The
bordermarkers of the Pyrenees : all markers
|
The
submarkers of bm408
previous
next
In 1969 four
submarkers were placed on an isolated hillside between bm408 and 409.
Nr. I and II are still there, the other two were unfindable until 2018.
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 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 the 1960-ies after a
border-dispute involving
forest exploitation.
|
|
Bm408-I, revisited on
20110831
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. |
|
Bm408-I
Photographed on
20120514
(more pictures on that page)
|
|
Bm408-I
Photographed on
20180823
(more pictures on that page) |
|
Bm408-I
Photographed on
20200621
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
|
And this is bm408-II, found
on 20110831
with the help of the Darrieu's
Bm408 II is about halfway the cascade at its N-side.
|
|
Bm408-II
Photographed on
20120514
(more pictures on that page)
|
|
Bm408II
Photographed on
20140526
(more pictures on that page)
|
|
Bm408-II
Photographed on
20150706
(more pictures on that page)
|
|
Bm408-II
Photographed on
20180823
(more pictures on that page) |
|
Bm408-II
Photographed on
20200621
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
|
Bm408-II
Photographed on
20230410
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
|
Bm408-III
Searched by Charles & Josette Darrieu in april 2011 but not found.
Neither by me/us on
20110831
and
20120514
and
20140526
and
20150706
and
20171008
But found and photographed on
20180531
(more pictures on that page)
|
|
Bm408-III
Photographed on
20180823
(more pictures on that page) |
|
Bm408-III
Photographed on
20200621
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
|
Bm408-III
Photographed on
20230410
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
|
Bm408-IV
Searched by Charles & Josette Darrieu in april 2011 but not found.
Neither by me/us on
20110831
and
20120514
and
20140526
and
20150706
and
20171008
But found and photographed on
20180531
(more pictures on that page) |
|
Bm408-IV
Photographed on
20180823
(more pictures on that page) |
|
Bm408-IV
Photographed on
20200621
(more pictures on that page)
(click photo to enlarge) |
What's
the story of the submarkers
bm408 I to IV? We have a lot of documents available - supplied by
Charles Darrieu and Michel Molia - to tell the history.
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 (Ruisseau
des Réchets) a stream
which merges with the Ruisseau du Terme 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
placed.
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 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: the map of Albert Daumes himself,
see further on.
Then we have this 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 espagnol" 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 then there is this old postcard which shows that there was also at
one time a direct footbridge to bring the gamblers from the French
riverside to the casino.
Note the rocky outcrop to the left of the casino. Probably the lowest part of a rocky ridge which climbs the mountainside.
That's probably the rocky ridge where cross D (see above) was found by officer Albert Daumes: "on a rock above the former
Spanish casino." |
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.
|
|
And this is an old topographic map (before the barrage lake was filled) with the ruins of the casino indicated. |
|
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!
NB: the cadastral layer is of an old cadastral map, currently (2022) no longer available on Géoportail.
If we now (2022) combine the above pictures of the casino with the bend
in the river on this cadastral map, the old casino must have been a bit
more to the north.
Above the old casino (SW) there's a rocky outcrop: that could be very well
the "rock above the former
Spanish casino" which brigadier Daumes described.
A detail of his sketch shows the position:
I searched that rocky outcrop on 7 september 2014 and 9 july 2015 for the cross D (in vain) but above the current path.
But since the original path along the Garonne might well have been
lower than the current one (and now underwater), I might try to search
one day the rocky part below the current path.
|
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 French 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
trespassing
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. And Sermet mentions
distances:
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 the Ruisseau du Terme
being THE border.
BUT: there is NO such confluence very high on the hillside below bm408.
|
|
BUT: we can well imagine
how Jean Sermet got this erroneous impression.
If we study the situation on Google Earth, there seems to be a ravin or
streambed which connects the little nothern stream (where Sermet and
Alija lunched in 1959)
with the ravin of the Ruisseau du Terme. That's what Sermet observed
from
distance.
But when on the hillside itself, one will see that there is a ridge in
between. No way that the little northern stream could flow to the
Ruisseau du
Terme at this altitude.
In fact the little stream descends (nowadays intermittantly,
perhaps
already in 1969) to the Ruisseau des Réchets and merges with the
Ruisseau du Terme much further downstream.
(click picture to enlarge) |
We
have to remind that - as far as we know - Sermet visited
the terrain only once, in july 1959. Later visits & reports were
done by
other men. Also the actual placement of the submarkers seems to have
taken place in his absence.
