Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Today's harvest with the diggers in Boezinghe


tammilnad

Recommended Posts

Also remember that the Belgians and French have such a huge number of WW1 and WW2 sites that a UK-style 'developer pays for archeaology' approach will not work...

This has been much discussed prior to this thread and I for one am glad that at least someone is doing something rather than lots of talk but no action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to reply and answer some of questions in regards to some of the last postings.

I met Patrick for the first time six weeks ago and I was invited to a dig. I took photo's of their work that day.The group was not aware of the sometimes totally wrong information that was being posted and spread over the internet. I offerred my help to try and rectify some of these stories.

I personnally have no archeological knowledge or pretend to have any. My knowledge regarding to the first world war is I would say basic. But when it comes to publishing or promotion you get into my street. Being the product of a Proffessor of science and founding editor of Chemical physics letters which is one of the first publications of Elsevier Scientific Publishers, I have a pritty good idea how wel funded research is conducted and what kind of large sums of money are involved to try and get any kind of result. I also know how extremely important it is to publish and document your findings, after all this is the succes of Elsevier Science Publishers. I personnally worked for this company as well.

The group agreed that I should publish some pictures on a couple of forums and find out, which way does the wind blow. The response has even gone beyond my expectations. By showing the photo's people realised that the group was going as strong as ever. Patrick is aware that making public his findings would help and show the enormous amount of work he and the group has done over the past 25 years.

The photo's and information are still all available and reports can still be made to make a conclusive report on much of their work. But the places which were investigated are long gone. Good example is the Ieper-Zonnebeke railway line.

A lot of work was done many years ago when nobody took any interest.

I know funds or grants can be applied for with certain company's and foundations,

this would help finance the Diggers and improve for them the documentation and reporting aspect of their work. But like Rome this won't be acheaved in one day.

The wheels have been set in motion, until then they will carry on as they have always done. I would call them proffessional amateurs who do a tremendous job, with zero funding.

Regarding the square holes with grenades. I am afraid this is reality and sensable to remove the large nasty object first before opening up the trenches. I have been to three sessions now on a saturday afternoon and they must have removed up to a 1000 kilo's of explosives and there is more to come. Regarding what happenend here is pritty well documented, but when the digging machines come in a few month's time, what is in the ground will be lost forever. A report can be made later.

Regards, Frans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also remember that the Belgians and French have such a huge number of WW1 and WW2 sites that a UK-style 'developer pays for archeaology' approach will not work...

This has been much discussed prior to this thread and I for one am glad that at least someone is doing something rather than lots of talk but no action.

I don't really see why this wouldn't be possible. The argument that the Flemish soil is so full of world war 1 remains that it is impossible to research them all and keep the place habitable is, I think, not a valuable one. Why would developer funded archaeology not work here? It works in places like York, or places like Sheffield, where the Roman, medieval and industrial heritage is as thickly concentrated as the remains of WW1 in Flanders! I don't say that every building site has to be researched by archaeologists for months prior to developing. What I do say, is that a new construction site should be screened and that there should be a desktop study before developing, so the best strategy can be decided. Than, it can be decided what the best way would be to deal with the soil archive. In many cases, I am convinced that an on-site archaeologist monitoring the progress of the works can be enough. And yes, there are many WW1 remains in Flanders, but they are concentrated in a just a very small part of Flanders, being the Westhoek. It is not like the whole country is littered with WW1 sites...

regarding your remark that there has been much talk and no action regarding this topic... Sorry but I feel that places like this forum are meant to raise problems so they can be discussed. Further from that it is up to the politicians,and at least it seems as if they are made aware of the problem now.

Every Belgian might be born with 'a brick in his stomach', he is also born with a potsherd under his feet. It is time we start realising this. You don't just burn a valuable old book because there is no way to store it? Same counts for the soil archive.

regards,

Bert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large team started work on this a few years ago, but the project is starting to run very slow due to not enough funding and the fact that several people have been fired because their supervisors committed massive fraude (among them the archaeologist responsible for the inventory of WW1 traces, you know who I'm talking about!!).

