Recovery of Found Remains

[dfaulder]

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

Keith,

When you say "is recorded in the cemetery records", what exactly are you refering to? Is this a Maidenhead based paper record?

The "extra page" you suggest would certainly be a start, but given that the main "Roll of Honour" database seems to be keyed on a "casualty number", I don't (at first glance) see why each unknown cannot have a casualty number - possibly (for the purist) renamed to "record number". The fields we see for "knowns" (grave reference, Rank, Date of death, Unit, Additional Information etc.) can be completed where known. Admittedly advanced queries (such as can be done through Geoff's Search Engine) would have to have a filter option to exclude the unknowns (based on Surname = "Unknown"*, to avoid double counting "casualties" as all the unknowns should also be casualties recorded on memorials). * Currently there are no casualties with the Surname="Unknown"; in time good practice would say that you migrate to a database structure whereby the known/unknown is controlled by a flag field rather than being deduced by the contents of another field.

David

[dfaulder]

Cross Reference: Map of Recent Western Front Finds and Reburials (amendments additions corrects etc. please PM me)

[Seadog]

David, that is very good work, well done and thanks.

Norman

[Piorun]

Regarding funeral arrangments, David; I've copied a post from the original thread. Perhaps you could raise this with JCCC in enquiring why such a poor representation is present as shown by Norman's post. Cheers, Antony

In answer to who could attend a burial: Honour Guard, Colour Party, Bugler, Piper, RBL, Maire, etc., etc. - any or all - depending on how much is known about the unknown. The remains won't decay, they can be held until such time as those representatives might be economically and practically gathered together (e.g., July 1st, November 11th, etc.). Takes some paperwork and logistics; surely not beyond the capabilities of today's civilian or military authorities. Antony

[dfaulder]

Regarding funeral arrangments, David; I've copied a post from the original thread. Perhaps you could raise this with JCCC in enquiring why such a poor representation is present as shown by Norman's post. Cheers, Antony

In answer to who could attend a burial: Honour Guard, Colour Party, Bugler, Piper, RBL, Maire, etc., etc. - any or all - depending on how much is known about the unknown. The remains won't decay, they can be held until such time as those representatives might be economically and practically gathered together (e.g., July 1st, November 11th, etc.). Takes some paperwork and logistics; surely not beyond the capabilities of today's civilian or military authorities. Antony

Happy to do so Anthony, but I think I will wait to discover the tone of the response to my existing (first) enquiry put into them before raising this. However, if a member of the JCCC is a member of the Forum, they can of course respond direct!

(I would have thought that a modern effective PR department will monitor the internet for mentions of their organisation - I think the MOD call it "chatter")

David

[dfaulder]

An interesting article (November 2009) by David Tattersfield (WFA Trustee) is on the WFA Website The Work of the SPVA and the CWGC together with a link to a (short) discussion on their forum.

I will be adding details of the finds in this article to the map I referenced earlier.

David

[Seadog]

Very interesting link David, this para speaks volumes as to the attitude of the both the MOD and CWGC as applied to the finds at Monchy:

"They were probably killed on 12 April 1917. In the cases of 24 of the soldiers, there was no possibility of identification, and their remains were buried in a quiet ceremony"

A quiet ceremony?, so what does that mean.

Regards

Norman

[dfaulder]

Very interesting link David, this para speaks volumes as to the attitude of the both the MOD and CWGC as applied to the finds at Monchy:

"They were probably killed on 12 April 1917. In the cases of 24 of the soldiers, there was no possibility of identification, and their remains were buried in a quiet ceremony"

A quiet ceremony?, so what does that mean.

Regards

Norman

I wondered; David Tattersfield does not even record where they were buried - possibly because he could not find out, or possibly because he assumed Monchy British.

Tom Morgan wrote an interesting article about the burial of the other three Burials at Monchy-le-Preux.

David

[Seadog]

Thanks David, presumably the CWGC will know where the 24 are buried but wherever that is I wager that there is no record whatsoever of their discovery or burial in the cemetery register/visitors book.

Regards

Norman

[keithmroberts]

David

I have found a few cases where the cemetery registers record information such as "died of wounds gassed" that I did not find on the Debt of Honour Register. I can't put my hands on these quickly as the images from the registers are mostly filed with the individuals that I have been researching and I have a rotten memory. When I track one of them down I will return to the thread*.

