rive droite du ruisseau et à la rive gauche de la Garonne.

In my own words: from bm407 the borderline leaves the ridge and heads directly on the northern slope to the origin of a stream, the "ruisseau du Terme". Bm408 is placed on a rock - 312m from bm407 -above this beginning of the stream. Then the border follows the course of the stream until its confluence with the Garonne where bm409 is.

The undivided common ground of Bidaubus
And we also have to tell about the peculiar "Terrain indivis de Bidaubus", an undivided terrain between the communities of Bausen (Spain) and Fos (France) but in delimitation-terms on Spanish territory.
Let's start with a sketch of Jean Sermet with my explanations added.

First: this sketch is probably wrong! It shows a triangular shape by assuming that cross D is near Pont du Roi. That's unlikely: the available evidence indicates that cross D was engraved approximately halfway between Pont du Roi and bm409. Moreover: the treaty of 1863 describes the line cross A - cross D as "more or less parallel to the Ruisseau du Terme". See hereunder.
About the 'Croix de Malafrenor': that cross is indicated at the cadastral map at ± the same spot where Sermet on his sketch shows a cross. It was probably shown to Sermet in 1959, he describes a double branched cross. However, he thought it was a cross delimitating some unknown and forgotten communal border.

In the treaty of 1862 we find:
Article 21. - La commune française de Fos et la commune espagnole de Rausen continueront à posséder par indivis le petit terrain de Bidaoubous circonscrit par une ligne qui descend avec le ruisseau du Terme, remonte par la Garonne jusqu'au Mail des Trois Croix et retourne à son origine par les mails de Muscadé, d'Evéra et d'Aegla.

And much more in detail in the (additional) treaty of 1863:




The "terrain indivis de Bidaoubous" - common ground, undivided between Fos and Bausen - kept his undivided status in the treaty of 1862.

It's boundaries and 4 bordercrosses (with double branches and a capital letter) are described in detail in Article 5.

We don't know where the exact spots of the crosses are: the toponyms can not be found on current maps. We have to rely on the text and there's some additional evidence on cross D.

Let's read the text carefully and retell it with my explanation and interpretation:



Cross A: is engraved on Mail d'Aegle (underneath Cap de Touète - with bm407 - on the "ridge of the buttress" which forms the watershed between Val d'Aran and the north. Cross A is the starting point (and terminus) for the delimitation -> this suggests a position not far underneath bm407 but the next sentence indicates a lower position

Western borderline
- the line which goes from Cross A to the beginning of Ruisseau du Terme (underneath bm408) is the western border -> that implicates an southern position of Cross A in respect to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme, that beginning is the end of a straight line from bm407 via bm408 to the ravine underneath bm408

Northern borderline
- then the borderline of the 'terrain individis' descends along the course of the Ruisseau du Terme to the Garonne -> that's the northern border

Eastern borderline
- the Garonne going upstream until the point where Mail des Trois Croix is uphill -> that's the eastern border

Southern borderline
The southern border is the line from Cross A descending to the Garonne, more or less parallel to the Ruisseau. In between we find:
- Cross B: 300m from Cross A at Mail d'Evéra or d'Ervéra,
- Cross C: ± 600m to the east at Mail de Muscadée,
- Cross D: after 665m at Mail des Trois Croix at a spot callend 'les Escaldes', above the path along the Garonne.

By the way: a 'Mail' is a rocky outcrop on the mountain-slope (according to "La toponymie pyrénéenne" of M. Bérot). As said before, the exact spots of these crosses are unknown. But we do have additional information on the spot of Cross D. The customs officier Albert Daumes (see hereunder) reported in 1960 about it's location: "not far from the French customs offices at Pont du Roi on a rock above the former Spanish casino." That casino has disappeared but we have several indications to its position.

First an old postcard of the Pont du Roi (commented by Charles Darrieu)

It says: "Sight towards France, in the far end the old casino". That casino was on the left side of the river.


And this is the old "casino espagno" at the left bank. On old maps we can see that there was a (dirt)road on the left bank, probably only accessible from Fos. Supposedly the casino was built here for French gamblers. In the far end we see a bridge over the Garonne. One can see that  both dirtroad and casino went easily underwater after the flooding of the Garonne-banks after the construction of the barrage downstream.

And on the internet we find this text. It tells us that on the road between Fos and Pont du Roi there was a triangular space with planted trees and a hangar with the Pont du Roi already in sight. We can recognize that triangular space on the cadastral maps. It might have been well the spot of the French customs office. On the other side of the Garonne - so tells us the text - there was a small building: the former Spanish casino.

