Hellfire corner gets smaller and smaller

[Jacky Platteeuw]

However you have to admit that the VIOE of Western Flanders made WW1 archaeology into their pride, for which they get international applause.

Bert,

I agree with you that there has been in the last years an improvement for the best.

However the interest for Battlefield Archeologie didn't start with the pros but with the amateurs. Programs like ' Forgotten Battlefield' and yes the infamous 'Battlefield Scavengers' (and others) did wake up a lot of people here and in the UK. That the VIOE (ex IAP) coupled their wagon to this train is a excellent thing but you have to keep that train rolling.

I certainly give credit to CAI and know that Rome hasn't been bild in one day and it will be, in the future, an important instrument in the hands of future generations.

I very much agree with your view on the development near Hellfire Corner. On the other hand I regret that, once again, a chance has been missed to possibly know something more on, without any doubt, the most famous spot in the Ypres Salient.

Cheers,

Jacky

[Paul Reed]

It seems a shame that nothing can be co-ordinated so that sites like these can be examined prior to development. However, Flanders isn't alone in this. In the past two years there have been a large number of new houses built on the Somme and in the Pas de Calais, and no-one has been in a position to explore the ground on which they were built. Currently for example houses are being built around the site of the Y Sap mine crater at La Boisselle.

Unitil some sort of international organisation with cross-boundary support and funding, and 'clout', is formed I can see that the reaction to situations like this will be fragmentary at best. Sadly.

[paul guthrie]

Has anyone determined if I was right or wrong in stating Belgian law prohibits destruction of fortifications?

[Bert Heyvaert]

Paul,

only if these fortifications are scheduled. Some are, like forts of the napoleontic time period. Most of the 19th century forts that were used during WW1 are not scheduled as far as I know. Same for the bunkers in the saliënt, although some might be, like the command bunker in Zandvoorde.

regards,

Bert

[Robert Missinne]

I passed there last week and took some pictures, wondering what will happen there.

[LizM]

Robert your picture's are good, tried to send one that Jonathon took yesterday at a different angle but still having trouble sending them to the forum. Jon says there is a lot of barbed wire around the bunker so does not think it will be touched with all the work. Lets hope so.

Liz

[Guest Simon Bull]

I am saddened by this news. Not by the development of itself, as I respect the argument that there will need to be development in the Ypres area and that the Salient cannot be bound in aspic, never to be changed. However, I am saddened by two linked aspects of the way in which this has happened:

(1) The lack of compulsory archaeological assessment and investigation in such a clearly archaeologically sensitive area.

(2) I am not in the least patriotic or nationalistic (indeed quite the reverse – thinking of myself as more European than British), but I am, frankly, angered by the disrespect shown to those (British) servicemen who have given their lives for (inter alia, but particularly) the independence and freedom of Belgium. It seems to me that they are owed something better than this. Before areas in which they fought, and died, are built upon they should be adequately investigated for bodies and artefacts which tell the story of their sacrifice. I regard it as cheap, parsimonious and disrespectful of Ypres Council not to ensure that this happens.

The solution?

I would have thought that, in an area as steeped in history and non-perishable artefacts, and as wealthy as Western Europe, it ought to be compulsory for any development land to be the subject of archaeological assessment, and, if the archaeologists regard it as appropriate, investigation.

What can we do?

(1) Perhaps some of the Pals living in the Ypres area could tell us whom we might write to (in English) to apply pressure for proper archaeological investigation of such sties before development. Quite apart from the point raised above re British blood spilt to protect Ypres, I would have thought that the tourist money we bring into the area might possibly lead to our voices being at least listened to.

(2) What could be the role of the EU in all this? The EU is supposed to create common trading conditions throughout Europe, so that businesses from all EU nations can compete on equal terms. It does so by a system of common regulation in areas like employment conditions, health and safety at work, and consumer safety. Why should it not create common standards of investigation so that all property development businesses work to the same conditions throughout Europe? It does not seem fair if property developers in the UK are subject to archaeological procedures before they can start work, but not in Belgium. Does anyone know whom we might make representations to about this?

I do not regard such a system of proper archaeological investigation before development as unduly onerous. I know that it is an additional cost, but the vast sums to be made from selling development land, and then from developing it, are such that the developer can afford to pay for a little archaeological investigation. After all, if the developer is allowed to destroy the archaeology (which, in a sense, belongs to us all) it is gone forever. My wife undertook a small bird watching project on some land being developed in Cambridgeshire a few years ago. The developer moaned to her about having had to pay for archaeological investigation on the site, but it had not stopped him going ahead, and I have no doubt that he made a vast sum from the development, notwithstanding the costs of the archaeological works. He is an extremely wealthy man, despite such regulation.