My suggestion of an additional page on the reports was just offered as a starting point - I have had very little contact with database design, and agree that whatever unique reference the CWGC use for their graves could be the key to recording the unknowns more effectively. I suppose just recording them as you say under the "name" unknown would place them in the cemetery reports anyway.

Keith

* Edit For example Pte Ernest Buckle 14518 KOYLI. The register contains the information that is on the debt of Honour Register, plus the words "Died of Wounds". A small snippet of additional information, but helpful when so many also died of various ailments.

[dfaulder]

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

[... 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.

Update:

I got a prompt response inviting me to telephone, which I did today. I fear the person I spoke to, whilst anxious to be helpful, was unable to discuss policy in much detail - I think I need to find someone a fair bit more senior to contact. The person concerned I think was also cautious about being too specific.

I was assured that everything possible had been done to identify the Gordon Dump 6 but as there were no personal or military artefacts this was difficult. DNA samples were not taken (they don't take DNA samples on a "precautionary" basis). It is possible that they were identified as "British" from their boots (or possibly ammunition) found near the bodies - this would offer a possible explanation as to why a regiment could not be identified.

In response to my general question as to when DNA samples might be taken, I did not get a clear answer - I suspect my correspondent did not know. ("beyond my pay grade etc." - genuinely) I got the impression that Fromelles was viewed as a one-off special case, but that they were responsive to feelings and where a regiment was identified, they took advice from the regiment as to the length of the potential list of whose bodies they might be. The length of the list of possibles might be viewed as being one of the determining factors as to whether DNA testing might be used. I could not get a view as to whether a list of about 60 was sufficiently small to justify the use of DNA to identify 15 remains - I think the question was viewed as rather unfriendly and provocative!

In terms of answering my original enquiry, this was probably as helpful as it was possible to get through this channel - I need to go elsewhere for more detail or precision. It is my italics in the above paragraph and would indicate to me that possible relatives of the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 should make their feelings known.

I have found a list of the SPVA Agency Management Group (AMG) - which looks like the "board" of the parent organisation (responsible for the strategic and day to day management of the Agency, its performance, risks and partnering relationships), so I could try writing to one of them to try and find out policy details. Not sure if I write to the Head of Military Services or the Head of Veterans Services.

I guess an enquiry about policy needs to ask about:

1. Use of CWGC as an agent (but I suspect that I will get a response on this from CWGC shortly - so will hold off)
2. The current identification process definition
3. What records are kept in relation to each casualty, who keeps them and the policy on public access to those records (or is that pushing my luck!?)
4. Policy on when to use DNA identification techniques
5. Policy on tracing DNA relevant relatives

Any thoughts anyone?

David

[Seadog]

All of the points you mention seem very valid ones to me David, I would just add one further question which deserves clarification. That is the one concerning the role of the "Exhumation Officer" apparently employed by the CWGC in France and exactly what his/her duties and involvement are when the human remains of soldiers are found in that country. I cannot at this time see that such a position is very onerous considering the level of current discoveries and it would help if we were appraised of the facts surrounding this function as it may give us the confidence that the finds are at least being subjected to in-situ professional scrutiny by I presume a qualified representative of the CWGC. I see nothing surrounding this function, if it does indeed exist that cannot be put into the public domain.

Your third point is a very interesting one and well made. This I believe addresses the whole subject of transparency and openness displayed by the authorities as regard to the actual details of the discovery and recording of both the fallen and any artifacts which may also be found with the remains. I again cannot see any valid reason why such reports should not be made available to the public but I fear that given the reluctance shown by both the CWGC and MOD to embrace any form of change then this will end up being “A step too far” at this time.

Regards

Norman

[dfaulder]

All of the points you mention seem very valid ones to me David, I would just add one further question which deserves clarification. That is the one concerning the role of the "Exhumation Officer" apparently employed by the CWGC in France and exactly what his/her duties and involvement are when the human remains of soldiers are found in that country. I cannot at this time see that such a position is very onerous considering the level of current discoveries and it would help if we were appraised of the facts surrounding this function as it may give us the confidence that the finds are at least being subjected to in-situ professional scrutiny by I presume a qualified representative of the CWGC. I see nothing surrounding this function, if it does indeed exist that cannot be put into the public domain.

