The Glory Hole. La Boisselle.

[nikp]

Hello all,

Following a recent visit to the Somme we were very privileged to be able to visit The Glory Hole at La Boisselle and be guided round by Claudie LLewelyn, the current owner. I am sure many of you are aware of the recent history of this unique site and the efforts of the La Boisselle Study Group. However due to contractual problems this group were asked to leave the site and the entrance was backfilled and sealed. Claudie, however , being passionate about preserving and studying the site has re-opened the entrance and is reinstating access. . There is a new group called "Les Amis de I'ilot de la Boiesselle" who are responsible for the site. They are undertaking to continue the research and exploration of the site and need supporters. Far a very reasonable 15 Euros ( correctme if I am wrong) you can become a friend of this group. Can I point out that the new and old groups are NOT connected in any way and that Les Amis are the only group responsible for the site.If you want to contribute to funds please do so via the new group and not the old Study Group. Claudie is also very happy to accept anyone to assist with maintenance etc on the site. You can contact them by email at info@ilotdelaboisselle.com . I would urge anyone with an interest in keeping the history of this site going to join the group and support them.

Visits are also available for a very reasonable fee by contacting the Amis. I would thoroughly recommend a visit , not only to view the site and go underground but also to find out about the history of the area before, during and after the Great War.

Cheers,

Nick.

Website info. http://www.ilotdelaboisselle.com/soutenir/nous-contacter.html

[keithmroberts]

I am pleased that you enjoyed your visit. I sincerely hope that the site is maintained without damage and safely, However, I have too great a respect for the members of the La Boisselle Study Group, to consider offering support to the new organisation.

You might have found it interesting to hear about the issue at our conference this year, or to view the statements on the study group site. I don't want to open up a long debate here, but things were definitely not simple and the breach was in part at least due to concerns over safety.

For the record, this is a purely personal comment, the GWF does not take sides.

Keith

[KIRKY]

I would also be concerned abvout the safety aspect of the shafts, I had heard that the shaft iron top was looking rusty these days whereas before it was always in great condition , do the current owners have any safety advisors on board?

Tony

[Seadog]

Excellent news Nick I am sure we can trust the owner et al to maintain and care for the site now that the digging is at an end. I would have preferred that site had been left alone but this would seem to be the best outcome given the recent past history.

Thanks for posting

Norman

[nikp]

Obviously there will be two sides to the story and the current group have not had their chance to comment. Instead they attempt to keep away from

politics. I have heard what went on previously and do not want to repeat it in this forum. I suggest anyone interested in assisting this very

worthwhile group contact them and make up their own minds. However I will say that some of the methods used by the La Boisselle appear to have been

heavy handed in the least and counter productive to genuine archeological excavation techniques. Also it must be stated that any human remains found

must be handled and treated with the utmost respect.

Enough said.

[keithmroberts]

Sorry - nkp

Your remark appears to have some dubious implications. The La Boisselle Study Group worked at all times in conjunction with the local archaeological and public authorities, and human remains were treated both with respect and strictly in accordance with French law and I understand with direct support from the CWGC. . The team were also asked by the authorities to assist with at least one other recovery on the Somme as they could offer the appropriate care and expertise.

if anyone wishes to state otherwise they should be clear and explicit. The owners made their statements in the French press, and were contradicted directly by appropriate authorities.

So far as I know they have not sought to be members of the forum, and of course have no obligation to do so, but the la Boisselle Study group have made clear statements on their website, which have never been challenged.

I don't think it heavy handed to object to live grenades being tossed around.

Keith

I am not a member of the group, and do not speak for them, but have met both the owners and members of the team on site and elsewhere.

[KIRKY]

Agree Keith , well said.