So there is some light at the end of the tunnel... but for the moment it's still pitch dark!!!

Hi Bert

Thanks for the info. Yes, I know this sad tale but it underlines my belief that central or Flanders govt needs to take this issue seriously.

All good wishes

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also remember that the Belgians and French have such a huge number of WW1 and WW2 sites that a UK-style 'developer pays for archeaology' approach will not work...

This has been much discussed prior to this thread and I for one am glad that at least someone is doing something rather than lots of talk but no action.

Hello

The huge number of sites underlines the need for a proper inventory to create a baseline (see Bert's post above) and a serious discussion involving archaeologists and historians to develop a research-driven rescue archaeology strategy for the Front, i.e. to decide which sites actually matter and are worthy of preservation, which should be dug and which can be let go. It's the same approach one would use for any other sort of archaeological landscape with development pressure, why is this sort any different? If that were done then developer funded archaeology would work. No problem.

I want to preface my next comments by saying that I am in no way commenting on the work that features in this thread as I haven't seen it.

In response to your comment that at least someone's dong something I would observe that some amateur work in archaeology is better than professional work but some is no more than digging holes for fun and "treasure". I would ask whether it's better than something is done than nothing even if the something is destructive and inadequately recorded, as I have seen in UK?

In case anyone thinks I'm being elitist can I point out that I have a track record in working with the voluntary sector in archaeology and in heritage outreach, largely because I happen to believe it's not my heritage - it's ours! Where I am elitist is that I think people who do archaeology, whoever they are, should be doing it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being an archaeologist, I probably take a peasant`s view of these things. What exactly would academics foresee getting out of these digs that the amateurs aren`t? We`re talking about trench systems here all dating from within a few years and containing men, weapons, equipment and the detritus of war. Its very interesting but it`s not rocket science! Please, enlighten me - what could an archaeologist expect to add? :rolleyes: Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'We`re talking about trench systems here all dating from within a few years and containing men, weapons, equipment and the detritus of war. Its very interesting but it`s not rocket science!'

I think Martin was trying to point out a difference in emphasis between certain sectors of the archaeological community who dig to find 'a thing' and those who dig to find out about something.

I don't think it was meant as a dig at amateur diggers, and I know that's not what you're really suggesting. In fact, many of us would probably suggest that knowledge about these sites is based on the critical faculties and intellectual labours of those that wish to know - in that vein I can quite happily put Eric Cowling amateur prehistorian of Wharfedale who collected thousands of flint tools after returning from WWI. Or Francis Buckley, Capt. in 7th NF who published finds from Coigneux.

I'd like to know how WWI sites relate to the wider landscape, in both a spatial and temporal form. For example, how do trenches dug on the Somme relate to those fascinating Quaternary deposits that contained the evidence for some of the earliest human activity in Western Europe? Do Diggers reports comment on this, they might, I don't know.

A professional framework would however bring clout to the process as Martin&Bert are suggesting - it could bring £ too if developer funding ever gets off the ground there. The danger would be in freezing out amateurs from the development process - when archaeology becomes part the planning process it has been very easy to sideline local groups and I would hope that clauses are drafted to include the wider archaeological community.

I'm sure Martin and Bert can add something about the range of archaeological techniques that could be brought to bear/bare/beer... baah. Had enough now, I'm going home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The might for example talk about soil science, environmental archaeology and other black arts. Right, I'm off to read Barkers 'Techniques of Archaeological Excavation' now, see you in a months time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how WWI sites relate to the wider landscape, in both a spatial and temporal form. For example, how do trenches dug on the Somme relate to those fascinating Quaternary deposits that contained the evidence for some of the earliest human activity in Western Europe?

:unsure: Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be two issues here

The state of and finances of government sponsored proffesional archaeology in Belgium.

and

Whether or not people agree with the Diggers and what they are doing or how they do it.

The first is a matter that cannot really be addressed by members of the Diggers, they can campaign and so can we, but that is all. Do governments ever truly listen? Only time will tell.