Then - combining the old pictures with the cadastral layer on the satellite map (geoportail-site) - we can reconstruct the probable spot of the old casino!

Above the old casino there's a rocky outcrop: that could be very well the "rock above the former Spanish casino" which brigadier Daumes described.
With the data from above, we can draw the approximate borderline of the 'Terrain individus' and the approximate spots of the crosses on the IGN-map:

Final question: are these crosses still there? Sermet found back two of them (around 1960 or earlier, he doesn't tell which). The customs officier Albert Daumes could - in 1960 - only find cross D. It's location: "not far from the French customs offices at Pont du Roi on a rock above the former Spanish casino."
Charles and Josette couldn't find any of them. I myself did a fruitless search on 20140907 on the supposed spot of cross D. You can check yourself the borderline and the spots of the bordercrosses on Google Earth with this kml-file.

NOW THE STORY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
In short: until approximately 1959 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 and trespassed the border to continue in France.
Jean Sermet - the great bordermarker-commissioner - and his Spanish counterpart Laureano Alija Llanos were asked to intervene. They visited the site and concluded that a more northern stream could be well the borderline, meant in 1863. That - dubious, I think - interpretation led eventually to the placement of the submarkers 408 I to IV.

But let's tell the story in full detail chronologically.

1959 - discovery of the tresspassing
The French forest ranger Amédée Boussac discovers that the Spanish forestry-company has trespassed the esfr-borderline as he knew it. He knew well that the borderline at the hillside follows a stream, called the "Arroyo del Termine" or "Ruisseau du Terme" until the Garonne where bm409 is placed. The forestry company had bought the concession to deforest from the Mayor of Bausen, the Spanish village to the South. Apparently the company had already trespassed the border of the "terrain indivis de Bidaubus" without knowledge of the Fos community council.

1959 june - Jean Sermet get's involved
The forest ranger  writes in a letter to Sermet that he- following Sermet's request - talked to the Spanish and that they disagree about the origin and the course of the Ruisseau de Terme or Arroyo del Termine in its upper part, below bm408. The Spanish stated that the word Arroyo indicates in Spanish a running stream and that the upper ravine beneath bm408 has normally no running water. On the other hand Boussac maintains that there is no other ravine originating beneath bm408 than that one. They ask Sermet to arbitrate.

1959 july - Sermet and Alija visit the site
Sermet and Alija visit the site together with Boussac. We know that from a letter of Boussac. The forest ranger showed them an engraved cross which he considered as a delimitation of the esfr-border. I think that must have been the Croix the Malrenor. Though indicated at the cadastral map (apparently not consulted by them), they thought it had some relation with the Terrain Indivis. But it couldn't be one of the four crosses delimitating the S-border of the undivided terrain between the communities of Bausen and Fos. Those crosses have the letters A to D added.
In later years, Sermet will write that he and Alija couldn't identify by sure (or disagreed) where the ravine of the Treaty was located. The southern ravine was surely the deepest but the northern one had running water. They lunched at the foot of that northern stream ± 150m NEE of bm408. That stream was to become the spot where later bm408 I and II were placed.
Apparently there was an agreement: the foresters could continue until the middle of the "terrain en litige", awaiting a final decision. That terrain was estimated at 4 hectares (for example 100x400m or 200x200m). I guess that "terrain en litige" was the forest between the ravine (beneath bm408) and the steep stream to the NE.

To get an impression how large that 4 hectares is, we can project its dimension on the map (without knowing where those 4 hectares were in reality). Well: not large.
 

1959 august - the tresspassing continues
Boussac writes in letter to the mayor of Fos that the Spanish foresters have restarted there deforesting on the French side (north of the ravine), despite his interdiction to do so, awaiting the decision of the Committee. He demands that the foresters stop and that's what happens.
Sermet and Alija are annoyed, writing to each other that Boussac neglected what was agreed upon in july 1959 (permission to deforest until the middle of the 'terrain en litige"). They feel sorry for the Spanish forestry entrepreneur, loosing so much money. They give the foresters the permission to continue their work. Alija even considers to call in Spanish policeforces to protect the foresters.

1959 december - first mentioning of submarkers, Sermet draws a sketch
Discussion between Alija and Sermet about the meaning of the engraved cross which Boussac showed them in july (see above). We read for the first time about a plan to place submarkers along the 'thalweg' between bm408 and 409,  its course yet to be established by the 'Commission des Pyrénées'.