Tony

[nikp]

With respect to all concerned I have followed with great interest the progress regarding The Glory Hole and the efforts of the La Boisselle Group. I

admired the initial work and the subsequent programmes but having met Claudie and heard her story I cannot ignore what appeared to have happened. Keith were you personally involved with the project? If so would it not be advantageous to support the efforts to maintain and continue the work in progress. I hear what you are saying re safety but this new group has to start somewhere and if anyone has the slightest interest in the history of this site,

the missing soldiers who are still lying there and the continuing heritage then surely the only way forward is to support the current work. We are

talking , after all, about men who lived and died to ensure our future and the only thing we can do is honour them and help to remember them I lost a

Great Uncle on the Somme, who is still missing, so perhaps understand the need to treat this site with utmost respect. Lets not forget that we a trying to honour the dead and any effort to do this must be applauded.

[keithmroberts]

The men were and are honoured and respected. I repeat only that the information given by the site owners to the press was publicly repudiated by the French authorities.

All work done by the La Boisselle Project was supervised by those authorities, and was conducted in direct association with the Archaeology department of the local university.

You might care to look at the news section of the study group website, which shows how some recovered soldiers were treated, and which contains a clear statement regarding the termination of work at La Boisselle. The owners of the site could if they wished challenge that statement legally and win damages if it were proved false. It is published in English and French. http://www.laboisselleproject.com/news/

My own involvement: I worked for one week as a volunteer early in the project, and have had no part in design management or anything else. On the other hand I do know quite a few of the key people, and respect their integrity. I formed my own judgements of all concerned. Have you met any of the project team and discussed the owners assertions with them? They are individuals who have demonstrated their professionalism many times and in many locations. .All are open and approachable, and you might have found their conversation as least as enlightening as that of the site owners.

It is a shame that you were presumably not able to join us at either of the GWF conferences that we have held at which Peter Barton and Jeremy Banning spoke, or at the Archaeological Mining conference held at I think it was at the University of Arras at which Simon Jones delivered a lecture on the research.

I don't wish to say any more, but I do hope that any "current work" has been approved by the appropriate French authorities and that proper health and safety and conservation techniques are applied. I know how much can be involved in both.

Keith

[nikp]

Well everyone my initial post has certainly brought the new project to prominence.

[Roger H]

Keith. Excellent posts if I may say so.

Roger

[nikp]

Hello all,

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest with my original post. Please note that I was very careful with the wording of my first post.All I am trying to get across, politics aside, is that this site is of huge importance worldwide and should be maintained, researched and visited by all. The fact that

one or another group is in charge should be of minor importance. I would support whoever has the honour of carrying out this work. I tried not to be

controversial at the start but seem to have been steamrollered. Lets remember that the site and the lives of the men lost are of utmost importance and

try to work together. I found Claudie to be extremely passionate about the site. After all it has been in her family for many many years. Her knowledge is second to none and I found her presentation extremely interesting and sympathetic.Unfortunately I did not have the privilege to visit when the La

Boisselle Study Group were on site so cannot comment on that.

Lets just ensure that whoever is in control of this historical area they are offered all the help that can be given. I for one have joined the "Amis" because I believe that is the way forward.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Seadog]

You are right Nick, whatever happened in the past is history and done and dusted, with hopefully lessons learned. The site is the most important thing now as it has always been and I wish the very best to the owner and the supporters who will care and maintain the place for the future.

Norman

[985acoy]

Well said keith

[nikp]

Thought I would let this post run for a bit before responding. Can I reiterate what I originally said that despite the politics of any previous groups

etc this is a site that needs to be saved, researched and commemorated so whatever your opinions I am sure it is worthwhile aiding the current group. I would hate to see the site forgotten. There is so much history involved in this area and there are several people who have so much to give and tell.

Thanks for all the comments.

Cheers,

Nick.

[keithmroberts]

Nick

There are no politics involved. Just some facts.

I agree entirely with you that this is an important site, worthy of both preservation and further study. I hope that the owners will indeed preserve the archaeology for future generations, not least for the memory of the men who still lie buried below ground.

Keith

[Martin Brown]

On 6/7/2016 at 17:14, keithmroberts said:

 

I agree entirely with you that this is an important site, worthy of both preservation and further study. I hope that the owners will indeed preserve the archaeology for future generations, not least for the memory of the men who still lie buried below ground.