The second is a matter, that I feel- well- something being done is better than nothing. If I read the situation right, this land IS going to be developed, regardless. If the Diggers use metal detectors, so be it (it IS explosives they deal with often), if they are not "professional", is better than just disposing of the items (which a developer would). Whilst not ideal ( and what in this world ever is) I think the work they are doing needs commended and thank Frans for bringing it to our attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am almost totally ignorant of archaeology. I have been so very wrong about so many things on so many occasions that another howler does not frighten me. Well, not much. The trenches were dug for purposes of war. Usually tactical, sometimes strategic. Any relationship to prehistoric artefacts would be totally coincidental. If an infantryman happened to excavate a stone tool I think the desire to protect himself from shrapnel may have caused him to overlook its stratigraphical significance. It seems to me that the Diggers are doing a grand job of rescue archaeology under very straitened circumstances and great time pressure. More power to their elbows. By the time that the ideal circumstances with ideal methods operated by ideal, and highly qualified, personnel were all in place, there would be nothing left to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any relationship to prehistoric artefacts would be totally coincidental.

Hi all,

my two penneth for what its worth!

As both Simon and Martin have mentioned, the landscape is important here; not to separate individual entities as being somehow disparate and non-connected. Prehistoric features were important parts of several Great War complexes - I think in particular of the Butte de Warlencourt but there are others. These were KNOWN to be prehistoric but were incorporated in defensive systems. One might even argue that troops PRACTICED for such eventualities utilising useful pre-existing elements within the landscape within their trench systems. Certainly this is the case on Salisbury Plain where prehistoric linears formed parts of the support trench networks of complex practice trench systems

The finding of prehistoric artefacts (and indeed Roman and other era) may indeed have been incidental but that'snot to say that these finds weren't deemed important by those that found them. The excellent work at Serre has shown this with the flint tool accompanying the body of one of the Germans who had carefully held onto it. Nils Fabiansson mentions other finds in his grouping of "mata-archaeology". There are countless other examples where troops found artefacts, curating them with some reverence.

I too am all for the work of, for want of a better term, 'amateurs' within archaeological strategies - all digs I have run have had team members that could, if one was so minded, be classified as such. I have also benefitted from the knowledge derived from Aurel and others on Great War archaeology. There does, however, need to be a raft of sepcific questions held in mind by workers if the results of such work is actually going to inform us, and to add more to our knoweldge from historical sources.

Enough of my ponitificating - I hope to be able to give the forum the initial results of some of my work in the near future as it is important that, whatever work is undertaken is done so with the ability for others to interrogate! :)

all things good

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being an archaeologist, I probably take a peasant`s view of these things. What exactly would academics foresee getting out of these digs that the amateurs aren`t? We`re talking about trench systems here all dating from within a few years and containing men, weapons, equipment and the detritus of war. Its very interesting but it`s not rocket science! Please, enlighten me - what could an archaeologist expect to add?  :rolleyes:  Phil B

Since you ask :)

It may not be rocket science but it is physical anthropology (sorry, couldn't resist). The documentary sources don't tell us everything and as we all know "Grandpa never talked about it". If we look at Great War sites archaeologically we are not looking to prove if they had trenches and mills bombs we are trying to create a narrative that is prompted by the material culture (stuff). The stuff includes both the official equipment, the semi-official and the downright personal, which all relate both to the war and to the men who fought it, sometimes absolutely directly. What I am trying to do as an archaeologist is not prove that there was a war often based on trenches in Flanders in the early 20th century, I am actually trying to see the men in that war and set them in the landscape of the time. The sources will help me do that but the objects will help me develop that picture further. When you start to see configurations of webbing that isn't in the manuals, you've never seen on pictures and no one thought to mention in Bn records, but which are in front of you, still attached to their owner, then tell me I'm wasting my time. Also tell me that when I have a piece of artwork made by a German soldier from three spent rounds and I can tell you what it means!

