Recovery of Found Remains

[dfaulder]

from

Somme gives up the body of another Anzac

Good idea to copy in the Mayor/ess. Instead of cluttering up this thread why not start another in which ideas can be posted and a complete list made of the ideal way in which future finds will be dealt with. I will have to leave it with you as there is only 5 1/2 hours before my alarm goes off.

Thank you

I think this is a good idea, and unless someone is simultaneously doing this, I will try and start the ball rolling:

Problem Statements

A. There is concern expressed by members of this forum that the remains of World War One soldiers are not treated properly when found.

1. Situation
   1. Expression is predominantly about the Western Front, with the situation in France looking a bit more confused than in Belgium.
   2. Concerns could also be expressed about World War Two remains - but is out of scope.

[*]"Found"

1. We are principally concerned about remains that are found due to small scale activities like ploughing, ditching, or excavating foundations.
2. We are also concerned about remains that may come to the surface due to the effects of wind, water, earth slips etc.
3. Fromelles type investigations (i.e. going looking for expected remains) are outside the immediate current concern.
4. Possibly investigations prior to major developments are also outside of scope (do they have archaeological surveys as part of the planning process?).

[*]"Treated properly"

1. We are concerned that remains should be treated "with respect" - although we may not exactly agree what is meant by this. Likely to involve trying to retain the integrity of a set of remains and associated artefacts.
2. We are concerned that any recovery should not prejudice any attempt at identification. In this respect the context of the find and associated artefacts are as important as the remains themselves.

B. There is a concern expressed by members of this forum that insufficient efforts are made to identify found remains.

1. This applies to the recovery of the remains: see A.3.2. above.
2. This applies to the reluctance to pubicise finds.
3. This applies to lack of transparency as to the exact process.
4. This applies to a perceived reluctance by particularly the UK MOD to prioritise activities such as:

   Other Factors

   1. Our concerns relate to land outside our jurisdiction - indeed in land that our ancestors fought to make free.
   2. Processes have to work within local laws and customs - and we do not necessarily have clear statements of what these are.

      [*]If Laws/Customs/processes are not adequately supported (distinction from enforced) human nature is that people will take "pragmatic approaches"

      1. Hiding the remains and pretending they were never found.
      2. "Doing their best" to recover remains before they were bulldozed.

      [*]Once the French / Belgium authorities have determined that the remains are not the result of a civil crime that they should investigate, we have to accept that the primary interest passes to the relevant MoD.[*]Farmers and developers never like delay - anywhere.

      Possible Solutions (not mutually exclusive)

      1. Organisations like the UK MoD JCCC resource themselves to be more like the US JPAC. Unlikely in the current financial situation.
      2. The likes of UK MoD JCCC formally acknowledge specified people on the Western Front as skilled volunteers to:

         [*]The likes of UK MoD give unequivocal commitments to do everything possible to try and ensure that a DNA sample is recovered from all remains before reburial.[*]The likes of UK MoD JCCC are willing to work with amateur genealogists in tracing possible relatives - and for the MoD to use their resources in initially contacting such relatives.

         Way Forward (the difficult bit!)

         1. We try and gain clarity of local laws and customs - essential if we are not to appear heavy-footed.
         2. We explore other possible solutions.
         3. We try on this Forum to seek a consensus.
         4. If we conclude that some form of volunteer structure is required we explore the feasibility of such a structure.
         5. We then lobby our Parliaments in line with that consensus.

         I don't know if this thread will help - I am not sure about campaign initiation and structuring via bulletin boards.

         Pleas:

         1. If I am wrong in any of the above please let me know and I will (if I agree!) edit this initial post to try and reflect the "group view".
         2. Keep posts about specific finds in other threads - but post a cross reference.
         3. Try to ensure that posts are more than just the righteous indignation that so many of us feel.

         My head is above the parapet

         David

   3. Provide a reporting point.
   4. Liaise with local authorities with the aim of inconveniencing local populations as little as possible consistent with adequate recovery.
   5. Assisting the land-owner in securing the site from trophy hunters.
   6. Provide recovery and "archaeological support" (i.e. going beyond picking up bones - recording context, checking for other nearby/intermingled bodies, recovering artefacts).