Then we find in the documents this crucial sketch by Jean Sermet.

He writes that on a very clear winter's day with the trees having lost all their leaves, he could see very well the two thalwegs which merge beneath bm408 to form the Ruisseau de Terme.

That confluence of the two thalwegs is - writes Sermet - very high on the hillside, beneath the rock where bm408 is.

What is crucial: the distances which Sermet mentions:



It implies that the discussion on the course of the borderline was focussed on the UPPER part of the ravine. From the confluence onwards (downstream) there was apparently no doubt about that being THE border.

But if we project a triangle of that size on the IGN-map (or Google Earth), it's not easy to recognize what Sermet describes.

We can see  that  the submarkers I and II were - in the end placed  - OUTSIDE the triangle described by Sermet.
1960 may - Inspection by customs officer Albert Daumes
The officer Albert Daumes - stationed at the customs officie at Pont du Roi - describes in a letter his inspection trip to the borderline in question (bm407-409). He adds this sketch with apparently the cadastral map as a base.
He writes that bm408 is located 100m from the ravine of the Ruisseau de la Terme. Then - 200m along that ravine - there's the engraved cross of Croix de Malaprenor ("beginning of the Ruisseau"). At the bottom of the ravine - at the Bank of the Garonne - is bm409.

He continues: "there are other ravines if one could call them like that. One of them starts at the foot of a rock. There's another one but that one springs from private property of Fos inhabitants. Between these ravines, there's a cadastral plot which carries nr. 1254 (that's wrong, it must be nr. 1234) on the cadastral map."

At present - he writes - the deforesting is taking place 200 to 300m on French territory, passes  private property and continues on the communal grounds of the canton d'Héréchet.




This is the cadastral map of the same area. It's rotated 90 degrees.

Apparently the IGN cadastral map was the base of Daumes' map.


1960 june - things getting out of hand, the Fos community demands money
The report of Albert Daumes proved that the Spanish foresters were neglecting the agreement of july 1959 and continued further on French territory, even on private property.

In a long letter, Jean Sermet tells how he and Alija attended on 10 june a meeting with the Fos community council and - among others - the Spanish forester. Subject:  indemnities by the Spanish forester Hirigoyen for cutting French wood. It was an urgent matter because - apparently - the cutting of the forest was halted and the transport of the wood to Spain forbidden. We read that the cable (to evacuate the logs from the hillside) was installed or ended on French territory . Anyway, it is clear now that Hirigoyen had gone too far. He had already settled indemnities with two private owners. His offer to the Fos community council (300.000 francs) was however received with indignation, they expected much more. In the end they agreed on 500.000 francs.

One problem rested: what was exactly the border of the 'terrain litigeux', the terrain still in discussion whether it was French or Spanish. That had to be resolved in the future by the Commission Internationale de Pyrénées but now it needed a delimitation to mark the outer line for the Spanish forestry-company. The customs officer and Boussac (the forest ranger) were reluctant to get involved and to commit their organisations by marking a borderline on - they thought - French territory.
Finally Sermet ordered that Boussac, a representant of Hirigoyen and one of the Fos-community would climb the mountain the next day. Together they had to mark the northern border of the 'terrain litigeux'. Not by climbing up and following the most northern stream as the foresters had done but by starting at bm408 as the description of the treaty does.

Then Sermet writes a crucial (and dubious, I think) direction: "Because the treaty says that bm408 is placed above the beginning of the stream, you have to take the most northern stream. There is - in this terrain - a stream springing from a source where last summer the Commission Mixte has lunched. It's less than 100m from bm408. From this source and descending along the steepest line ("la ligne de plus grande pente") to the principal Thalweg, that will be the northern border where the foresting has to stop."

Finally in this letter he praises the mayor of Fos for his cooperation and again accuses Boussac of being stubborn for maintaining his vision that the most southern ravine (Ruisseau du Terme) is THE borderline. In the exchange of all the letters, it seems that Sermet sympathized more with the Spanish forester - having invested in a cable installation and hiring workmen - than with the French forest ranger who bravely defended French territory.
But - in this letter - he admits that Boussac's conviction is also his "personal feeling" but while awaiting the decision of the Commission Internationale de Pyrénées he could not express that conviction in this conflict.
 