Just some thoughts – how do other Pals feel about seeking to persuade the Belgian and EU authorities to impose compulsory archaeological assessment procedures?

[Simon R]

I would be in favour of this, but I do not yet know what position campaigning groups in the UK such as projects associated with the Macdonald Institute of Archaeology in Cambridge (illicit antiquities, illegal trade in them etc), the Council for British Archaeology etc, etc hold on these matters. English Heritage has brought battlefield archaeology into it's remit through recent projects in the UK, I do not know if they are willing (or feel it is in their remit) to comment on developments outside the UK - probably not.

I am also unclear about the legal framework surrounding this - EC regulations are supposed to require the granting of a licence for removal of 'cultural material' from it's country of origin, would this apply to metal detector finds? Does the UNESCO convention have anything to say on this? I know that's a slighty different tack, but legislation such as this does speak in very broad terms and encompasses a lot of material in a wide range of circumstances, there may be anomalies and loop-holes we could investigate.... but then I'm not a lawyer.

[Bert Heyvaert]

. It does not seem fair if property developers in the UK are subject to archaeological procedures before they can start work, but not in Belgium.

Dear Simon,

It is always dangerous to generalize, as this is not completely 100% true. Flanders is working on a central archaeological d-base, that will be compared with buidling requests. If something valuable is to be found, an archaeological assesment will be negotiated prior to construction, or an archaeologist will follow up the works on-site. This d-base is almost operational, but it will take years to really cover the entire region. For the Saliënt, it is intended to make an overlay of the trench maps and aereal pics of the war on an ordnance survey map, so it becomes clear very easily if there will be extensive remains or not. For the moment, in most of flanders it is still a non-digitalised archive that is being used, which is very detailed for some regions, and has big gaps in other regions.

However... Many parts of the saliënt; like Hellfire corner, have not been covered yet. research untill now focused on Pilkem Ridge, which is most traitened for the moment. Also, there is no money to continue the inventory for the Ypres region for the moment. I think archaeologists did know that Hellfire corner might have been archaeologically valuable, but with less archaeologists working in the entire province of Western Flanders than in just the city of Sheffield... choices, priorities, have to be made. There is no lack of goodwill from the archaeologists. There is just a serious lack of money. For instance, archaeologists on the Boezinge industriazl estate, had to start their works almost a year and a half prior to the extension of the estate, as they can only spare 2 or 3 people to work there, on a terrain the size of almost 20 soccer fields.

I do believe that a European guideline might put some pressure on the Flemish goverment.

regards,

Bert

[Guest Simon Bull]

. It does not seem fair if property developers in the UK are subject to archaeological procedures before they can start work, but not in Belgium.

Dear Simon,

It is always dangerous to generalize, as this is not completely 100% true. Flanders is working on a central archaeological d-base, that will be compared with buidling requests. If something valuable is to be found, an archaeological assesment will be negotiated prior to construction, or an archaeologist will follow up the works on-site. This d-base is almost operational, but it will take years to really cover the entire region. For the Saliënt, it is intended to make an overlay of the trench maps and aereal pics of the war on an ordnance survey map, so it becomes clear very easily if there will be extensive remains or not. For the moment, in most of flanders it is still a non-digitalised archive that is being used, which is very detailed for some regions, and has big gaps in other regions.

However... Many parts of the saliënt; like Hellfire corner, have not been covered yet. research untill now focused on Pilkem Ridge, which is most traitened for the moment. Also, there is no money to continue the inventory for the Ypres region for the moment. I think archaeologists did know that Hellfire corner might have been archaeologically valuable, but with less archaeologists working in the entire province of Western Flanders than in just the city of Sheffield... choices, priorities, have to be made. There is no lack of goodwill from the archaeologists. There is just a serious lack of money. For instance, archaeologists on the Boezinge industriazl estate, had to start their works almost a year and a half prior to the extension of the estate, as they can only spare 2 or 3 people to work there, on a terrain the size of almost 20 soccer fields.

I do believe that a European guideline might put some pressure on the Flemish goverment.

regards,

Bert

Thanks for the reply Bert.

I understand what you are saying, but does this not illustrate the need to load the cost of archaeological investigation compulsorily on to the developer?

It seems to me that this is a site where the need for archaeological investigation cannot seriously be doubted, if nothing else because there may be bodies on the site, but it is not happening. This would see to me to typify why a legal obligation, at the developer's cost, is necessary.

[Aurel Sercu]

It is not my intention to enter the (a) debate, or to start one. Only to provide information with regard to this particular area.

So I am no expressing a view on the general idea (the need for archaeological prospection by developers or anybody else before construction works start). I only want to prevent a certain degree of overdramatization re this particular area west of Hell Fire Corner.