Keith

Agreed, I hope the French authorities will receive copies of reports that can help them legally protect the remains, as one might do in UK by submitting evidence of significance to Historic England.

[Seadog]

I agree but was this site not already protected before the excavations commenced if it was not then in my opinion official protection  would have saved a whole lot of angst. I hope that the Tambour at Fricourt is protected to save it from any such problems in the future.

 

Norman 

[Dorset1]

Rarely post on the forum. Only point I would reiterate is that it is essential to never forget or lose sight of what happened here 100 years ago who ever is involved.

 

I visited the site on July 2nd. I had a look through the metal gates blocking the entrance and saw a few what seemed to be Christmas lights on the floor presumably to guide the way. 

 

I also noticed lots of younger generation running around the site. I guess that's the parents fault. 

 

I only hope hope that the site is preserved and remembered with the honour and respect it deserves.

 

 

[sjustice]

I only just came across this thread and can only corroborate what Keith has added, in a democratically quiet manner, may I add.

 

Agreed, the importance of the site overrides any political consideration, but that does not allow for mistruths and defamation.

 

I have never been associated with the group, but I had the great privilege to visit the site in 2014 and not only discuss with Peter what was done (and how!), but was also lucky enough to descend the tunnels with Jeremy as guide. I've been there; I've seen it and 'What went on' has been clearly stated by the LBSG, in public, and is entirely accurate.

 

 

 

On 28/05/2016 at 17:47, nikp said:

Obviously there will be two sides to the story and the current group have not had their chance to comment. Instead they attempt to keep away from

politics. I have heard what went on previously and do not want to repeat it in this forum. I suggest anyone interested in assisting this very

worthwhile group contact them and make up their own minds. However I will say that some of the methods used by the La Boisselle appear to have been

heavy handed in the least and counter productive to genuine archeological excavation techniques. Also it must be stated that any human remains found

must be handled and treated with the utmost respect.

Enough said.

Edited 11 August , 2016 by Neil Mackenzie

[Neil Mackenzie]

I have made some edits and hidden posts which were not relevant as a result. I should have acted sooner - sorry.

 

Neil

[nigelcave]

French land law is complicated, as is the authority of local authorities, so I gather, as regards enforcement for building purposes, regardless of the wishes of the landowner. Again, so far as I can gather, the site of the Glory Hole cannot get enhanced preservation status as of now. Apparently some attempts to get housing on the western side of the road leading towards Becourt/the Lochnagar Crater were only halted because it was pointed out that there were a number of deep shafts under where such buildings might go. Whatever the ins and outs, it is in all our interests to agitate for the securing of this very interesting site, not merely from the point of view of British interest but also from that of the French (and naturally the Germans, tho' their views are likely to be under represented), as the site was important for the jostling that took place post the 'stabilisation' of the line in October 1914.

[nikp]

Thanks Nigel for that measured response.

On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 16:07, Neil Mackenzie said:

I have made some edits and hidden posts which were not relevant as a result. I should have acted sooner - sorry.

 

Neil

Thanks for that Neil. No need for any animosity on this site.

 

[egbert]

On ‎11‎.‎08‎.‎2016 at 22:23, nigelcave said:

....from the point of view of British interest but also from that of the French (and naturally the Germans, tho' their views are likely to be under represented), as the site was important for the jostling that took place post the 'stabilisation' of the line in October 1914.

...the German side was under represented=non represented, because the responsible office was never involved, nor informed.

I have some pretty good contacts to the German VdK and I asked them when the GH hype ended whether they knew about the activities to include dealing with possible bodies from the site. They responded that NO. Also the standing VdK rep in
France was not informed. I have commented on that fact also on the LBStudy Group website why CWGC and all kind of agencies were involved and the German side was neglected that deals with missing soldiers.

[towisuk]

Good point Egbert.... I heard that one of the owners concerns was about the lack of "balance" regarding the arrangements regarding remains.... 

regards

Tom