Norman,

Point 1, I think already covers your point. My exchanges with CWGC, which were frequent, have slowed because "I am just waiting for some of my more learned colleagues to give me their view and ensure I have everything right and then I will get back to you. Obviously, I am aware of the thread on the forum and just want to ensure all is present and correct." I am inclined to think that a delay to ensure that the response is "right" is worth the wait. I also like the idea that the CWGC is reading GWF threads (go on Peter, register - you will be very welcome and you will be able to see the illustrations!).

One of the areas that we have being discussing is the public confusion over the CWGC role (see post 20). We may need to "branch" our discussions at some stage to consider:

1. Working within the current CWGC charter - basically, in this context, responsibility starts when the remains go into a grave.
2. Working with an extended charter - for instance: responsibility starts from police notification

Personally I think the later could be an energy-sapping diversion, particularly if the relevant MODs are already able to use CWGC as its agent. One of the things worth noting is the SPVA is now a PFI'd agency (see the link in post 36) with EDS-HP. Service Level Agreements should therefore be part of their currency - possibly they will have one with CWGC. We just need to find the right person to ask!

David

[Seadog]

OMG! David you mean that the CWGC are reading these posts?, time I started being polite methinks.

Regards

Norman

[Chris_Baker]

You may be interested in this photo of a CWGC official, investigating/exhuming a recent find on the Somme. I only know of this as it has been the subject of discussion at Facebook. I understand the remains are believed to be British, but only from debris found around them, and that they are parts of more than one individual. Note the proximity of unexploded ammunition.

It may be worth reminding ourselves every so often of the nature of these finds and the work involved.

[dfaulder]

Thanks Chris, an interesting photograph - presumably a discovery that has already been discussed? Can Seadog now mark down a sighting of the Exhumation Officer in his twitcher's notebook? More seriously, the link from a post today about Plugstreet also made the point about the proximity of unexploded ammunition. An interesting role, but also probably dangerous and at times uncomfortable (physically and politically).

Whilst identifying the nationality (of the unit) from nearby debris etc. would seem to me to be a pragmatic attempt to give as much ID to remains as possible, it does of course consciously exclude the possibility that the remains were those of an attached officer (or OR?) from a unit of a different nationality. I wonder also whether this applies when identifying the unit (from nearby debris etc.), which excludes the possibility of officers attached from other units (e.g. A Cheshire officer attached to a Y&L battalion). Quite possibly the level of certainty required increases as you near identification by name - the case can probably be made. I would be interested to know. For instance is a "A Soldier of the Great War, York and Lancashire Regiment" as certain as "Joe Bloggs, Suffolk Regiment"?

David

[Chris_Baker]

Unless I have missed it I do not think it has been discussed on GWF. It was this week, with remains found by sheer chance during some roadworks (I think).

[dfaulder]

Thanks again, can you give location details (say to village level) so that we can effectively tag the find and follow future references to it?

David

[Chris_Baker]

Montauban.

[ph0ebus]

Chris,

Thanks so much for sharing this. Indeed, such work can be quite dangerous and often does not get the recognition it should deserve.

-Daniel

[egbert]

I follow this thread with great interest. Excuse me when I go back one step and come back to the question of nationality. In case it has been answered elsewhere, please forgive my question:

If remains of a soldier of the GW are found and no whatsoever identification with respect to nationality is possible - who "claims" its nationality and takes responsibility for further processing of the remains? Who will ultimately take responsibility for proper burial on either CWGC- or German VdK- , or French military cemetery???

Let's pretend an unidentified soldier has been found in France on a battleground where Germans, French and Commonwealth troops fought against each other. Which agency (following the local police work), attachee or organisation will be approached by the French?

[ph0ebus]

An interesting article in today's 'paper' about the recovery of American remains currently underway in Cambodia. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command seems to be a good model to emulate, IMHO.

JPAC Mission in Cambodia

The takeaway quote:

The idea is you live together, you work together, you die together, or you go home together. In that respect, if there is any possibility at all, you never, ever leave anybody behind

-Daniel

[dfaulder]

Recent Correspondence with Peter Francis of CWGC (Head of External Communications, Commonwealth War Graves Commission) - which he has agreed to me publishing. I initiated it on 28 January 2010.

As with email correspondence, replies get threaded in with the original message, so what is below is an agreed consolidation of our correspondence. Black is my original text, magenta is my asides in my original text, blue is Peter's response (except for the first blue quote which is me quoting his letter of 2000). (Apologies to those who are colour blind, I hope the differences can still be made out.)