- Below is a fragment of a trench map of 13-07-18 (Ypres, 28 NW 4 - Ed. 3B (Local). A few months after Fourth Ypres.

- Left side, but not on this fragment, the town of Ypres (only the name "Ypres")

- From top left and going (south)east : the Menin Road

- For those who know the area : Menin Road South CWGC Cemetery is between the Menin Road and the word "School" (of the Ecole de Bienfaisance)

- Right side (where the Menin Road crosses the railway) : Hellfire Corner

- The planned residential area, under construction now, is south of the Menin Road, more specifically between the names "Taylor" and "Gordon"

- This is approx. 600 meters (670 yards) west of Hellfire Corner

- The location of the residential area never was a battlefield.

- In April 1918 (Fourth Ypres) the German troops reached Hellfire Corner (demarcation stone). They never advanced more west of it. Before that (between Second and Third Ypres) the nearest no man's land was 1.3 km east of Hellfire corner, or almost 2 km (1 1/4 miles) east of the residential area .

- No fighting ever took place in the location of the residential area, though the area no doubt must have been heavily shelled.

- There is a trench on this location (Ecole Switch) but this was as far as I know and see a communication trench ?

- The area alongside and parallel (southside of) the railway was prospected in March - May 2001. Remains of two British soldiers were found. Elsewhere no fragmentary remains of fallen men were found. An article about this can be found on the Diggers website

http://www.wo1.be/diggers/E/activiteiten/z...ring/welkom.htm

- I have no information if there ever was a cemetery where now the residential area is to come.

I thought that this information might be useful.

Aurel

[Cliff. Hobson]

Aurel, May I presume on your good nature once more, last year I visited the Menin Road South Cemetery to photograph a grave ( Joe Collingham) who was a family friend to my Mother's family. I noticed near the entrance two special memorials, two brothers killed on the same day ( Lincolnshires) whose remains had been transferred from the Menin Road North Cemetery. Could you tell me please where would this cemetery have been situated on your map.

Thank you. Cliff.

[Aurel Sercu]

Cliff,

Michael Scott (p. 70) says that Menin Road North Cemetery was "on the north side of the Menin road, opposite" Menin Road South Mil. Cem.

I measured it as accurately as possible (both on my modern IGN map and this trench map in my previous posting). Result : Menin Road North is exactly where an imaginary vertical line right through the l (last letter) of the word "School" crosses the north side.

Next Wednesday I'll be in the IFFMuseum Documentation Centre, and I know there is a trench map there with, handwritten, the location of a number of cemeteries that since have been removed. I'll check if Menin Road North indeed was exactly opposite Menin Road South.

Aurel

[Simon R]

Just another thought - presumably archaeologists are also interested in the complete history of the area, not just it's WWI remains e.g. and especially palaeolithic deposits on the Somme - to what extent were they dug into/modified/exposed/re-buried/obliterated WWI?

re: Aurel above - just goes to show that we can't speak of archaeological and documentary evidence in isolation, the one supports (or contradicts) the other.

[Bert Heyvaert]

I understand what you are saying, but does this not illustrate the need to load the cost of archaeological investigation compulsorily on to the developer?

Indeed Simon, that would bring us a huge step forwarths.

[Jacky Platteeuw]

This is the front of th eguide I was referring to in a earlier post on this thread. I expressed my fellings about the possible presence of a cemetery on the spot of the development. In case it wouldn't be readable I put the complete text of the little note on front of the guide. This note is, in my opinion, a very important one in the context of what I am stating above.

NOTE: This Guide to the Salient, published in 1920, is no longer update in its information about cemeteries, travelling etc. but contains some excellent article by experts on Ypres in the war and is a genuine 'souvenir' of Toc H in its first year at ho.. (I suspect 'home').

It contains a map on which I will extent in detail in a next posting.

[Jacky Platteeuw]

On the map it is very clear that the Cemetery numbered 188 (red arrow) is very if not spot on the emplacement of the house development. The number corresponds on the accompaning list with a Cem called White House, Menin Road. The near presence of White Chateau is in my opinion very representative for choosing that particular name. As I already expressed in a previous posting so far I have not found in any publication where this Cem possibly has been concentrated. So the POSSIBILITY, I emphasise the word possiblity, exist that this Cem hasn't been cleared hence my preoccupation towards the archealogical survey or the lack of it.

[Aurel Sercu]

1. On the map it is  very clear that the Cemetery numbered 188 (red arrow) is very if not spot on the emplacement of the house development. The number corresponds on the accompaning list with a Cem called White House, Menin Road. The near presence of White Chateau is in my opinion very representative for choosing that particular name.