Rant over! I hope that clarifies things. Believe me I have thought about this, if I wanted a less hazardous period of the past to look at I could stick with the Romans but I do believe I have something to contribute B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peasant talking again! These are areas from which we have photographs and oodles of descriptions in writing and by word of mouth. It can`t compare with people and places of thousands of years ago about which we know next to nothing. What narrative can an archaeologist possibly construct that we don`t already know and would be worth knowing and that the amateurs aren`t doing anyway? Looking for enlightenment - Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peasant talking again! These are areas from which we have photographs and oodles of descriptions in writing and by word of mouth. It can`t compare with people and places of thousands of years ago about which we know next to nothing. What narrative can an archaeologist possibly construct that we don`t already know and would be worth knowing and that the amateurs aren`t doing anyway? Looking for enlightenment - Phil B

Sorry didn't I just answer that? :blink:

Do you know that Duke of Wellington quote about telling the story of a battle being like telling the story of a ball? If not seek it out, it underlines why using every available source is valid.

The allegedly all-revealing sources for the Great War are comprimised:

Film - officially controlled and censored

Photos - often censored and controlled or manipulated (see Susan Sonntag's work)

Official histories - official and taking a VERY top down view.

Regimental History - seeks to promote their unit's own contribution.

Memoirs - putting the particular author's spin and mostly written by a particular sector of society.

Maps - as good as the source data and the map office on the day.

Kit in museums - fine so long as no one adapted what they were isued with or all got the same stuff (see my previous post).

Personal letters - did you really tell mum what it's like?

Oral testimony - deeply suspect, ask any oral historian of the period

The landscape - it's changed utterly since 1919 and needs interpreting that's archaeology.

Personal effects - artefacts, which is archaeology. If you don't explore them archaeologically how else do you try to interpret their kit and its meanings? To use a WW2 analogy why did a number of pilots carry teddy bears? They don't record that anywhere.

Interpreting remains to ID bodies through study of bones and associated kit is archaeology.

As Mortimer Wheeler said "archaeology is about digging up people" and people are strange animals, as their material culture often shows

Example:

When I dug at Serre in 2003 I could have been discouraged by the accounts of a featureless morass pulverised beyond recognition. Instead I didn't trust the written sources and found well-preserved trenches with evidence of individual actions that illuminated moments in the attack and defence of the Heidenkopf, they also illustrated the doctrine of bite & hold well. Also we were able to excavate 3 bodies and get formal identifications for 2 of them (and almost for the 3rd) because of careful excavation and conservation, coupled with documentary research. We were also able to study the finds from the bodies and use them to say things about the men - you tell me why a German Gefreiter had a prehistoric flint in his bread bag! Why was another carrying a souvenir of Stuttgart or the third coins from Guernsey?

Interestingly I think the accounts of the state of the ground at Serre can in part be attributed to two factors - firstly the upper layer of constant disturbance from shells (and modern ploughing) and secondly the fact that the folk describing it were either seeing a trench eye view and/or crossing it by night when it was a featureless mess because it was dark!

I say again, if all we were doing was digging holes to find trenches it would be fairly pointless but we are constructing narratives that are different to the narratives made from the other sources. If you don't believe me :

1 attend the Battlefield Archaeology conference 16 & 17 July at National Army Museum

2 Tell me about how people lived in the trenches, not how they were supposed to live according to manuals, or how Sassoon (or whoever) claimed they lived, but what actually went on.

3 Tell me how a regimental history could have identified a skeleton.

And Phil, you are asking all the questions we dealt with a few years ago in respect of medieval and post-medieval archaeology where folk said the documents told us everything. It's simply not true. The documents shed light and in turn can be illuminated by our work.

And finally: folk want to see trenches today. You can see some invented ones on the Somme, you can see reconstructions in UK, or you can see examples (e.e Avril Williams example) where the trench is a real Great War trench and its an archaeologically accurate rebuilding of a feature that was used at the time.

I say again does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were also able to study the finds from the bodies and use them to say things about the men - you tell me why a German Gefreiter had a prehistoric flint in his bread bag!  Why was another carrying a souvenir of Stuttgart or the third coins from Guernsey?