Dear Mr Francis,

I have found on the internet a quote from a letter from you (which I imagine was part of a longer correspondence in 2000) that referred to a CWGC Exhumation Officer in the context of a longer explanation of the process followed when the remains of a World War serviceman are found in France and Belgium.

In both France and Belgium (the regions in which most discoveries are made) the local authorities have to satisfy themselves that they are dealing with war remains. Once that has been established the process differs in the two countries. In Belgium, the police usually carry out the exhumation and compile a detailed report. The report is sent to the relevant Defence Attache so that any investigation of identity can begin, while the remains are handed to the Commission and kept in our mortuary for safekeeping.

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.

Could you confirm if this is the current position and whether French Local Authorities are "obliged" to call in your exhumation officer, or whether this is "a facility that you make available" and which they may or may not choose to use (if they know of it)?

Yours sincerely

David Faulder

Dear Mr Faulder

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the procedures have not changed. As we have resources "on the ground" in France and Belgium we act on behalf of our member governments - whose responsibility it is to investigate discovery of war remains cases - in the manner indicated in my letter of 2000.

In two recent cases in France that did not happen and we have reminded our local and national contacts of the well established procedures. I should add that the co-operation and assistance we receive from both the French and Belgian authorities is first rate.

I hope the above is of assistance but please let me know if we can help further.

Yours sincerely

Peter Francis

Head of External Communications

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Dear Mr Francis,

Thank you for your rapid response to my last email and the reference to the recent cases (I am aware - via the Great War Forum - of one case at Pozieres and a possible one at St Eloi - although the latter is Belgium and not France). Are the "local and national contacts" in your reply, your staff at Ieper and Beaurains, or French contacts such as local mayors? These cases are discussed on the Great War Forum and as is inevitable with a group that (outside the core) has a fair turnover of members, the "role of the CWGC" is often discussed (sometimes with more heat than light). Your confirmation would indicate that your primary responsibility is the burial of remains handed to you by member governments - together with the maintenance of the graves and memorials. This simple explanation seems to be blurred a bit because you also sometimes act on behalf of member governments (as their agents?) - as in assisting French local authorities with exhumation/recoveries.

I sometimes wonder whether it would be useful to have a page off your Help and Information page (or the What We (do not) Do page) outlining the process when remains are found in the major theatres. It seems to me (although I expect to be corrected!) that at least on the Western Front the process (expanding on your earlier letter) is as per attached.

I (and I suspect others such as colleagues on the Great War Forum) would certainly find a fuller explanation both interesting and useful.

Many Thanks

yours sincerely

David Faulder

Dear Mr Faulder

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the "local" contacts I was referring to are mayors, police officials etc. We also have excellent national contacts at the highest level within the French Ministry of Defence with whom we have regular discussion on a variety of issues - including discovery of remains.

Your second paragraph puts it very well. Our responsibility begins when the remains are handed to us for burial and obviously continues with the ongoing commemoration of that individual and maintenance of the grave. Until that moment they are the responsibility of the relevant service authority albeit, as you have pointed out, from outside the Commission the delineation of responsibility may be come across as blurred because of the service we provide to our member governments in terms of recovering and storing those remains.

This confusion is often "historical" in nature also. The task of recovering, identifying and "concentrating" the many thousands of sets of remains (after the two world wars) into the cemeteries you see today was always carried out by the army and not the Commission. Once complete, the army would sign the cemetery over to the Commission for construction. The confusion arises because our founder, Fabian Ware, temporarily headed both organisations after the Great War but there remained and does to this day, a clear line of responsibility for each party.

>><<

Moving on...

I agree that some improved information would help clarify the situation. Without doubt, one of the problems with our existing website is not so much that the information is not there but how to find it and make it easily accessible - something we aim to rectify in our forthcoming redevelopment.

I have made some comments to the text below which you may wish to consider or which you may wish to note as additional information.

I hope that helps a little but, as you can see, it is not that easy to communicate succinctly.

Kind regards

Peter

Original Draft by DSF with notes in magenta, Response by PF in blue

1. The finder has a legal obligation to report "any" human remains found to the local police who will initially investigate.

(Presumably there is some form of pragmatic de-minimus requirement that determines when "any" remains are deemed human and of sufficient quantity to be acknowledged?)