Mel Pack (GWF+) posted a (WF) summary on one of the Beaucamps-Ligny Threads. Peter Francis (CWGC) was quoted by Norman ("Seadog" GWF) about the CWGC/MoD interface on the same thread. Didier ("Wargrave" GWF) posted a Belgium summary (and in addition) on a thread concerning Comines-Warneton. Ensuring that adequate steps are taken (including possible attendence of suitably qualified personnel) at recoveries so as to not prejudice identification. DNA sampling of remains prior to burial. Tracing of potential living relatives who may provide a DNA match.

[Piorun]

Hello, David; a great start!! Thank you. However, I think that Tim (Blackandblue) has started this under Fallen Australian . . . . He's not accepting pms so not sure direction he wanted thread to go. Antony

[Blackblue]

Guys,

I started another thread simply to track progress of the recent AIF recovery. I believe this is a separate issue...what can be done to improve the situation.

Looks good to me Dave...very well put.

Rgds

Tim

[Bardess]

Thank you David. This is exactly what is needed to push forward and, hopefully, create new legislation to provide guidance for every situation regarding future finds.

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

I wish to reiterate the contents made in my last post in the original thread re: using the forum as a resource to organize and create what may be the policial pressure needed on elected officials go make the changes we wish to see.

This thread is a great idea, and I hope we can keep it on point and focused on generating and sustaining action on fixing the problems at hand, enumerated in post one. I am of the mind that any problem can be solved if you have the time, energy and inclination to make it happen.

-Daniel

[dfaulder]

>><<

Other Factors

>><<

2. Processes have to work within local laws and customs - and we do not necessarily have clear statements of what these are.

1. Mel Pack (GWF+) posted a (WF) summary on one of the Beaucamps-Ligny Threads.
2. Peter Francis (CWGC) was quoted by Norman ("Seadog" GWF) about the CWGC/MoD interface on the same thread.
3. Didier ("Wargrave" GWF) posted a Belgium summary (and in addition) on a thread concerning Comines-Warneton.

>><<

Way Forward (the difficult bit!)

1. We try and gain clarity of local laws and customs - essential if we are not to appear heavy-footed.

><<

Do we have anyone who could help us with gaining clarity of local laws and customs? It would be great if there was a French Mayor/ess on this Forum.

Digging into the summary that Mel posted (referenced above) and going to the original source, I note:

• It dates back to a letter from Peter Francis of CWGC in 2000.
• The situation may therefore have changed - which may be the cause for the extended discussions about the role of the exhumation officer.

• In France, the Commission has an exhumation officer. He would be called to the site by the local authorities and carefully photograph and exhume the remains noting anything that might lead to a possible identification. The relevant Defence Attache is immediately notified and while the remains are held by us, any items that may be of use in identifying a casualty are passed to the relevant Defence Unit. These units (the British Army's is called PS4) are specialists in just this type of work. In recent years, they have also provided a forensic scientist who has visited our offices in France and Belgium and has proved extremely useful in identifying what would have been a number of otherwise difficult cases. Recent success include the identifications of Pte George Nugent and Lt Marcel Simon.

• It is not clear whether this (calling to the site by local authorities) is CWGC preferred practice, or French Law - I suspect the former, in which case there is a clear need to ensure that all local authorities are regularly reminded of this service that the Commission offers to them "to properly expedite any recoveries" (my italics!).

Has anyone got an up-to-date view? I could write to CWGC, but already have a number of queries in with them and don't want to risk being viewed as a "stirrer". (Ideally of course this sort of information would be on their website (short section on a FAQ: "what do I do if I find a body?"), say I - stirring!)

David

[Bardess]

It is very disappointing that this thread is not being used to gain insight into French Law. David, would you please scratch out the bare bones of a letter and post it here with a cc to the Mayor/ess and the Exhumation Officer to start with. It would be a pity if this doesn't get off the ground

[dfaulder]

It is very disappointing that this thread is not being used to gain insight into French Law. David, would you please scratch out the bare bones of a letter and post it here with a cc to the Mayor/ess and the Exhumation Officer to start with. It would be a pity if this doesn't get off the ground

I would like to keep this thread "ticking over"; however I am naturally cautious in making "political" approaches because if you "fluff" the first approach life becomes incredibly difficult. "Slowly slowly catchy monkey etc." I would like a bit more discussion (here) of the best way to make such an approach.

