destruction of blockhouses

[Christina Holstein]

I realise that the eastern end of the Western Front is not of great interest to many members of this forum but there may be some who would be sorry to hear of the destruction of German rear positions on the hillside above Bouxieres-sous-Froidmont, a little village just north of Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine on the other side of the Moselle from Bois le Prêtre. The extension of a sand and stone quarry to serve the needs of the TGV-East has meant that one side of the hill has been bulldozed. It was the site of a CP for a foot artillery battery, observation post, ammo depot and a couple of other little concrete works. They've all been bulldozed apart from the CP, which is still standing - alone in the quarry - and looks as if it might be preserved eventually, although the inscribed front has been damaged. The ammo depot also had an inscription and drawings of the sort of ammo inside but that is smashed. Fortunately, some other wonderful blockhouses remain because they are on private land, although it's possible that that part of the hill has also been sold. The TGV-East is a huge construction project. It runs right across the St. Mihiel Salient and I don't know if any archeological work taking place along it. While it's impossible to preserve everything, a big project like that would have been a chance to do some serious thinking about what should be preserved and how, but it seems to have been missed - once again. There's much discussion on a French site about destruction through forestry work on the major historical site of Les Eparges, at the other side of the Salient from Bouxieres. No one seems to be able to stop it, or even to get the authorities to listen. It's very sad.

Christina Holstein.

[Paul Reed]

Very sorry to read this - despite that this is a part of the front where no British units fought, anyone with an interest in the Western Front should be concerned about this. There is some strange thinking in France at the moment, in terms of the preservation of history (or lack of it)... what with this and the wholesale destruction of the Siegfried Line from WW2. Future generations will condemn them for it, I am in no doubt of that.

[Christina Holstein]

Yes, it is very sad. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the state forests in Lorraine represent a huge part of the income from forestry in France and that working with smaller machinery or, as in the old days, with horses, is 'uneconomic'. Then the foresters who are sent there are very often trainees from the forestry school or young foresters in their first jobs. They are from other parts of France, have no feel for the history of the area and have one idea - to work as 'well' as possible, in order to be transferred to a warmer and more comfortable part of France. In addition, when the area was turned over to the Dept. des Eaux et Fôrets after the end of the war, no rules were laid down for what was to happen to the remaining traces of the war - the whole idea was just to cover it all with forest and forget about it. That means that today the ONF has pretty well no limits on what it choses to do with whatever remains in the forest. That applies to human remains too, which, if they have to be taken away and identified, represent a waste of time and therefore a loss of income. The ONF has powers that local communities and mayors cannot constrain.

The bulldozed area formed a little ensemble that was representative of German field fortification. Trenches ran from one work to another and I suspect there was underground access as well. The CP is decorated inside with colour wash and stencilled bands and the insciption on the front was rather Art Deco in style - there are a number of inscribed blockhouses in the area and inscription styles vary very much.

It needs local associations or groups of communes to work hard together and with a long-term agenda if this sort of thing is not to wipe out most of what is left. The Germans have to be included in it too - that is probably part of the problem. In the end, it's not money that is the stumbling block because I'm sure there is plenty of it around in EU funds for historic monuments (although 1914-18 is perhaps a bit young to be included in that), it's a question of political will and of organisated protest. The protest will have to go up as high as possible and keep on hammering there for it to be successful.

Christina Holstein.

[ianw]

It seems ludicrous to me that theses important relics of the Great War are destroyed without thought . The argument that they are not old enough yet to preserve is utterly specious. We will indeed be cursed as fools by future generations.

Am I being over cynical to think that their demolition is allowed because they inconveniently hark back to a time of Franco-German enmity and they are therefore somehow counter to the current movement of history in the direction of European integration. Not being housed in museums where visitors can have them conveniently "interpreted" for them might they be seen as a bit too "red in blood and claw". That said , it probably does just come down to a few euros in the end. How sad.

[Christina Holstein]

Ian -

I don't think you are being cynical in thinking that there are people about who would happily destroy these relics but not because it goes counter to modern views on European integration, simply because they were built by the Germans and there are old memories that haven't died yet. I don't believe French blockhouses from the same period would have been destroyed in that way.

These blockhouses were on land belonging to the quarry owners and they seem to be able to do as they like. Vestiges of 1914-18 are too young to be covered by the laws on the preservation of archeological remains. That probably means that mayors don't have the power to bring work done in such areas to an immediate stop while investigations are carried out. The quarry is a very big area and it would have been quite possible to leave the blockhouses standing and work around them. Most of them are below the sand and sandstone, anyway. Until the hillside was cleared - which I think too place in July - they were lost in dense vegetation and extremely difficult to access. I would have thought that a little commune like Bouxieres might have regarded them as a possible source of income, by bringing visitors to the area but perhaps the mayor had no control over what happened. That is, assuming he was interested in the first place.

It's a pity that the French aren't in favour of organisations of 'Friends' of historic remains, because interested amateurs that are better at getting things done than the 'professionals'. As I say, it's possible that the CP is to be preserved, but there was no need to damage any of the works in the area. If the other blockhouses on the hillside go the same way, it will indeed be a scandal.

