Folks;

I've made a few responses to other postings on this subject a couple of times, and I'd appreciate your own views.

Leaving our natural emotions behind, and bearing in mind the massive preservation of battlefield sites courtesy of individuals, the CWGC and (notably and with the utmost respect) the French, Belgian and Turkish Governments (and their citizens), how may we prioritise future sites for protection? We cannot do a 'Winston' (like preserving an entire city, as was his suggestion) and life goes on; that's what the boys fought for. So we must record a few sites for posterity and then let them go...but what do you folks reckon is REALLY worth preserving as a historical site?

difficult one, its a bit like Time Team with Tony Robinson, the only one Ive really been interested in was the USAF crash in WW2. but watch most of them anyway.
Then this raises a question as to why they havnt done one there yet as they have been to one of the Mediteranean Isles in the series, to look at a pile of stone.
It is nice that one day I will get to France and look round the trenches but would the family really want to look around 40 miles of trench?

As up in the other area being dug before it gets covered by an industrial site, how much needs doing and who will do it finally who will keep it up together in the future?

I am very pleased that you have raised this issue, it is an important one and it is worthy of thought. Sites have to be preserved for future generations, furthermore we cannot simply rebuild trenches, once they are gone they are gone for good. However as you quite rightly point out people live and work in these areas, therefore as time goes by some of them will have to go. The question of prioritisation is an incredibly important one.

Aspects of all historical times must be preserved, however there is a danger of trying to preserve too much, as Chaz points out it is great to be able to see where men fought and died, however it really is not neccessary to close of 40 miles of France to the prospects of building homes, roads and workplaces in order to preserve the Old Front Line.

So what is really worth preserving as a historical site and in what order? First of all the vast memorials constructed to the missing, the Menin Gate and Thiepval as well as the national memorials such as Delville Wood, Newfoundland Park and the Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge. Next in my view should be the cemeteries of Allied soldiers who fought to preserve the freedom of the French people, the German cemeteries should also remain, they shoudl be treated honourably. These sites should be preserved like castles of the Middle Ages, in order for future generations to be able to remember the sacrifice, horror and waste of war.

Although I am strating to think that we are reaching the point where there are too many meemorials on the Western Front, even to such an extent that villages and towns in those areas are not really considered to be pleasent places in their own right but only as ''the jumping off point for the 3rd Division on the 26th September 1918.'' Thus these places can never really escape the fact hat they were killing grounds decades ago. Then again if the local populations see battlefield tourism as a positive thing then I see no reason to compain. The question of preservation ultimately lies with the populations of the areas concerned, when the negative points outweigh the positives of having some of these sites around their villages and towns (excepting large memorials and cemeteries) I think we will have to be prepared to see sites of the former battlefields disappear.
Just a few thoughts,
Jon

Time Team also excavated a WW2 Spitfire that was shot down over Northern France during the Battle of Britain so if you have Sky you may be able to catch it.

Liam

Thanks for your thoughts;
Jon; by 'preservation' I naturally assumed the perpetual preservation of existing memorials and cemeteries, to say nothing of the parks and 'battlefields' as seen at Vimy, Beaumont Hamel, etc. What I was really getting at was the 'oh, shock and horror! Another old dugout has been covered up by a farmer!' or 'an old bunker will be destroyed if we don't rescue it' mentality. I personally would like to see ALL preserved but appreciate the impracticality of this and am very much aware of the needs and priorities of indigenous communities...so what I'm getting at is that we should MAP, RECORD, SURVEY, and 'PHOTOGRAPH each and all...but within this...are there any further remains and structures/features that are WORTH keeping??

Be interested in responses...