As a first step I have emailed Peter Francis (CWGC) to ask if the process described in 2000 about the exhumation officer is still the case. Ten years on the situation may have changed - particularly post Fromelles and financial crash.

Approaching "the French", is more difficult as I do not understand the structure any further than "The Mayor/ess" is meant to be "the man/woman" - but only for the area which they serve / over which they preside (and I have no idea whether local authorities are comparable to our tiny parish councils, or more akin to county councils). I don't want to end up writing to every mayor of every local authority in the "Non-French sectors of the WW1 Western Front" and then trying to determine (through the fog of my inadequate French) whether there is a "general view" - I doubt that will usefully advance the situation. (When in a previous job I was trying to co-ordinate programmes across universities, I was introduced to the phrase "as difficult as herding cats" - and in that job I could claim some sort of mandate and it was "my territory").

An approach could be made to the Mayor for areas where there have been recent finds, but I do not want to provoke a defensive response about a specific find - I am more interested in the generality. I wonder whether an approach to the French Embassy - or possibly direct to Michèle Alliot-Marie (minister of foreign affairs - who has also been a mayor, minister of the interior and of defence) with a general query and hope that it gets passed on to the correct person may be a better (more time consuming but more certain) approach.

Does any one know of someone (preferably French) who lives in the area and shares our concerns and can make a "as a concerned constituent/citizen" type of enquiry? Alternatively do we ask someone else to ask the question on our behalf (The British Embassy in France?, our MEPs?). I honestly do not know - but I do expect this Forum to have someone who does know!

I think an enquiry needs to definitively determine:

• What is the process that is followed when remains (whole skeltons or just body parts) are "unearthed"?
• How is this process implemented and enforced (is this a legal requirement, or guidelines)?
• Is the process "national" or are there regional/local variations?
• What in practice actually happens (particularly with respect to the land-owner suffering delay and disruption)?
• How is the interface with "non-French" organisations (MODs, CWGC etc.) managed?

The "tone" of the enquiry also needs to be right - we need to be fairly emphatic if we are to get reliable answers, but as outsiders we cannot treat the French as we would perhaps like to treat our MPs.

David

[Bardess]

Firstly the British Embassy absolutely should be involved. Secondly a native needs to draft the letter once it is decided upon and thirdly I don't feel that the tone needs to be adjusted so long as the points are put across precisely; after all we were all fighting on the same side.

I have heard the term MEP [European MPs?]. Is it worth trying to engage one of them in our plight?

[ph0ebus]

I would suggest a paralllel process, i.e., engaging written lines of enquiry on several fronts at once.

Re: engaging the help of someone who lives in France, I may know a fellow, though his interest is nautical re: the Great War, he may give us some guidance. I will reach out to him. AFAIK he is not a GW forum member so unless I gain his attention he will not know about this effort, I would think.

-Daniel

[Piorun]

The idea of involving Members of The European Parliament is a good one. However, as our interest is in Commonwealth dead, it might end up being a bit self-limiting (even within a purely UK context) as each MEP represents a defined constituency and might, therefore, have too narrow a view or degree of influence. The French and Belgians, of course, also have their own MEPs and we'd have to be sure that, 1) they didn't feel overwhelmed by the UK total as compared to their own relatively narrow geographical area of interest and, 2) that there wasn't a clash of political ideologies. As David points out, we'd have to be very sure that we'd got the "political" plan of attack very well thought out before advancing. Commonwealth embassies in France and Belgium perhaps should also be factored into our plans, not just the UK Embassy. There are other levels of Government, such as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish administrations that might be worth including in our plans. Antony

[Robert Dunlop]

Remember that this is a regional, not a national or pan-European, issue in terms of geographic (and political) scope. By 'scope', I am not referring to the origins of the men who died but to the local authorities responsible for the areas in which they died. I will contact my friend who lives in Compiègne to find out what, if any, light he can cast on the local or regional political infrastructure, policies and rules (if any) around this issue. More traction is likely to gained by linking this to the rise in tourism associated with the battlefields, for example, than by approaching the likes of MEPs IMHO. You never know, however. Perhaps an MEP lost a relative in the area concerned. Otherwise any letter will just pass through the polite but unhelpful assistant Same applies to other levels of Government.