Christina Holstein.

[Walter Kortooms]

It's a pity. Another part of the Western Front destroyed.

I visited the area a couple of years ago with the Dutch W.F.A.

Walter Kortooms

[zijde26]

I am very sad about that news.

In the last 'Flash' of the WFA-Belgium, I read that the 'Provincie West - Vlaanderen' in cooperation with 'Monumenten en Landschappen'

(Flemish Community) wants to imake an inventory list of the relicts (bunkers, dug-outs, ... ) of the first world war in order to come to a better protection of them.

Gilbert Deraedt

[Bert Heyvaert]

Very sad to hear that blockhouses of such an historical and archaeological value ( I'd like to refer to the fact that they have graffiti inside) has gone lost, and that there seems to be no law or pression to prevent this. In Ieper, allready in the 1920's measures where taken to preserve the most important bunkers in the Saliënt ( although a lot of those who used to be 'preotected' before WW2, have been demolished in the meanwhile).

Gilbert, there used to be a contributor to the old WFA-forum - before it became members only and the majority found its way to this forum - who was working on that particular project you mention. Can't remember his name though.

Best,

Bert.

[Fabiansson]

Christina and all others,

I would like to underline that there is no time limit for archaeological/material/physical/historical remains regarding when they are protected by French law.

The French law only says that "historical sites" are protected, they do not have to be of a particluar age.

So what is important is to establish a new order, where WW1 sites are regarded as "historical sites".

Important stuff are considered as worth protecting. WW1 sites must be considered important. That is the main thing!

Kind regards,

Nils Fabiansson

[Tim Birch]

As an aside; set into the ancient walls of Pevensey Castle built by William the Conqueror are one or two very cleverly disguised WW2 pillboxes. Was their construction in 1940 an act of vandalism in an historic monument, or an act justified by a National emergency?

Either way they now enjoy the privilege of being protected in perpetuity as they are an integral part of the castle walls and the castle is now a Listed Building!

Tim

[Will O'Brien]

Does anybody know whether there is any serious efforts to get the French authorities to classify WWI sites as 'Historical Sites' ?

Will

[Christina Holstein]

Will -

I know of no such initiative. There are local groups who are involved in preserving various local sites but I don't know of any national organisation that is working towards it or that can apply the necessary pressure.

As far as I understand it, WWI remains are too recent to be classified as archeological remains and preserved as such and that a minimum of 100 years is necessary for that to happen - are you saying that is wrong, Nils?

Bouxieres is the site of the death of a French cavalryman killed on 4th August 1914 and commemorated as the first French soldier to be killed in Lorraine after the outbreak of hostilities. There is - I'm supposing it's still there - a monument on the site of his death as well as a plaque on the village war memorial. With a bit of imagination, it would have been possible to lay out an informative walk from the monument, via some of the blockhouses and field fortifications and then include the American involvement as well. With hard work and local interest, such things have been done in other parts of the front without huge amounts of money being necessary.

Interestingly enough, the inscription on the war memorial at Bouxieres reads 'To the sons of Bouxieres and to its defenders'. I've not seen local war memorial that commemorates anything other than local men before.

Christina

[Will O'Brien]

Christina

I find it curious, considering that WWI was one of the climatic episodes that France endured during the 20th century, that there is no national organistaion dealing with the question of associated sites of historical interest. This is not a criticism as such, nor would I like to add, am I suggesting that local organisations do not do great work in the preservation of sites. I just find it odd from the perpective of an outsider looking in. Perhaps we have a French forum member who could provide a French perpective on the issue.

Will

[Christina Holstein]

I think it comes from a different national attitude to history. There is a national organisation called Association 1914-1918 - of which I am a member - but it is really tiny. There doesn't appear to be any thinking at national level. Perhaps it's just because it was such a climactic event and it's still just too awful to remember.

I do know that the Bouxieres case is being referred to the inventaire generale de la Lorraine with a request that what has not yet been destroyed in the quarry be preserved but I wouldn't think that any answer has yet been received. This is August, after all - and unbelievably hot!

Christina

[Will O'Brien]

Christina

I think you have made a very valid point that

Perhaps it's just because it was such a climactic event and it's still just too awful to remember.

I forget that whilst for the British the war was the terrible loss of a generation , for the French it was that with the addition of having it happen in their towns, villages & homes.

Will

[Fabiansson]

Hello,

There is no "minimum of 100 years" for anything to be archaeological. Perhaps some say that, but the rule is that what the authorities consider important of some reason (economical, political etc) is protected. If they want to regard something from let us say 1750 as archaeological they can, if not, they do not have to. The same for WW1.

Achaeologists in Franc (and elsewhere) have seldom cared about remains younger than middle age. During excavations the remains (strata, layers) above the middle age layer, has been dug away very fast, perhaps only some notes have been made, labelled "recent". One exception is underwater archaeologists, who - of some reason - have studied recent history remains.