An interesting question. How can battlefields be preserved though? Those excavated are never the same as they were originally. The ordnance and human remains must be removed, and I assume that all equipment unearthed also goes for disposal or preservation. I'm not knocking those who do such a good job (De Diggers spring to mind), but as with most excavations, the process necessarily destroys the integrity of the site. If a road is going to be built there anyway, this is obviously a better option than letting the bulldozers do the job.
Trenches untended will eventually disappear, like the shallow depression that marks the original front line at Serre. Is this any worse than lining them with concrete sandbags, like at Vimy? Should La Boiselle be regularly dug out? IMHO some sites need protection, but this might take the form of letting them slowly slip below the surface. At least the wider landscape of hills, streams and valleys will hopefully remain.

I do think there has to be a balance, everything cannot be saved, or have a memorial on it. I'm not keen on concrete sandbags or World War theme park ideas.Most of the established sites cover the preseved for all time angle and are worth keeping, but some of the newer sites have to be properly excavated and researched, then allowed to "return to the soil"( or road as the case may be). Somewhat like the Roman finds in my native Cumbria, you cannot have a Housteads or Vindolanda on them all. Saying that, each case should be taken on it's merits and not just abandoned as a matter of policy.....

With regards to memorials, there was concern in 1919 that there would be a proliferation of them. The Battlefield Exploit Committee was set up to give some order to things as per this Army Order.

Spike; exactly what I was getting at...give it 500 years maybe, and most of the surveyed and recorded sites (complete, maybe, with excavated artefacts) will be of immence archaelogical, historical and sociolgical significance; but WHAT are the sites, maybe still to be uncovered (although we might know they are THERE) or maybe physical and geologiacl/geographical features that are evident today, should be preserved AS they are, important historical sites? How does one prioritise the value of one bunker over another in terms of future understanding of a vitally important ara of the history of humankind on this planet? I sit the presence nearby of a serving soldier who was famous, or who was to have fame thrust upon him in later life? Or is it a measure of sacrifice? Maybe, even, a site which was indistinguishable from the exertions and sufferings of the common man? A difficult one.......................!

Very difficult....
I think the best that can be done is to properly excavate and record the findings, photograph the areas thoroughly and keep records and items of interest, then allow the majority to return to nature.....

Dunno.

And seeing as these bunkers are located in countries other than my own, it'd be interesting to know how Belgian, Turkish, Italian, etc, people might want to prioritise this part in their histories. As for us Brits, we won't really have any say in the matter one way or another.

John

There will always be room for preservation .. but, if we are talking about future generations 500 years down the line ... I ask myself, what would be most useful to human education .... film footage, audio recordings etc etc .. or a bit of twisted wire/shell casing?
I am actually very interested in battlefield arcy but I do think that there can be a tendency to over play the importance of such activities.
The WW1 period was probably the most documented, mapped, recorded, filmed war of all time (until the second one of course) - so if all this evidence is available in a 'non intrusive' format, what's the point of further intruding onto sites?
Now my head is spinning.
And finally, with all due respect to NML etc, I can see that finding the remains of the fallen is truly a 'side issue' for them BUT taking aside the human emotion, what is truly uncovered by their work which so drastically changes our knowledge of the period?
Of course if I were invited to partake in said digs, I would of course have a chance to radically change my opinion. Hint hint.

I can only say again that archaeology is not simply outdoor history, it is about a different set of dialogues drawing in studies of landscape and artefacts to say things about human experience and activity, as well as human responses to a set of circumstances.

Records and letters tell us what the author wants us to know and the camera always lies. Archaeology isn't unbiased either but through study of place and objects we can say different things. Take my current research on a training camp site. No records survive to give us the picture of what went on and what parts of the site were developed at what period. The archaeological work is starting to give us those answers and tell us a good deal about support and supply.

canadian ministry of veteran affairs brought together specialists of various fiels (historians, archaeologists, geographists, etc.) to discuss the preservations of the Canadian battlefield sites such as Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel in the late 90's. The conclusions of this group came to be known as the 'Vimy Charter' and is the manifest that the Canadian goverment uses for any kind of developmet/care to these areas.