Robert

[Bardess]

Very wise words, as usual, Robert. I like that you've thrown Tourism into the pot and await the response from your friend

[dfaulder]

Very wise words, as usual, Robert. I like that you've thrown Tourism into the pot and await the response from your friend

Agreed, a useful idea - this is probably a good location of the "local interest". Anyone know of a tourist authority covering the WF area? Looking at the FranceTourism website it looks as if there is one National Authority * ; the regional links take you to summaries for Nord/Pas-de-Calais and Picardy, but no apparent specific Western Front / Great War organisation.

* (although I am not certain that FranceTourism is the official tourism authority - FranceGuide claims to be the Official website of the French Government Tourist Office. I have tried searching on gouvernment.fr for something like "tourisme guerre mondaile" - but it looks (to my poor French reading eyes) as if that links to things like press releases.)

(Quite the wrong conflict (!), but I would like to find something similar to The Hadrian's Wall Country authority - an organisation sponsored by the two regional development agencies and spanning two "shire" counties and one metropolitan county.)

Any ideas? Presumably those who run B&Bs etc will know?

David

[andrew pugh]

Hi David.

Just another possible avenue to try and get people and organisations onside.What about the All Party Parliamentary War Graves and Battlefields Heritage Group.The Chairman is Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the Co Secretary is Peter Barton.

Best Regards Andy.

[dfaulder]

Hi David.

Just another possible avenue to try and get people and organisations onside.What about the All Party Parliamentary War Graves and Battlefields Heritage Group.The Chairman is Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the Co Secretary is Peter Barton.

Best Regards Andy.

Thanks, I agree that this may well be a useful way forward.

(I am currently having a useful correspondence with CWGC - hope to publish something shortly)

David

[KevinBattle]

Perhaps this should be widened to include German/Austrian MEP's, or any of the many different Nationalities (Portuguese etc etc) that could have soldiers still in "lost" graves?

Until the remains are examined, vital clues as to the Nationality, let alone individual identity, could be lost, simply due to exposure to the elements, let alone scavengers.

It's to ensure that there is a widely known "code" (just like the UK Highway Code for road users) of what to do when any human remains are first found, that we are seeking to formulate, and those remains could be any Nationality (and even WW2, not just WW1) until properly examined.

There has to be some "incentive" for anyone finding remains to report them, not plough them over for loss of income, disruption of building plans etc..

Until then, any "find" seems to be at the mercy of the good nature of the finder.

Is there any news as to the precise role of the "Exhumations Officer" and how the CWGC expect him to operate? What are his terms of reference and powers?

[dfaulder]

I have received a bit more detail from CWGC (including the nationalities issue) and am awaiting a bit of clarification (and agreement to quote them verbatim) before posting.

I am dubious about "incentives" for finding remains - would we see a repeat of the many stories from the 1920s of remains being split and two reports being made (and two bounties gathered). (For example: The Missing of WW1) With all incentives you need to ask the question "how would I subvert this system to my advantage?".

Use of the "tourism" line has been suggested and I think used carefully and locally developed might foster a greater awareness (and possibly, as suggested, adoption of a "code"*) and swifter response all round when remains are found.

* I do wonder about what we need in a code in respect of remains; "all remains should receive the same level of forensic care irrespective of their age" or is that too simplistic? Some form of "heritage code" (hate the term!) - in similar terms to the "countryside code" might also include something about access, respecting crops and livestock, avoiding hunters, parking with care, the dangers of "scavenging" etc.. If the code is bi-lateral (there, I've used another of those hateful words) there is more chance of it succeeding than if it is just a "what you must do when you find a body" type of code.

David

[Bardess]

This is sounding very promosing David. For want of a better word - "Idiot's" Guide. Whatever term is decided upon there will need to be a list of 'dot points' to cover every angle of the find and retrievement. At the bottom it could have a warning, hopefully, or some legal jargon threatening a fine or prison sentence?