Go on then, don`t tease. What narrative did you construct about the flint in the gefreiter`s breadbag? (I guess the other came from Stuttgart/had been to Guernsey on holiday!). I`m not decrying the potential contribution of archaeologists - just genuinely trying to ascertain what they could add. You say above that films, photos, official histories, regimental histories, memoirs. maps, kit in museums, personal letters, oral testimony, landscape and personal effects are all compromised, but surely a combination of them greatly improves the accuracy? And is the technique of digging for what`s left after almost a century of farming, reclamation, souvenir hunting, vandalism etc any less compromised? Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[. Any relationship to prehistoric artefacts would be totally coincidental. If an infantryman happened to excavate a stone tool I think the desire to protect himself from shrapnel may have caused him to overlook its stratigraphical significance.

Coincidental but not meaningless!

There are at least two major collectors who began their collection on the Somme.

If it's 'not rocket science' and pretty much anyone can recognise differences in soils then doesn't this apply to WWI soldiers?

We might cite the example of a german soldier at Serre with a handy Bronze Age flint scraper in his breadbag. Or the British signaller who, being so engrossed in looking at the stratigraphy of the trench he was in and not looking where he was going, colliding head on with a geologist from Leeds coming the other way who was doing exactly the same thing.

I do not think it is correct to suggest that troops were wholly ignorant of the deposits they dug through. An army that trains on Salisbury Plain can't be ignorant of the history beneath its feet! Neither could the various btns. that dug trenches around Farnley Park which, later discovered by ex-signaller Eric Cowling in the 1970s, proved to be the largest Mesolithic flint scatter in the North of England at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`ve had a thought about the Guernsey coins in the German soldier`s pocket. It`s probable that French coins were used by the occupying troops in France and Belgium and that Guernsey coins were usable in France and therefore probably in Belgium. The German soldier could have got them in his change at the estaminet. Pure supposition, of course, but perhaps our Belgian friends can tell us - what coins would have been usable by the Germans in the occupied parts of France and Belgium? Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly an answer (as I have no idea about the Guernsey coin).

But in quite a number of remains we found at Boezinge it was striking that many of the coins that were found with the remains (either British or German) were foreign, i.e. not of the nationality of the man found.

And very often Belgian coins (5 centimes and &0 centimes). Maybe they could be used here in Flanders, but I have always thought that these were kept as souvenirs by the boys, to be shown at home when they returned. After all, for many of them, hardly ever having left their village before, a foreign coin was something 'exotic'.

Aurel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

I am sorry that you're having to deal with some complete (comment deleted) as part of this thread. I have been involved in marine archeaology and faced exactly the same slings and arrows. All this 'Well we know what happened because Fred was there and there's this source and that source' is so narrow minded. It's all about the narrative, the perspective and establishing the facts. The written, oral and film historical sources for the last 100 years only give single or official perspectives. It's only by getting the dirt under your finger nails that you can prove that what we know is correct or as is often the case, is incorrect.

This is exactly the same whether the subject matter is a Roman villa or a German redoubt. We may not have had film 1000 years ago but we had Tacitus, Virgil, Homer etc. so please explain to me how the 'Forgotten Battlefield' investigations at Boezinghe differ in one iota from the 'Lost Legions Of Varus' work in Germany?

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to join me next time I am 70 metres down under the North Sea trying to identify which U-Boat sank which ship from where, using 15 minutes dive time and fragments of a torpdedo's screw. Or maybe I could just pop to Kew and read the 'official version' again.

Peasant talk indeed? Bah humbug!

Rant over

SM

Edited by Kate Wills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

I am sorry that you're having to deal with some ... as part of this thread. SM

An inability to see the difference between the trenches at Boezinghe and the Lost Legions of Varus indicates to me a distict lack of judgement. I`ve chatted to men who served in the Boezinghe trenches, I`ve seen many photos of them and I`ve read many and varied accounts written in the modern idiom. How many eye witness accounts are there for the Lost Legions? You do your subject a grave disservice by using these abusive terms when a non-archaeologist seeks illumination. That`s what this forum is for. I hope I don`t sound so ill mannered to people who know little about my field of expertise.