1960 june - Submarkers already ordered
In a 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. he 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 (but took place in ± 1964)

1962 Commission Internationale des Pyrénées
Jean Sermet put the question forward in a meeting of the "Commission Internationale des Pyrénées". He proposes to consider the most Northern stream as the borderline and that submarkers needed to be placed along its course between bm408 and bm409 to prevent further conflicts. And so it was apparently decided

± 1964 Installing the submarkers. Or in 1969?
Jean Sermet describes in his "De quelques questions touchant l'abornement frontalier Franco-Espagnol (1949-1998)" that he and 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.
We read elsewhere that in 1963 the scheduled placement of the submarkers was postponed because of bad weather conditions to the next year if a long period of good weather would present itself. So I guessed that in 1964 the actual placement took place.

But there's a letter of the Préfet de la Haute-Garonne of 28/01/1972 to the ministry of Home Affairs stating that the "matérialisation" took place in 1969. Moreover and very interesting: this letter tells us that a topographic map was drawn with the location of the submarkers. That map was presented in 1970 to the "première Sous-Commission de la Commission des Pyrénées".


BUT WHERE ARE SUBMARKERS III AND IV? -> TWO THEORIES
We know where bm408 I and II are placed. But where are nr. III and IV? And what is henceforth the (new) borderline in the vision of Sermet and Alija? We know that a topographic map was drawn in 1969 of 1970 with the locations of the submarkers (see above) but it must be buried in some archives.
So: at present, we have no description or indications as to the precise locations. But I have two theories to offer.

Theory 1: along the N-stream with two options


The IGN-map with the hydrographic layer and the (supposed) locations of the bordermarkers according to 2 options.

If the concept of the most northern stream = the border is followed consistently, then they must have been placed somewhere along the Northern stream before is merges with the Ruisseau de Terme. But where?
  • Option 1: you can see on the map that between the steep stream along nr I and II and the beginning of the Northern stream there's a 'dry' part. The steep stream seems to go underground and emerge further on. It makes sense that nr I and II were put in between bm408-II and the source of the northern stream on more or less equal distances from each other. But in this option it's strange that nr. II is placed halfway the steep stream and not at its bottom. That doesn't make sense.
  • Option 2: Sermet and Alija wanted to mark only the beginning and the end of the 'new' borderline. In that case nr. III and IV would have been placed much further downstream where the Northern stream merges with the Ruisseau.
This theory - embraced by me first (option 1) - is unlikely after studying the documents:
- the disagreement was focussed  on the upper part of the ravine of the Ruisseau de Terme.
- the dimensions mentioned indicate a limitated surface, too little for this theory .
- moreover: it would include some French cadastral plots (private property)

By the way: Charles and Josette Darrieu have searched all along the Northern stream, starting at the Garonne up to bm408 II and didn't find anything. Jan-Willem Doomen and I searched also in vain in the upper part.

Theory 2: bending back to the Ruisseau


What surprised me from the beginning is that the nr I and II are quite close to each other (±45m), bm408 II standing halfway the steep stream/cascade. Could it be that bm408 II is located halfway the steep stream / cascade because the border is actually bending at that point and traversing the forest to the Ruisseau?

Well, that makes sense because the documents show that all the discussion was focussed on the upper part of the hillside: the terrain underneath bm408. Moreover: the dimensions mentioned fit in this upper part-theory.

And finally we have Sermet's description: "Because the treaty says that bm408 is placed above the beginning of the stream, you have to take the most northern stream. There is - in this terrain - a stream springing from a source where last summer the Commission Mixte has lunched. It's less than 100m from bm408. From this source and descending along the steepest line ("la ligne de plus grande pente") to the principal Thalweg, that will be the northern border where the foresting has to stop."

THE BORDERLINE ON CURRENT MAPS
If we look at the various maps we can see that the placement of the submarkers had no impact on the French maps. The borderline still follows the Ruisseau du Terme from its very beginning SE of bm408. But from bm407 to that beginning, the borderline is wrong: the real bm408 is actually 85m to the NEE.
The Spanish maps however shows a more northern course (but not in the bed of the nothern stream). We don't know however if this northern line was introduced on the maps after the placement of the submarkers or if it existed already on the maps.

I put the geographical data of the borderlines  & waypoints etc. in this file:
esfr-bm407-409-mapdata.kml (click to open in Google Earth). Let's project these data on some maps.

French IGN-map

Black = borderline on the French IGN-map
Yellow = borderline on the Catalonian ICC-map
Red = the borderline from bm407 to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme, according to the Treaty
Light-blue streams: their courses derived from the ICC-map and the google-terrain map.