[dfaulder]

Cross posted from Somme gives up the body of another Anzac

Remy I most certainly agree with you about the fact that people do not know about the finding of the soldiers. I can only speak about what happens here in the UK which in regard of the discoveries was basically that nothing was reported in our media and to the general public it is as though these men never existed. It is the responsibility of the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) to issue press notices about the finds but they for some reason do not. In the case of the CWGC although the remains are initially within their care they absolve themselves from any responsibility for making this known to the British public. I do believe that in the case of the MOD this is a deliberate policy in order that the level of investigation including DNA matching that happened at Fromelles is NOT repeated in the future.

Norman,

I hope shortly to report on the General Thread on this issue (Recovery of Found Remains) on how I understand the CWGC / MOD interface works, but I am awaiting a bit more clarification from CWGC (we have been having an exchange every few days).

The area is muddied because of the CWGC's twin roles. (1) It is responsible for the cemeteries and memorials - by charter. (2) Because it is "on the ground" it also provides services to the MODs (usually UK, but can be other Comonwealth MODs, or even occcasionally other MODs) - by agreement between the parties. These services include the exhumation officer and provision of a mortuary.

Finds are reported to the police and, when identified as War Remains, to the relevant Defence Attaché and hence to the relevant MOD who seem to me to be responsible for everything until the body is in the ground. To expect the CWGC to take responsibility for announcing finds (or funerals) is, I think, a little equivalent to expecting a hospital mortuary (or a grave digger) to announce deaths.

Announcement of finds is therefore, I suspect, the responsibility of either the local police (who once they have identified them as War Remains and not subject to a civilian crime investigation, probably have no interest or need to proactively make any announcement), or the relevant MOD. If the local media covered the story either as a result of a local police announcement or normal "news-hounding", but this is not then picked up by our (e.g. the UK) national media (or media local to where the soldier concerned came from), that is then an issue about what those media deem "news-worthy". (Separate debate about "our" media)

My suspicions are growing that it is the "relevant MODs" (naturally secretive organisations) which are the sticking point. With modern day casualties, they try to avoid an announcement until "families have been informed" and I suspect this culture permeates the Historic Cases function as well. They may also argue that if they made an announcement, they might get flooded with queries from every family who lost someone on that front. A slight exaggeration, but given that I suspect the majority of people who have relatives with no known grave know relatively little about the circumstances of the death, there is a possibility that there may be an inconvenient number of irrelevant inquiries.

In some cases identification may be possible from artefacts found with the body which means they can wait until "families are informed". (I find it unthinkable that they would identify someone and then bury them without making good attempts to trace their family.) However, this is becoming decreasingly possible due to the effects of time (destroying uniforms, scattering artefacts etc.), so if an identification is to be made it has to be via DNA testing which means they have to find potential relatives prior to identification. Either the MOD is going to have to do extensive genealogical research and/or it has to publicise the find and ask potential relatives to come forward. If it does the latter, it needs to have a way to handle the resultant responses to filter out the "unlikelys" and process samples from the probables/likelys. And this means COST.

There I suspect lies the problem.

David

[dfaulder]

David (Post 217 on the Somme Remains thread, post 20 on this thread) your post is well considered and the points that you make are very relevant to the current situation. We cannot effect the outcome of something that happened almost 100 years ago but we can petition and fight for the authorities to understand that the treatment of the found remains of our soldiers deserve both respect and the implementation of the latest archeological techniques in an attempt to give the dignity of a name to those who after all this time emerge from the mud of the battlefields.

I sincerely believe that the CWGC with its well deserved reputation has not responded to the modern times and a reassessment of its role is long overdue. If I may just one example will suffice, why is the CWGC spending money and effort on such things as their "Histories" in which they spend a inordinate amount of time and no doubt money in including on their web site a so-called collaboration between themselves and the IWM to publish the history of such battles as the Somme etc, I would contend that such an activity is not commiserate with the main purpose of the CWGC in caring for and commemorating the dead of Britain and the Commonwealth.

Much effort is spent in this particular function and yet the CWGC do not see that they have a responsibility in recording and publicizing the annual discoveries of the remains of the soldiers. I think that both they and the MOD have little understanding of the long shadow that the Great War has cast over the people of our islands and the impact that even now that war has on the national psyche.