In one of the back issues of Battlefield Review this Charter is explained in a very detailed manner. The idea is pretty much that whatever happens should not interfer with the memorial aspect to the battlefield, and the uniqueness and authenticity of the battlefield should in no way be harmed. Things like re-deepening trenches will be the very last measure to be taken I think. Covering the area with grass can also be a usefull way to limit erosion and sedimentation.

regards,

Bert

Very true and valid...but what of the Roman sites in Birtain and elsewhere around the globe? or the Norse remains in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere? These are 'alien' sites quite rightly venerated and protected as heritage. One could go on...indeed, given the latter example, the French don't seem to have much of a problem with the preservation of structures and artefacts associated with what were originally Norse invaders and colonialists in Normandy...(witness Bayeaux!) What I am trying to establish is discussion 'sans' the element of emotion which sometimes bedevils study of the First World War; it has its place, of course, but there must be some academic and logical (and practical) detachment somewhere...?

Hi all, I was prompted to register for the forum after reading your debate so far, so if I could just add my two pennorth, having visited the Salient last week for the first time in some 20 years to find huge changes in the way of museums, excavations, memorials etc. My view is that the mix there is just about right as it stands -- I would hate to see the area turn into some sort of theme park, with son et lumière at Hellfire corner and simulated tank rides. (In Langemark cemetery I was handed a questionnaire from the provincial tourist board which asked among other things if I was 'satisfied with the site' -- the Belgians are at least interested in the revenue generated, though the new visitor centres at Langemark and Tyne Cot and real eyesores.) Personally I was more interested at the Zonnebeke and Hooge crater museums in the objects found in recent excavations than the waxwork dioramas, as they provided links with real people who had handled them. Perhaps some places could be given more prominence, but it is often hard to relate to what is left there -- e.g. Manchester Hill, Aubers Ridge -- and the main sites are generally covered. One thing is important -- to give every assistance to visitors who wish to find traces of relatives: thanks to help through another forum I was also able last week to stand somewhere near the spot where a great uncle, a Birmngham Pal, was probably killed in a mine attack June 1916 outside Arras, though his body was never found.

Martin B

Thanks for all your comments and thoughts; the Aubers Ridge reference is particularly pertinent, as is any future mention of, for instance, the La Bassee Canal, the Achiet or Givenchy sectors, to name but a few...the Somme and Salient sectors are probably as preserved as they will ever be, though, whatever your god may be may he or she forbid it, there are still plenty of reasons for recording and preserving (or rejecting) sites based upon their purely historical merit. So what about these less-visited and, therefore, less-financially lucrative areas? There still must be, surely, a similarly applicable set of ground-rules for the evaluation of a historically important site? I agree that there is a danger in the commercialistaion of the past (not that it's ever bothered the inhabitants of Normandy!) but at the same time must reiterate a letter I sent to the WFA a few years ago with regard to the (then) proposed Thiepval Visitors Centre; My sister had been to both the D-Day sites and the Somme as a casual visitor...but whereas in Normandy she was able to grasp an idea of the enormity of the undertaking, and the reasons for it, all she was left with from Picardy was an impression of lots of graves and the proverbial sweet fa else! ie....no CONTEXT or EXPLANATION.....I appreciate the existence of wonderful places such as Peronne's Historial, but.........

I know Im adding this late.. but a quick comment.

I visited the Civil War battlegfield of Gettysbrugh this past summer, & while understanding the strong desires of all parties to mark thier participation in the important US historical event. The amount of monuments seemed borderinging on 'gawdy'. Diffetrnt types of monuments of different shapes & siozes that seemd almost to overlap each other. (I will post an example shot later.. I have many I took on home PC I can link to this thread)

Now I have been to Great War battlefields & Cemeraties & I think they are impressive in so many ways. But I found in comparason to the GW sites, Gettysburg seemed a little tacky, without insulting Civil War buffs.

The control of the sitres in europe I feel were handled correctly. Its tough considering people have to live in these places.