As I will point out further on, they were already getting in double
trouble:
1. not reading well the treaty of 1863 which is very explicit
2. assuming that were was a confluence of two streams very high on the
hillside without checking it
|
|
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.
What is important that neither the map nor his description provides a
confirmation of Jean Sermet's observation from long distance that there
is a confluence of two streams ± 150m below bm408.
|
|
Daumes 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.
|
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 remained: 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.
NB: this is an interesting phrase: it suggests that the foresting
started near the Garonne near bm409 at the Spanish side and that the
lumberjacks worked their way uphill keeping the Ruisseau du Terme at
their right hand as their territorial limit. But not far uphill there
is a bifork of the stream (looking upstream): left is the Ruisseau du
Terme and right the Ruisseau des Réchets. One can imagine that is was
tempting for the lumberjacks to take the right stream as a limit or
they just assumed it was the Ruisseau du Terme. In that way they
trespassed the real Ruisseau du Terme. The higher you get, the more
those two streams deviate from each other and the more French terrain
was trespassed and French private parcels deforested.
Then Sermet writes a crucial 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."
NB: It's a puzzling
phrase: "la ligne de plus grande pente". What had Sermet in mind? Still
the conviction of a confluence of two streams very high on the hillside
thus a minor ceding of French territory to Spain or did he already
realize that a large stretch of terrain (± 16 hectares in stead of ±4
hectares) would be lost? The steepest line will be how water will
gather and constitute a stream. In this defintion it's the small
northern
stream descending to the beginning of the Ruisseau du Terme as shown on
the map above. Did Jean Sermet know that?
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 1969)
1961? Things settled down?
We have no evidence of how the foresting ended but one may assume that
after two years the hillside of Bidaubus was deforested, further
trespassing on French territory anyway stopped and the private
landowners and Fos-community having received their indemnities. The
forestry company left and the peacefullness reinstalled on
Bidaubus-hillside. But ....... the
machinery of changing the borderline could not stop.
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
1969 Installing the
submarkers
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.
But there's a letter
of the Préfet de la Haute-Garonne stamped 21/7/1970 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.
1970 Approval of the
Commission des Pyrénées
That
map was presented in 1970 to the "première Sous-Commission de la
Commission des Pyrénées" and approved. The borderline between bm408 and
409 had changed and four submarkers were installed, long after the
dispute with the Spanish forestry-boss Hirigoyen. But nothing changed
at the Bidaubus-hillside, so it seems. French shepherds kept using the
terrain as before. Nowadays the Fos-people know nothing about this
conflict or about a shift of the border or about submarkers.
THE NEW BORDERLINE:
COMPARING CURRENT AND OLD MAPS
Also there was no change whatsoever of the
borderline at the French
topographical map: this is a map of ± 2015 (from the site of
Géoportail), still
showing the borderline as ever, including a wrong position of bm408.
|
|
And that borderline is
even roughly the same as on the l'État-Major-map from between 1820 and
1866.
Very important: one can distinguish the Ruisseau de Réchets merging
with the Ruisseau du Terme.
It proves that wether the Treaty of 1863 was already implemented or not
on this map, the Ruisseau du Terme was considered as THE borderline.
|
|
The Spanish maps however
seem to show roughly - I repeat: roughly - the new borderline.
This is an actual screenprint (august 2018) from the Catalonian
topographic website.
|
|
But we see at this map
from 1950 that is was already like that in the 1950-ies ......
Conclusion: all this fuzz about a new borderline and submarkers led to
zero change at the official French and Spanish maps.
And let it be clear: this change was approved by the official
franco-espagnol Commission Mixte d'Abornement in 1970.
|
I put the geographical data of the
borderlines & bordermarkers in this file: esfr-bm407-409-mapdata-vs02
(click to open in Google
Earth). They are projected on the IGN-map above.
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, to my opinion indisputable
Light-blue streams: their courses derived from the ICC-map and the
google-terrain map.
Conclusion: the
official maps give no clue to as where the new borderline was supposed
to be.
|
MYSTERY OF THE SUBMARKERS III & IV
-> two options
We
know the locations of bm408 I and II, they are still present at the top
and along the small northern stream cq cascade where in 1959 Sermet and
Alija lunched. But nr. III and IV remained unfindable as was the
cadastral
map with their positions. Michel Molia did many searches up there and
Charles Darrieu and me also couldn't find them.
Why is that important? Their position would reveal how the new
borderline was meant to be. We (Michel Molia, Charles Darrieu and me)
had a lot of discussion about this. In general we talked about two
options.
|
|
Option 1: along the N-stream with
two sub-options
This option makes sense: shifting the border to the northern stream and
following it consistently until it merges with the Ruisseau du Terme
|
|
Option 2: bending back to the
Ruisseau du Terme
This hypothesis makes also sense because the documents show that the
discussion focussed on the upper part of the hillside: the terrain
underneath bm408.