Regards

Norman

Norman,

This raises a number of questions that I hope others can comment on:

"the found remains of our soldiers deserve ... the implementation of the latest archeological techniques in an attempt to give the dignity of a name"

Is there a significant difference between the forensic disciplines that police forces will use when initially investigating any remains and the archaeological techniques used at a dig? I am developing a feeling that if all found remains (irrespective of likely age) are treated the same - i.e. reported to police and forensically investigated by them - we can reduce part of our original problem to ensuring that remains are reported to the police and then left until the police (hopefully reasonably rapidly) investigate.

"the CWGC with its well deserved reputation has not responded to the modern times and a reassessment of its role is long overdue"

The only significant reassessment of its role that I think could be considered is whether the CWGC should take on total responsibility for World War Remains from police to grave. Taking the MODs out of the loop in some ways makes the process much clearer (and frees the MODs to be concerned with current casualties - thereby removing a reason for inactivity). Getting agreement to increase CWGC resources from the member governments might be difficult and may result - in the current financial situation - in a reduction of resources available. However, I suspect that CWGC would be culturally better suited to working with genealogists (predominantly amateur - in the sense of unpaid) in attempting to draw up shortlists of potential living relatives of found remains if going down the DNA identification route.

I am personally not sure that I am totally happy with absolving the MODs of responsibility for their fallen - the process may be cleaner, but something in me wants them to feel that responsibility. They carry battle honours from previous times and they should not to be able to pass the responsibility for the fallen of previous times to someone else. Perhaps they should hand over all responsibility apart from that for the formal burial?

... why is the CWGC spending money and effort on such things as their "Histories" in which they spend a inordinate amount of time and no doubt money in including on their web site ...

I would support the CWGC carrying (or linking to) histories of the various campaigns of the World Wars and I am not sure that this necessarily consumes significant resources (the histories are not exact ground breaking). "Commemorating" is not just maintaining a list of the fallen and the cemeteries and memorials. Perhaps their website redevelopment will link casualty reports to information about the campaign that the unit was involved in at the time of the death. I think that would be a good response to modern times. (How often do we see new members saying "My relative died on dd/mm/yy; what would he have been doing on that day"?)

"CWGC do not see that they have a responsibility in recording and publicizing the annual discoveries of the remains of the soldiers"

In answer to another query I put into CWGC I received the following reply in respect of 2009:

I can confirm from our records that a total of eleven bodies were interred in 2009, together with two sets of additional or part remains. Details of these reburials are as follows:

• Unknown Soldier (1939-45) found at Kowloon, Hong Kong. Reburied in Stanley Military Cemetery on 26 May 2009
• Unknown Soldier (1914-18) found at Zonnebeke, Belgium. Reburied in Tyne Cot Cemetery on 23 April 2009
• Unknown British Soldier (1914-18) found at Passchendaele, Belgium. Reburied in Tyne Cot Cemetery on 23 April 2009
• Unknown British Soldier (1914-18) found at Meaulte, France. Reburied in Citadel New Military Cemetery on 14 October 2009
• Six Unknown British Soldiers (1914-18) found near Contalmaison, France. Reburied in Gordon Dump Cemetery on 14 October 2009
  
• Unknown British Soldier (1914-18) found near Contalmaison, France. Reburied in Flatiron Copse Cemetery on 14 October 2009

Scant/part or additional remains:

• Unknown Soldier (1914-18) found at Le Hamel, France. Reburied in Gordon Dump Cemetery on 14 October 2009
• Additional remains of the crew of Halifax JD150 recovered from the crash site at Hassmoor, Germany. They were reburied in the existing collective grave of the crew at Kiel War Cemetery on 20 June 2009.

In answer to your final question, I can confirm that it is the responsibility of the Commission and its representatives (ie. member governments, Ministry of Defence) to rebury all First and Second World War Commonwealth remains that are found. No other organisations inter on our behalf.

(I am awaiting the answers to a similar query regarding 2010). I note that in 2009, there were no identifications. I think there is a legitimate case to be made for this level of information to be formally tabulated in their annual reports (I cannot see it in their annual statistics). Indeed their current annual report format culturally seems totally "customer aligned" with details of how they met customer service standards etc. (There is an interesting element on Fromelles, but there is little tabulated detail of the men.) With the current division of responsibilities, it is for the MODs to publicise their funerals/burials (unless relatives ask for private ceremonies).