Time to vacate this thread now that it has fallen to this level. Pity! I suppose they`re not all like that, though - I haven`t heard any juvenile abuse on Time Team yet! Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go on then, don`t tease. What narrative did you construct about the flint in the gefreiter`s breadbag? (I guess the other came from Stuttgart/had been to Guernsey on holiday!).  I`m not decrying the potential contribution of archaeologists - just genuinely trying to ascertain what they could add. You say above that  films, photos, official histories, regimental histories, memoirs. maps, kit in museums, personal letters, oral testimony, landscape and personal effects are all compromised, but surely a combination of them greatly improves the accuracy? And is the technique of digging for what`s left after almost a century of farming, reclamation, souvenir hunting, vandalism etc any less compromised? Phil B

Phil, our debate continues, I hope I am clarifying things.

Okay, I concede ploughing etc does comprimise some of the evidence but that only goes down 75cms and below that is relatively undisturbed archaeology, and you'd be surprised how little clearing up anyone did after the front moved or the war ended.

As far as the narratives go the bread bag afforded a picture of a clean, shaven pipe smoker who played the harmonica and recognised flints amongst other things. I don't have time to go into all the meanings but they are there to be deduced.

In terms of the coins they were tucked away safely at the back of a purse. The owner was from the Kings Own Royal Lancs. They'd been on garrison duty in the Channel Islands but these coins post-dated their departure, so he'd been back at some point, you an construct your own narratives as to why.

This might seem simple stuff but what I want to do is add flesh to the bones. I have a paper on this subject in press with the IWM & UCL at the moment.

In terms of comments about talking to the veterans I never had that opportunity and never will now, and nor will anyone else much. As the war becomes history and not memory we need to be aware of other sources available, such as archaeology.

Apologies about my colleague, we do get passionate about it, we wouldn't do it otherwise. But you should see the out takes for Time Team...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An inability to see the difference between the trenches at Boezinghe and the Lost Legions of Varus indicates to me a distict lack of judgement. I`ve chatted to men who served in the Boezinghe trenches, I`ve seen many photos of them and I`ve read many and varied accounts written in the modern idiom. How many eye witness accounts are there for the Lost Legions? You do your subject a grave disservice by using these abusive terms when a non-archaeologist seeks illumination. That`s what this forum is for. I hope I don`t sound so ill mannered to people who know little about my field of expertise.

Time to vacate this thread now that it has fallen to this level. Pity! I suppose they`re not all like that, though - I haven`t heard any juvenile abuse on Time Team yet! Phil B

They don't use terms like 'peasant' when you claim to be seeking enlightenment!

I am glad that you got to talk to the men who served at Boezinghe. This is something I will never be able to do. Nor will my children or grandchildren. Have I read first hand accounts of Roman battles? Yes and they are just as subjective as every other eye-witness account I have read - written down by Tacitus or Lyn MacDonald doesn't make it anymore accurate or objective and this only increasingly blurs with time. Hence archeaology, amongst other sciences.

I also adivse paying more attention to Time Team - plenty of hot debate every week and nothing splits the archeaology community quicker than a pros and cons chat about TV digs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't use terms like 'peasant' when you claim to be seeking enlightenment!

I am glad that you got to talk to the men who served at Boezinghe. This is something I will never be able to do.

I`ve been unable to "construct a narrative" about (ie understand) the first sentence above!

About the second/third - perhaps as well with your social skills! :) Phil B

On the contrary I have enjoyed the company of many veterans of both wars, including members of my family and the relatives of those killed on ships which I have located and investigated.

If you cannot construct a narrative using the words 'peasant', then may I humbly suggest referring either to your original post or Rogets Thesaurus.

I enjoy a battle of wits as much as the next chap but shall retire from this one ---edited: reference Kates comment above. ---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...