In recent years however, archaeologists, culture geographers, historians and ethnologists etc have begun to focus on historical remains, that is remains younger than middle age. In USA historical archaeology is big: they study the remains of the slaves, and of the indian and civil war for some examples. In UK some recent history war archaeology has been made. The Defence of Britain is a splendid example of what is beginning to happen!

In the Baltic archaeologists are excavating Napoleonic graves. In Germany some concentration camps are excavated by professional archaeologists. In Belgium archaeologists have surveyed the WW1 battlefield at Pilkhem Ridge. In France a WW1 mass grave was excavated 1991 by professional archaeologists (still secret report), and several professional archaeological excavations have been undertaken during the TGV and motorway constructions in northern France during recent years. French and Canadian archaeologists have been surveyed and excavated WW1 sites in France. Etc. All this are example of that no 100-year minimum is required. Sometimes recent history (post middle age) is regarded as important and worth protection and study, sometimes they are not. In the Arras (and now also Ieper?) area the commune has understood that WW1 archaeology means (British) tourists and money. In Germany the concentration camps are politically interesting. For Canada WW1 sites are nationally important.

/Nils

PS. The L'Historial in Péronne has begun taking interest in this issue.

The Archaeology of the Western Front

[Bert Heyvaert]

It struck me when I read a book on the excavations re the TGV-line in France, that there was no real mention of any WW1 sites. The focus seemed to be on the Iron age. To start with, emergency excavations are almost always performed with heavy machinery, that is used to dig away the first layers - probably those in which WW1 remains can be found - of a large area. What is left of the ground that has been dug away is out of its primary context, and almost worthless to archaeologists It is only then that the 'archeology à main' starts. This strategy certainly has its benefits. Larger surfaces can be worked quite fast, and one gets a decent overall view of the site.

The other opposite is the way in which archaeology is traditionally done: after surveying a space, certain sites are selected for excavation. That's the way people are working on the Pilkem-ridge site.

Here in Belgium, interest is also growing. Several students will be making their thesis on a WW1-related subject, and the call for student-volunteers for the excavations at the A19-site was also answered by a lot more students then I expected.

Bert.

[paul guthrie]

Does this mean the proponents of a road across Pilkem Ridge are succeeding?

[Bert Heyvaert]

As far as I know, the archaeological report of the site will become a part of the A19-dossier that will have to be approved. Excavations are still running till the end of 2003.

[uncle bill]

I'd like to go back to something that Christina mentioned about the Great War in France's collective memory. I think that one of the differences is that there is seemingly little space for the subject in the éducation nationale's curriculum. The spark for my interest was struck many years ago in a rather boring english lesson when I first encountered Wilfred Owen. I imagine that this is the same for many British users of this forum. The French system concentrates on the 2nd war which I believe was more traumatizing for the French than the first and something that the country is still trying to understand and come to terms with. British pupils go on field trips to the Western Front and although screeching groups of school kids are annoying I can't help feeling proud that my country makes an effort to remember the traumatic events of 14- 18. French kids on the otherhand go on field trips to the concentration camps and do projects on the Shoah because that is what the system has chosen to remember.

My next door neighbour's father was wounded at Verdun and this affected his family life and his childhood but the defining period of history for him is the German occupation hence my theory that this was more traumatic and scarred France more deeply than the First War. France has also been through blood and misery more times than most in history. The Revolution, the bloody repression of the Vendee, Napoleon's campaigns that started the country's demographic decline, the Franco Prussian war, the Commune and so on. So perhaps the Great War was just another event in a long line of conflict and merits no more commemoration than the rest.

[Fabiansson]

Uncle Bill and others,

"What the system has chosen to remember" is a perfect phrase in this context. But perhaps various institutions have different priorities - apropos your suggestion that WW2 is more of a trauma than WW1: Have a look in the French army museum. How many rooms for the great Napoleon era? Several. How many rooms for the great WW1 era? Several. And of the WW2? Is it one? At most. The French army is not that proud of that period... So perhaps it is more trauma. More shame.

But WW1, Verdun for example, is remembered, is made legend, and the Verdun area is much of a sacred area. But the landscape is mot protected, maintained and managed properly - in my view. Landscape archaeologists, culture heritage professionals etc could have taken care of it, but no. The French authorities chose not to. This attitude is hard to understand. If Verdun is a trauma or/and legend for the French, for France, why is the material (archaeological) remains of the battle not treated as something worth protecting?

/Nils

[CROONAERT]

The way I see it is that not everything can be preserved.This is especially so on a "historical object" the size of the Western Front! Certain "examples" (be it trnches,bunkers or whatever) can and are kept for posterity, but not everything can be classified as a "historical monument" and kept. This is also true no matter what the time period - how many of us have seen archaeologists hard at work on (eg.) Roman sites, working on a time limit before the bulldozers move in? I've seen this occurance all over Europe.

So long as there is time to study,chart, photograph and maybe save a few artifacts at these sites, then not everything is lost.

Dave.