David

[Seadog]

David I omitted on the other thread to post the following photo of the interment of the 6 British Soldiers at Gordon Dump on the 14th October 2009 as referred to in the reply from the CWGC. In this case as with the others there was no press announcement in the UK. But of course there is more to be concerned about, like what were the circumstances of the discovery of the soldiers in particular these six, who found and excavated them, what artifacts were found with the remains and what attempt if any was made at identification. The last concern of mine is why is the finding and interment of the soldiers not worthy of a mention either on the CWGC cemetery database or as I suspect even in the visitors book at the cemetery? Too much secrecy not enough transparency change for the better is long overdue. I bet that the CWGC has not even updated the burials/unknown figures on the database and that these six (seven in total) are still excluded.

Regards

Norman

[dfaulder]

>><< what were the circumstances of the discovery of the soldiers in particular these six, who found and excavated them, what artifacts were found with the remains and what attempt if any was made at identification.

>><< The last concern of mine is why is the finding and interment of the soldiers not worthy of a mention either on the CWGC cemetery database or as I suspect even in the visitors book at the cemetery? Too much secrecy not enough transparency change for the better is long overdue. I bet that the CWGC has not even updated the burials/unknown figures on the database and that these six (seven in total) are still excluded.

Regards

Norman

In respect of the circumstances of these specimen six, I guess we have to ask the MOD (specifically: JCCC Post Death Administration) who define their role as including:

The JCCC is also responsible for the marking of Service funded graves, arranging payments from the MoD to the deceased’s estate, and arranging commemorative funeral services and answering enquiries on historic casualties.

Commemorations & Licensing

The JCCC has a small team that answers enquires relating to individual military fatalities outside the recent past and co-ordinates investigations following the discovery of human remains of personnel killed in the First and Second World Wars,. This fascinating work involves attempts to identify the casualty and trace their next of kin or descendants. We will then arrange an appropriate military funeral in the country concerned, if that is the wish of the family.

Email sent.

In respect of recording them on CWGC, without a name, they just disappear. I have often thought it would be good to have a database of unknowns - which is not quite the contradiction that it sounds! You can look a name up on the Roll of Honour, which for those with known names leads to a grave reference. A Cemetery search (e.g. Suffolk near Vierstraat) will give the grave references for all the knowns and a plan which will yield all grave references - so it is possible to deduce where the unknowns lie. However you have to actually visit to determine what is known about them:

C01: A Corporal of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt April 1918

C05: A Corporal of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt April 1918

C18: A Private of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt April 1918

D01: A Private of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt April 1918

D02: A Private of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt April 1918

D05: A Soldier of the Great War

*

D06: A Soldier of the Great War

*

D07: A Soldier of the Great War: York and Lancaster Regt

* The cemetery notes also say all but two of whom belonged to the 1st/4th and 1st/5th York and Lancasters.

I think this data should be recorded somewhere (if possible with details of where and when the remains were found) - and I think the CWGC is the logical place for this data. I have not followed this up, but I have a suspicion that the unidentified two Corporals (assuming they were not L/Cpls) buried in the Suffolk may just be tied back to Cpls George Hudson (201704) and Clifford Symons (203145). Such is a possible use of the data (see Suffolk Cemetery, Vierstraat The 8 Unknowns).

I think some members of this Forum were consulted by CWGC after the last CWGC website "development" - do they know if this sort of facility is planned? It would involve a database / website development and probably (over time) a survey of what is on the graves of all the unknowns.

David

[keithmroberts]

Could I add that on occasion information such as the cause of death or the first place of burial, is recorded in the cemetery records, but the entries on the database don't appear to include this in most cases.

I totally agree that it would be helpful if the CWGC could find a way to include fuller information, about the known dead, and all that they have about the unknown. For the latter, an extra page could perhaps be added to the cemetery reports without disturbing the whole structure of the database.

Keith

[Seadog]

I agree Keith, there is no better example of why this is required than that of the 66 unknown British soldiers buried in Cement House War Cemetery who were found in the area of Boezinge a few years ago. Surely the circumstatnces of their finding and the plot numbers deserve some mention in the visitors book and on the cemetery database, what is the problem with recording such info, is it some form of state secret I think not!

Regards

Norman