2. As I already expressed in a previous posting so far I have not found in any publication where this Cem possibly has been concentrated. So the POSSIBILITY, I emphasise the word possiblity, exist that this Cem hasn't been cleared hence my preoccupation towards the archealogical survey or the lack of it.

Jacky,

1. I tend to agree. And White Chateau, though being on the north side of the Menin Road, is very near indeed. And who knows could have given its name to a cemetery opposite, on the south side of Menin Road.

2. True, this White Chateau cemetery name is a mystery.

However, I find it hard to believe that a war time cemetery (close to Ypres), after the war, was completely forgotten, not cleared up, and consequently ploughed up of covered up by a field or a meadow or a garden.

By the way, what cemeteries do the numbers 89 and 110 refer to (north of the Menin road) ? And number 175 ?

Isn't it strange that Menin Road South's location is not marked on the map ? And neither is Ecole the Bienfaisance (discussed in another thread some weeks ago).

Aurel

P.S. But maybe tomorrow morning in the IFFM Doc. Centre we can join our forces and scrutinize the map in Drawer "Noord", the one with the handwritten cemetery names ?

[Jacky Platteeuw]

Aurel,

89 is La Première Borne

110 is referred to as Menin Road but I think that is Menin Road North.

175 is Tram and Railway Crossing

It is a fact that this map is far from being complete and there is some work to be done as to excact locations but it still is one of the earliest ones I have seen so far.

See you tomorrow.

Jacky

[Cliff. Hobson]

To Aurel,

Many thanks for your reply.

Kind regards, Cliff. Hobson.

[Bert Heyvaert]

I just wanted to add one more thing, a positive note actually: I was reading up on the conference of Malta yesterday. Here it was agreed that by 2008 the latest, the developer will have to pay the costs of all archaeological research. The Flemish goverment also signed this agreement, but has not made any laws yet, to cover this issue. Eventuall, somewhere in the next four years, they will have to, as they are bound by the agreement. I think this might be a splendid opportunity and a serious boost for battlefield archaeology. It means that funds will be available where necessary. It seems like it will be a matter of having some patience over the next few years...

regards,

Bert

[Simon R]

That's interesting Bert, I wonder what model the Flemish govt. will use - planning policy guidance notes or something more concrete actually written into law.

The developer to pay all the costs of archaeological research in relation to planning developments? Does that include post-excavation research and the curation of finds? Storage costs?

Can you put a link in to the conference minutes/resolutions? I'd like to read this clause a bit closer, especially in relation to UK archaeology.

[Bert Heyvaert]

I have no idea whatsoever what will happen Simon, to be honest... And I don't think the Flemish Goverment has one either...

I think commercial archaeology is the most economic one for the buidling sector, so I guess we will end up with that system. In that case it is very well possible that Ypres might see the rise of a commercial Battlefield archaeology unit in this and four years. But that is just a personal guess.

regards,

Bert

[Guest jumberly]

If you visit Vimy or Beaumont Hamel and then visit Sheffield Park, one may be forgiven for thinking that the Canadians have done more to honour and remember their loss in WW1 than we have. Isn't time that we stopped complaining about what is happening and actually do something?

I am presently talking to two MEPs (re - EU grants) and an Australian Organisation to form a charity to raise the funds to buy these hallowed acres (or is that hectares now?) and protected them for future generations and that generation that has already bought them with their blood.

I realise that this is a huge undertaking and that the Thiepval Project has gone some way towards this, but is it enough? My vision does not include large visitor centres with cafes and interactive educational resources. Just the Battlefields themselves, without factories or waste tips. What will happen the next time Paris needs another airport?

Your comments would be help.

The above is a thread from "Metal Detectors in France". I am a member of small group that have been worried about the destruction of the Battlefields for some time and have actually decided to do something about it. Some of the vital legwork has been done but there is so much more to do if an appeal is to be a success.

As for Ypres, Churchill want HM Govt to buy it after the war (as the Canadians did at Vimy/Beaumont-Hamel) but nothing came of it. At the present progress of industrial and residential development and the allure of 'greenfield' sites, little will be left soon.

I am suprised at the hostility I have met from some and the lust others have to 'dig' the sites if they could be purchased by a charity/Trust. It is amazing how whenever a group of Brits purchase a site, for what ever reason, in no time at all the shovels are out.

Your comments would be appreciated, your ideas esteemed.

[Bert Heyvaert]

peronally, I don't think anything should be dug unless it is either in danger of being destructed, or if there is a very serious academic research question that can be answered by excavating the site. Archaeology means destruction. Just diggin for the sake of it is out of the question for me.

regards,

Bert