Sermet thought that there was a connection between the northern stream
and the Ruisseau du Terme at a high level.
|
MYSTERY OF THE SUBMARKERS III & IV -> solved in 2018 |
Michel
Molia (see his website) has been intrigued by the fate of the
lost
bm408 III & IV and visited the hillside of Bidaubus many times,
often sleeping in the cabane d'Héréchet. And he went on a search in the
archives on a quest for the lost cadastral map of these submarkers. And
he did find it!
(click picture to
enlarge) And
this is the map drawn in 1969 after the placement of the
bm408-submarkers. It reveals
that bm408 III and IV were placed not far
away from I and II and roughly in the same line. In fact a part of the
terrain which we crossed so often.
(click picture to
enlarge) The
map was accompanied by this table of surveyor-data. As you can see: no
coordinates themselves but intermediate distances and angles.
Geometricien Philippe Barsacq (a friend of Michel) converted these
'old-skool'-data in modern gps-coordinates with the well established
coordinates of bm407 and 408 as reference.
That
resulted in the following table of coordinates:
GPS
|
407
ign
|
408ign
|
407
topo
|
408topo
|
408
I
|
408
II
|
408
III
|
408
IV
|
Dd°
dddd
|
42.860336
0.713756
|
42.858444
0.715934
|
42.85981
0.71452
|
42.85842
0.71729
|
42.8592905
0.71787433
|
42.859307
0.71794056
|
42.859314
0.71824043
|
42.859508
0.7189312
|
WGS84
|
|
|
|
313509.68
4747620.35
|
313535.53
4747716.39
|
313565.50
4747717.39
|
313590.02
4747717.50
|
313647.04
4747737.57
|
D°m’s
|
|
|
|
|
42°51’33.4
0°43’03.3
|
42°51’33.5
0°43’04.6
|
42°51’33.5
0°43’5.67
|
42°51’34.2
0°43’08.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On
31 may 2018 Michel Molia went for his final search, together with his
son & grandson and me and Jan-Willem Doomen. And bm408
III and IV were found back! Both had slid downhill from their original
locations and were half buried in the ground. See the full story on this webpage.
Let's show their original and actual positions on several maps and what
their discoveries imply |
(click picture to enlarge) First
the new borderline as drawn on the cadastral map and the waypoints of
bm408 to 408d.
|
|
This
map shows how bm48 III and IV have slid away from their original
positions. Also important: the last point (point nr 7 in the table of
surveyor-data) pinpoints in the direction of the lower stream. We know
that bm408 V and VI were not placed because the course of the 'new'
borderstream (how intermettant it may be nowadays in the upper part)
was obvious enough from bm408 IV onwards (and because the workers were
apparently exhausted)
This is the overall view. Conclusion: bm40 I-IV were placed along an
intermettant stream, descending to the beginning of the Ruisseau
des Réchets. The Ruisseau des Réchets merges much further downstream
with the Ruisseau du Terme. In this materialisation of the submarkers
in 1969 (and approved by the CMA in Madrid of 1970), a large and
long-stretched terrain was ceded to Spain.
|
|
Let's show that ceded
terrain on the map.
The surface lost to France is considerable: ± 16 hectare. It affects
two private cadastral parcels who became Spanish.
As said before, it seems that something has gone wrong here. If we read
the letters
exchanged while the conflict heated up, we see that bordercommissioner
Jean Sermet talks about a small disputed terrain in the upper part of
the streams of about 4 hectares.
And my hypothesis is that
it all comes down on the erroneous observation of Jean Sermet in 1959
as mentioned above in which he expected that a minor change of the
borderline would settle the conflict.
|
DID SERMET AND ALIJA MAKE A MISSTAKE WITH
THEIR NEW BORDERLINE?
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 16 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 and Spanish maps are still the same
and the locals of Fos are unaware of any change or just don't care.
THE MISSTAKE OF 1969 NOT
REVERSED
BUT WORSENED IN 2015
Explanation on Youtube in french
In spring 2020 I made a graphical display with explanation of
the various borderlines and which one is correct according to the
treaty. See this blogpost.
Digital measurement of the
border
The digital age offers new possibilities to delimitate the border more
precisely. That's where the European INSPIRE-project stepped in from
2007 onwards. The borderline and bordermarkers between France and Spain
are precisely measured with gps-devices and the results discussed in
the binational committee of the Commission Mixte d'Abornement (CMA).