Being a fan of history & the GW in particular, if it were up to me I would get them to claim the whole western front & preserve it as best possible! But thats not realisitic.

Being a fan of history & the GW in particular, if it were up to me I would get them to claim the whole western front & preserve it as best possible! But thats not realisitic.

So would we all GWL, so would we all
(if we're honest)

Now heres a picture I promised from Gettysburg. At the time I didnt take it to show the monuments in particular.. this is actually a view alone the 'high water mark' the furthest advance of the Confederates. But you get the idea with all the monuments.

If I dig more I can find a better shot.. but you get the idea.

Again Ill say that these monuments are just in being paced, but its clear theres no formal 'rules' to it.

Maybe Im just a little too structured! lol!

In comparison, it probably is. But the US Government and its people to had the sense to make the area into a National Park shortly after the events. I have it in mind, from my visit, that the memorials are generally not placed randomly, but are usually at a significant place for that regiment, etc.

I am, of course, not suggesting that the the whole of the GW battlefields should have been turned into something similar. Such an idea would be farcical. But I would suggest that had the UK (and other) governments taken the trouble at the time to purchase the most important sites, then we wouldnt now have regular debate about preservation. However, that opportunity is now very lost in history.

John

Its interesting because if you look at Beaumont Hamel, the Newfoundland government when given the land byt the government of France, didnt really have the money to do anything teribly 'fancy' with it. the monument is extremely impressive, but essentially the site was left 'as is/ Yet its current state with the trenches slowy fading & such, it is perhaps one of the more haunting sites of the Great War in how it looks.

It's a pedantic point, but the battlefield parks of the American Civil War were administered by the U.S. Army until sometime in the 1940s when they were turned over to the National Park Service. The NPS uniform includes the so-called "Smokey the Bear" hat that is a based upon the U.S. Army campaign hat of the Great War period.

The Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Tennessee, was a mobilization site for the U.S. Army in the Spanish-American War and probably the Great War as well. Fort Lee, Virginia, home of the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, was built in 1917 on land taken from the Petersburg National Military Park that had been in Union rear areas during the Petersburg siege of 1864-1865. Dwight Eisenhower never saw combat in the Great War--instead he commanded Camp Colt, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, a tank training school on the grounds of the Gettysburg National Military Park. You can imagine the hue and cry that would arise today if tanks and armored vehicles were allowed to drive over historic sites!

I'll admit that there's a profusion of monuments at Gettysburg, especially near the "High Water Mark," but in the 19th century veterans' organizations and states all wanted their contributions to be memorialized. The High Water Mark at Gettysburg is considered to have been the symbolic turning point of the war, hence all the monuments there.

The U.S. Army Regulations for administration of the parks published in 1931 have five pages of guidance on the requirements and channels that had to be gone through before a monument could be placed in these parks. Those regulations state: "Regimental monuments shall be placed on brigade lines on ground where the regiments did notable fighting."

This idea that features such as trenches "disappear" as time goes is not correct. If features are back filled or allowed to silt up naturally they physically still exist albeit in a buried form. In most cases these buried features will last longer and be more stable than those left exposed and subject to constant conservation at heritage sites. The build up of material over these features will bear a lot of developement activity, the Roman Baths at my home town currently have a car park on top of them and monitoring has shown no adverse effects. Unfortunately you can't see them. At the time they were found there was no money to fully excavate, conserve and present the remains so they were reburied and scheduled.

As others have said what is needed is careful mitigation within a framework of the planning process for local authorities or nationally. The British system of planning consent and archaeological competative tendering as exampled by Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG16) is not perfect but provides a model that other countries have considered. The situation regarding the protection of historic sites or the provision of archaeological recording (preservation by record) is much better than the ad hoc system that characterised some the appalling planning blunders in the 1960s & 70's in Britain.

Each development should be considered on its merit and provision made for investigation, excavation or preservation of any possible remains. How this works in other countries I do not know, maybe somebody could tell us about planning provision in other places.

Cheers
Dominic

A very good point.