"Struve Stories" (continued) - 1187-001 FUGLENAES (Norway)

John Booth reviewed this location back in 2010 but, following our visit in Dec 2018, there are a few more aspects about it, and the Struve Arc as a whole, which I think are worth recording. This is the very furthest north location of the Arc and has been allocated reference number "001" by UNESCO. It certainly possesses a rather fine memorial (photo) and is, presumably, where the whole survey started?

Well not really. The idea that Struve and his team went to a furthest point and “triangulated” their way South to the other end isn’t how it happened. The process leading to the inscribed continuously surveyed arc took around 40 years and didn’t even start with that objective in mind. 2 "Russians" (the former was born in Altona, then under Danish sovereignty, of a German speaking family which emigrated to Russia and he is usually characterised as "German Russian whilst the latter was born in present day Estonia!) - the Astronomer Prof Struve (1816) and Lt Gen C.F Tenner of the Russian army (1817) had started in different parts of W Russia for different reasons – the former in Livonia for largely scientific ones and the latter in Lithuania for military mapping purposes (this was soon after the Napoleonic wars and the military and Tsar Alexander I recognised the need for better maps of his country). By 1828 they started to work together and, around 1831, Tsar Nicholas I agreed to give a combined (but still Russian) exercise financial and personal support. In so doing he also took on board the scientific potential of the exercise as befitted a monarch who had “pretensions” even if he was disastrously “conservative” in the way he governed Russia.

It wasn’t until 1844 that it was decided to extend north into Norway/Sweden and south into Bessarabia to create a complete “Barents to Black Sea” arc. It was only at this point that the exercise became “international” and an agreement was reached with Oscar I, king of Norway and Sweden.  Whilst Tenner (who surveyed far more of the "Struve Arc" than Struve himself did!) progressed south to Ismael (now Staro-Nekrassowka) by 1848, the extension North was entirely in Scandinavian hands (with Sweden covering the southern area on the Swedish/Finnish frontier and Norway covering Finnmark). Fuglenes was first marked in 1846, with more detailed work taking until 1850. Interestingly the objective of reaching the Barents Sea at Nordkapp was never achieved – bad weather prevented one attempt. So Fuglenes was actually the LAST assigned measuring point. Starting from the South, Struve gave it his highest Triangulation Ref No 258 when documenting his results.

If you ever find yourself in Hammerfest you can easily reach this most northerly outpost of the Meridian Arc! The tourist office on the harbour front offers a nice little flyer titled “Norwegian Points on the Struve Geodetic Arc” (Free – very unusual in Norway!!!). Contemporary Fuglenes is a suburb situated c 2.5kms round the harbour going North – a c35 mins +/- walk one way and rather icy underfoot when we did it in December. We were glad of the crampons on our shoes! If, as we were, you are travelling on the Hurtigruten ferry don’t even think of paying the outrageous price for a tour of Hammerfest Town (c NOK 900/ 95 EUR). For this you get - the town museum, the UNESCO site and “a spectacular view of the liquid natural gas (LNG) refinery”!! But, beware, if your ship arrives late, the scheduled 2 hours will be reduced by that amount so the return walk and viewing time could get tight.

The “UNESCO WHS” information boards are inside a shelter situated below the small hill on which the memorial itself is located – in bad weather you could be pleased to make use of it! Above it you will see a surprisingly handsome memorial pillar with identical gold lettering inscriptions on opposite sides in Latin and Norwegian, topped by a copper globe. There are views out to the bay but the memorial is surrounded by buildings and a busy harbour. Our previous Struve visit (reviewed below) to Porlom II (Ref 1187-013) in Finland encountered only a modern wooden post with a contemporary board showing the UNESCO logo. Reviews of other locations describe equally “modern” marking of the survey point. However, its rather pompous grandeur and the use of Latin in the inscription, suggested that this monument was indeed from the Survey era! But the tourist office flyer gave no information about the memorial’s history.