However, in this case (CMA-meeting 2015) its proceedings are not public
and we have no idea which arguments were exchanged in case of
disagreement. But we can watch the results of the fieldwork and the
level of CMA-agreement on this webpage with an nice explanation on this
webpage.
The CMA and its important
meeting in 2015
The CMA is a binational committee with a long history, discussing and
deciding on border-matters and bordermarker-issues on the
French-Spanish borderline. There are 4 Spanish members and 3 French
members. Its agreements can involve changes of the borderline,
apparently without a final binational treaty needed to implement the
change.
In 2015 the results of the INSPIRE-fieldwork was discussed in Toulouse
and the digitally established borderline was approved. As said, you can
check that on the map on this webpage: if the borderline is blue, it is
approved. Unnoticed remain at least two cases in which the borderline
was changed, one of them is the border on the Bidaubus hillside.
Unfortunately, the proceedings of this meeting being not public (though
the proceedings of 2014 and 2012 are available on this page), one wants
to know the reasoning.
CMA 2015: a peculiar
compromise
The INSPIRE-project to delimitate the border precisely prompted the CMA
of 2015 to decide what to do with the borderline between 407 and 409.
As said: the Treaty is - in my opinion - unassailable about its right
course but how to deal with the dubious new borderline established in
the 1960-ies? And - besides - what was its exact course without knowing
the position of the lost markers 408 III and IV? I guess they assumed
the new borderline to be as in the above map.
One thing is sure: the French delegation had the best cards with the
explicit Treaty-text, the undisputed locations of bm407 and 408 and the
evidence of the État-Major-map. They had thus THE chance to restore the
border to its original and rightful course. But they agreed to the most
simple solution, cutting the disputed terrain in half. Still a loss of
± 8 hectares of French territory compared to the pre-1969 situation.
The next map summarizes all the data and reasoning. The purple line is
the borderline from 2015 onwards. From bm408 it follows a minor ridge
between the two streams until their confluence on the lower part of the
hillside.
(click picture to enlarge) The purple line is
however incompatible with the Treaty-text and ignories the historical
evidence of the bordermarker-locations of bm407 & 408 and the
borderline on the l'État-Major map of the 19th century.
The role
of the CNIG in the CMA-decision The French state-run CNIG
has as its mission to inform the government in the field of geographic
information. Pierre Vergez is a high-rank civil servant within the CNIG
and in charge of
the project to digitally establish the French borders with its
neighbors. He - in a militant email-conversation - labeled the new
borderline as an "intelligent" diplomatic
masterpiece about some "useless square meters".
He mentions opposing views of the Spanish delegation they had to deal
with but what is there to oppose when the odds are completely at your
hand? Perhaps he was embarrassed by the presented evidence by us concerning the
1863-treaty and the Bidaubus-conflict. Still: this evidence is
abundantly available on the internet and assembled and discussed on our
websites. One must doubt if he - and the French CMA-delegation - did their homework well.
What stroke most: in so strongly defending the CMA-decision, he
acted as if he was the chairman of the CMA. But he is not. At his best, he should have been an impartial consultant to the
CMA. But it is my assumption that it was he himself who
came up with the "intelligent" idea of following the ridge between the
two streams. A convenient technocratic solution fitting a technocratic
civil servant from far-away Paris but - as said before - incompatible with the
borderline that the authoritative Treaty-text of 1863 prescribes and
the historical evidence. I can imagine how the Spanish eagerly complied
with this compromise. But we shouldn't
blame him (if the assumption is true). The French members of the CMA are responsible for agreeing
with this compromise and in my opinion, they didn't perform their job
well on this matter.
Consequences for the undivided common ground of Bidaubus
As
told above there is a large terrain of common ground south of the
Ruisseau du Terme, common for the communities of Fos (French) and
Bausen (Spain). If the northern stream of the Ruisseau des Réchets is
upgraded to a presumed borderline, considering it as the Ruisseau du
Terme meant in the 1863-treaty, the common terrain is inevitably
expanded to the North. That would imply to the Ruisseau des Réchets
(yellow dotted line).
In any case expanded to the new borderline (yellow line) between the
two streams. What does that mean in practical sense? For example
hunters from Bausen will have the full right to enlarge their scope to
the North. Same story for collecting mushrooms or cutting wood.
Conclusion
France has lost 8 hectares of its territory for no reason. Is it too late? I don't know how omnipotent the CMA
is in its decisions or in what way local authorities and communities
can initiate a reconsideration of this decision.
|
previous
next
|
|