Note: the course of the yellow ICC-borderline doesn't include the French cadastral plot 1234.

Catalonian ICC-map

Black = borderline on the French IGN-map
Yellow = borderline on the Catalonian ICC-map
Red = the borderline from bm407 to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme, according to the Treaty
Light-blue streams: their courses derived from the ICC-map and the google-terrain map.

In my experience, the ICC-maps are very precise & and gps-correct. The elevation-lines are much more detailed than on the French IGN-maps. On this map, the yellow line makes more sense: one can imagen a streambed fitting in the elevation-profile of the yellow line.

Spanish IGN-map

Black = borderline on the French IGN-map
Black crosses-line = borderline according to this Spanish IGN-map
Yellow = borderline on the Catalonian ICC-map
Red = the borderline from bm407 to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme, according to the Treaty
Light-blue streams: their courses derived from the ICC-map and the google-terrain map.

We see that on this map that the Spanish IGN-borderline rougly coïncides with the ICC-bprderline.

DID SERMET AND ALIJA MAKE A MISSTAKE?
Yes, I'm quite sure and I'm surprised they did. The authoritive text of the additional treaty of 1863 leaves little room for misunderstanding. Let's recall the original text in the (additional) treaty of 1863:

407. Borne au cap de Touète

En ce point, la ligne internationale abandonne la crête et descend par le versant septentrional pour aller directement à l'origine du ruisseau du Terme, appelée aussi Riou-Poudét.
408. Borne sur un rocher, au-dessus de la naissance du ruisseau du Terme, à 312 mètres de la précédente.
La frontière descend par le cours de ce ruisseau jusqu'à son embouchure dans la Garonne.
409. Borne à cette embouchure, sur la rive droite du ruisseau et à la rive gauche de la Garonne.


In my own words: from bm407 the borderline leaves the ridge and heads directly on the northern slope to the origin of a stream, the "ruisseau du Terme". Bm408 is placed - 312m from bm407 -on a rock above this beginning of the stream. Then the border follows the course of the stream until its confluence with the Garonne where bm409 is.

There's no doubt that bm407 and 408 - though rebuilt in the fifites - are placed on their original spots as they were meant by the delimitation commission in the 19th century. Jean Sermet himself writes that the masonry bases of of the ruined bm407 and 408 were still there when they erected the new bm's. And: the treaty-text inevitably implies that bm408 must be on that direct line from bm407 to the origin of the stream.
Let's draw that direct line on several maps.

The French IGN-map. Note: bm408 is indicated wrong at this map as said before.

Conclusion 1: the blue line heads straight via bm408 to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme and NOT to the stream of bm408 I & II.

Conclusion 2: if that northern stream (of bm408 I & II) was meant to be the borderline according to the delimitation commission of 1863, they would have placed bm408 at another spot.




The Catalan ICC-map with its detailed elevation-lines.

In this zoom-level, there's no borderline indicated by the Spanish. But the map confirms the conclusions above.

Overall conclusion: there's no ratio whatsoever for bm408 I and II, the Treaty being very explicit about the course of the borderline from bm407 onwards.
Why did Sermet & Alija make this mistake?
One can only guess. Was the main goal of the arbitrage the diplomatic settling of the argument? Did the positive feelings towards the Spanish forester bias their judgment? Are their personal reasons: was Sermet  - being close friends with Alija (as their mutual letters reveal) - too keen on compromising? We will never know.

Can this misstake be reversed?
This question brings us into the realm of international law. A retired lawyer - David de Oregon (nickname?)  commented on this subject on my blog. His conclusion: "what would have been ‘mis’-placement originally, turns into the very definition of ‘correct’ placement." So: the answer is apparently no.
So France lost 4 to 10 hectares of territory due to an avoidable misstake or to a too keen intention to compromise.
Does anyone care? I don't think so. And a question rises: who is aware of this territory-shift? The French maps still cling to the old situation.

TO FINISH: WHERE TO SEARCH NEXT TIME FOR 408 III & IV?
With all the information above, we can draw on the map the area where to search next time.



On 20150706 we undertook a new search for bm408 III & IV.

On this steep terrain without clear grooves or streambeds, I didn't get the geophysical logic of the locations of bm408 III & IV as I guessed them to be (as shown on this map).

The ICC-map with its detailed elevation lines suggests another course of the borderline (= continuation of the little stream) along the still to be found bm408 III and IV to the Ruisseau du Terme.