Eventually I found a PDF article solely about the “Meridianstøtten” – but in Norwegian!! I provide a few “Google translated” extracts below –

a. “In July 1853 there was a meeting over several days in Stockholm where Struve, Nils H. Selander from Sweden and Christopher Hansteen from Norway participated on behalf of each nation…. Struve told that The Russian government had granted money for an obelisk with inscriptions to be placed in meridian arc's southern end point in Ismail. He urged Hansteen to provide a corresponding obelisk in the northern end….. at Fuglenes”

b. “Shortly after his return, Hansteen (requested) …… a maximum of 330 specidals (Spd) for a cast iron pyramid for marking the endpoint of the (Arc) in Fuglenes….. The Ministry was willing…. and Hansteen’s plan (was) approved by a royal resolution. The later known architect Wilhelm von Hanno became involved in the design of the obelisk….. but the….drawings showed something quite different from an iron pyramid. His own drawing from 1854 shows a globe on a capital resting on a round granite column. The cost calculation was elevated to 500 spd, and the changed plans and calculations were approved by the new royal Decree”

c. The monument was officially placed in location in October 1854.

d. Although Fuglenes got a pillar and globe as its monument, rather than the originally planned obelisk, the Nomination File contains a photo of the monument at Ismael (Staro-Nekrassowka) – and it is indeed an Obelisk (it is also described as having been built  “in 1853-55 and renovated in 1994”)!!! The wording on it is exactly the same as that at Fugelnes, but this time in Latin and Cyrillic, referring to the 3 rulers i.e 2 Russian Tsars (Alexander I gets a mention, despite dying in 1824, as the process was regarded as lasting from 1816-52) and the King of Norway/Sweden.

e. These 2 monuments at the extreme ends of the Arc are, apparently the ONLY 2 original monuments along it. I believe also that only 2 original buildings are the Observatory at Tartu and the Church at Torneå. Beyond that, the “original” features are limited to plates, rock markings and, holes (“The monumentation of the stations of the Struve Arc varied with different types of marks in different areas. In Finland many were marked on the solid rock by drilling a hole. The hole was filled with lead and on the top of the lead was a plate of brass. Nearly all stations between Hogland and Tornio were marked with small copper plates, which were soldered with lead into 3-6 cm deep holes drilled in the rock or big stones. In the course of time most of the plates have disappeared. In fact most of them were found missing already in the 1890s. Later the lead has been dug out, maybe to be made into shot for the hunters, but the holes have survived in most of Finnish points”).

The full article shows a photo of the Monument dated 1882. But there is more of interest! What happened to the monument during WWII when Hammerfest was both bombed by the allies and left in ruins by the Nazi “scorched earth” retreat strategy? It appears that the monument had first been divided into pieces (globe, capital, pillar and foot) and stored in the hospital basement for safety. But, during Hammerfest’s total evacuation and destruction in Oct 1944, it must have been moved by the Germans and the parts were found after the war in Trondheim!!! (Hammerfest was occupied by Soviet forces). Some repairs were necessary ("Damaged during WWII"?) and it wasn’t until May 17 1949 that it was returned to its correct location.

But it had one more hurdle to overcome - around 1986 “The municipality wanted to move the meridian monument from its existing place on Fuglenes and out to Skansen…but such move plans were stopped under the Signal Act and later also the Cultural Protection Act. When it became apparent that Struve's meridian arc could enter UNESCO's World Heritage Site, Hammerfest municipality (carried out) considerable work to excel in the area around the meridian pillar…… For today, the meridian support in Hammerfest is characterized as the finest the monument on Struve’s meridian arc, and Hammerfest municipality have made a great effort to get a beautiful area around (it).”!! The requested "move" was undoubtedly intended to facilitate development of the site - the buildings still come to within around 20m -which would have "done for" any possibility of inscription. A "lucky" escape since the Nomination File goes into some detail to demonstrate the authenticity/integrity of such physical remains as do exist with that factor being important regarding the choice of the 34 locations from among the original 258 main points. Apparently the removal of the pillar in WWII didn’t “lose” the original “base” markings and the location it was returned to is regarded as fully “authentic!