[Not really as it depends on the circumstance and indeed service of the individual. Although during the war and just after, the Graves Registration Units determined a set of remains by weight, this is no longer applicable. In aircrew cases, the very nature of death can mean that only fragmentary remains are recovered but the chances of identification are high because, identify the aircraft and you know who was on it]

2. Once they have established that the remains relate to the either the Great War or World War II:

• In Belgium, the police carry out the exhumation/recovery (to the forensic standards to support later attempts at identification) and compile an initial report (including, if possible, establishing the nationality of the unit in which the person was serving).
• In France, the CWGC (on behalf of the member governments) is called in by the French Police to carry out the exhumation/recovery (to similar standards), and where possible, determine the likely nationality.

3. What then happens depends on the level of identification:

• If the nationality of the unit is determined, the relevant Defence Attaché is informed and they take possession of the remains on behalf of their MOD who are then responsible for attempting to identify the remains.

A detailed report is submitted to them which is then passed to the service authority in the "home" country for further investigation. The remains are stored in the Commission's mortuary for safekeeping pending any further investigation or resolution of the case and subsequent instruction for reburial.

The relevant service authority retain all responsibility for attempting to identify the remains, contacting any next of kin and funeral arrangements.

(Would this apply to units from countries who served with "British" Armies but are not CWGC members - e.g. West Indians, Chinese?)

Yes. As they were serving with the British forces the UK MOD would take the lead

• If the nationality cannot be determined with certainty, but the "side" can be determined the CWGC / VDK - or the French / Belgian / American equivalents will take possession - or is there a nominated "lead MOD"? You are correct, the relevant CWGC or equivalent would take possession and follow their own procedures. The Americans, of course, are slightly different as they still have proactive units recovering their missing from around the world. These are taken to a facility in Hawaii for investigation.

If they cannot determine an identity the remains will be buried as an "unknown soldier of the Great War".

• If no nationality can be determined, the remains will be disposed of according to the customs for unidentified remains in the country in which the remains were found - which may not mean a war grave cemetery and in France could include an ossuary.

In the vast majority of cases it is possible to attribute nationality and therefore it is very rare that this comes up but even then, it is more likely that they would be buried in one of our cemeteries.

4. The relevant MOD is responsible for the identification process (according to their own national standards), and in the case of British Empire remains they are then passed to the CWGC who buries them with the level of identification supplied by the relevant MOD.

[Yes and no. The remains will be in our safe keeping. The funeral will be arranged by the MOD but the grave space, and headstone, and choice of cemetery/burial location will be determined by CWGC. Equally, any decision on when to announce the funeral (not usually a problem with "unknowns" but with identified casualties this will be at the discretion of next of kin) or if media or public can attend, will be a matter for the relevant government. We abide by their wishes.]

5. (If a soldier is buried as an "unknown soldier of the Great War", it means no unit nationality has been determined with any certainty and indeed the soldier could have been German or Austrian.)

Not in my experience – although I suppose it is possible. It is rare that we cannot at least attribute a nationality to an individual based on the equipment found with them. Of course any snippet of information will find its way onto the headstone – regiment for example. The Fromelles project put this into perspective well. In effect there were three categories into which a level of identification might fall.

(1) The decision to attribute a name to a soldier had to be based on clear and convincing evidence from all sources. This included archaeological, anthropological and historical evidence, supported by DNA matching where possible. (2) In some cases the evidence was sufficient to determine the Army in which a soldier served, but not convincing enough to attribute a specific identity. (3) For some the evidence was insufficient and the soldier was listed as 'unknown'.

My thanks to Peter for this information.

David

[dfaulder]

Montauban.

Thanks I have added them to my map.

[Seadog]

David (Post 48) interesting responses from the CWGC as posted by you. I am a little clearer as regards the role of the CWGC Exhumation Officer in connection with those discoveries made in France and it is likely that this person appears in the photo of the recent finds as kindly posted by Chris Baker. The fact that this individual is actively involved with the exhumation of the remains and the finding, recording and safekeeping of any artifacts is a very good thing and should give us confidence in the professional manner with which the finds are treated.

The comment regarding the local contacts in France is also very interesting and sadly prompts the question with regard to this statement made by the CWGC where I assume that the CWGC were not informed by those said contacts:

In two recent cases in France that did not happen and we have reminded our local and national contacts of the well established procedures. I should add that the co-operation and assistance we receive from both the French and Belgian authorities is first rate.

What cases were these?, the only ones that I am aware of excluding the Montauban finds are the 15 in Beaucamps-Ligny and the one recent discovery of the Australian. The comments made about the CWGC website are very relevant and I look forward to the necessary improvements in the near future.

Regards

Norman