So, my personal “Struve Quotient” now stands at 2/34 (with 1 more “deliberately” missed  - see my earlier review)  across 2 out of 10 countries. Do I “need” more? There is I guess a certain perverse pleasure (even excitement?) to be gained from reaching esoteric locations in far away fields and forests but I am happy that I have “done” Struve now! My only exception might be if I were ever to find myself within reach of Staro-Nekrassowka, where it might be nice, for the sake of “completeness”, to have reached both ends - rather as we have done for the Great Wall. The addition of Fugelnes has undoubtedly “added value” to our earlier visit to Porlom II. It was good to see an original memorial in its “snow blasted” glory close to the “ends of the Earth” (sorry Hammerfest!) - but the benefit perhaps arose more from the extra research which the visit stimulated than from the visit itself. The Struve Arc isn’t really a WHS for “visiting” but more a WHS for “understanding”. Indeed I regard its tangible OUV as somewhat marginal. As a map lover I understand the argument for a WHS to represent the strides made in surveying and representing the Earth, but the Struve Arc can best be regarded as a “representative” for the history of Surveying alongside its several sibling contemporaries rather than as the unique “pinnacle of achievement” which the WHS nomination system unfortunately requires to be argued.

a. It is often represented as proving, as predicted by Newton, that the earth is flattened at the poles – but this had already been established by 18th C French expeditions to Ecuador and “Lapland” (Indeed the Finnish portion of Struve utilised some of the latter’s trig points) – see. The main achievement of Struve was to calculate this “flatness” more accurately.

b. The Nomination File makes much of the international credentials of the exercise   “It was the first meridian arc measurement to cross multiple international boundaries”.  Well only 2 actually and the second one was only “semi-international” - Russia/Sweden and Sweden/Norway!

c. The Nomination also emphasises Struve’s primacy in length – 2820kms versus the North/South maximum achieved by the Trigonometric Survey of India at 2364kms - which is also dismissed as being in only one country – “India”. This rather underplays the complexity of that landmass in terms of independent states long before Independence. It also underplays the total length of both East/West and North/South sections surveyed in India in very difficult circumstances.

My research has identified some further aspects/issues which might be of interest to those WH travellers who “enjoy” background aspects of inscribed sites!

a. The process to get the Struve Arc inscribed was first initiated at an international scientific conference in 1993 – “the paper was presented….. by ….the National Land Survey of Finland who included mention of Veriö’s idea for seeking a UNESCO declaration to preserve a selection of the  remaining points of the Struve Arc as a World Heritage site” . (Thus explaining why Finland became leader on the proposal). This paper provides a history of its nomination.

b. Note that the subsequent proposal mentioned 10 potentially "participating" countries including Poland (incorrectly!!) and missed out Russia altogether!! In fact, despite its original paramount role in creating the Struve Arc, Russia, ironically, only has 2 points lying within its contemporary boundaries!! These are on the island of Gogland (Hogland) in the Gulf of Bothnia. This, until 1831, had been Struve's nothernmost point since it lay within "Russia proper" (having been captured from Sweden by Peter the Great in 1713). Later it was transferred to the Duchy of Finland and became a part of independent Finland in 1917. It was captured by USSR during the Winter War, recaptured by Finland in 1942, rebuffed the Nazis in 1944 and was finally ceded back to USSR at the end of WWII - thus giving Russia its only 2 "Struve points"!

c. The AB evaluation contains the comment “An extension of this nomination, to include the arc connecting it with South Africa, should be considered in future”. This paper provides the background and rationale. And it appears that work to do so has indeed been progressing! See this paper from 2016. My personal view would be that the Struve Arc adequately covers the subject and that the Surveyors should quit whilst they are ahead!!