Violating war graves

[Signals]

Hi All,

no expert in this, but have people seen what has been raised from the E Class subarine E3? A fair bit! So not being in British waters, is this allowed? It does bother me sometimes as i have done some intensive work around a submarine in the Baltic and passed that on to divers in Sweden and Estonia. I would feel quite ill if anything like the E3 was to be done from the research i carried out. The Baltic is a different case, i have seen photos from within the German cruiser S.M.S. Adalbert, and as the Baltic preserves uniforms, papers goods, wood and so on, you can see human remains.

The Japanses midget submarine that escaped through Sydney Harbour after the attach was found a fews back, the relatives would be happy for the submarine to be raised and their remains given a proper land burrial, different cultures i guess.

DB.

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

This is the argument that is (and has been) raging in the archaeology community for decades now. As I understand it, re: human remains, the current rule of thumb is that human remains should be reburied if there is someone who can legally make a case that they are 'related', i.e., Native Americans. Of course, it also depends on the culture in question, and how they feel about how their ancestors' remains should be treated. A good counterpoint to the treatment of Native American remains is how those in Egypt treat the remains of their ancestors...generally speaking, there is pride in displaying ancient remains in their museums.

Bringing this post back around to the issue at hand, I don't know what the rules may be about how long a war grave should be classified as such. Maybe someone on this forum has an answer. In the intereim, if a site is presently classified as a war grave, it's hands off. As an aside, I wholeheartedly agree with some of the previous sentiments expressed in this thread thus far; taking items of an unidentified wreck is fine if it aids in identification, then folks should (ideally) take a hands-off approach if people died on board.

A good, recent example of the cultural ambivalence on the issue of salvage vs. hands off of war graves here in the states is the recent salvage of the Confederate submarine Hunley. Some said salvage her, others said leave her where she lay. They ended up with a split decision; raise the wreck for preservation and display, and rebury the remains inside.

If there was no loss of life in the ship's loss, I say, let the salvagers do and take what they will..otherwise, hands off. That's my opinion, anyway, for what it's worth.

-Daniel

[centurion]

Hi all,

This is the argument that is (and has been) raging in the archaeology community for decades now. As I understand it, re: human remains, the current rule of thumb is that human remains should be reburied if there is someone who can legally make a case that they are 'related', i.e., Native Americans. Of course, it also depends on the culture in question, and how they feel about how their ancestors' remains should be treated. A good counterpoint to the treatment of Native American remains is how those in Egypt treat the remains of their ancestors...generally speaking, there is pride in displaying ancient remains in their museums.

Although this a fairly recent development, at one time a 'Talabanic' like attitude applied to what were seen as infidel tombs. The current Egyptians by and large are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians (who were displaced during the Arab invasions). About ten years ago a British ethnologist encountered the wrath of the Egyptian government by identifying the main genetic pool of descendants from the ancient Egyptian population (aint DNA fantastic) living in considerable poverty in villages around the Aswan area.

I think that there is a cultural dimension to how war graves are regarded. Perhaps some sort of international agreement is needed for wrecks at sea

[TeeCeeCee]

Another case is the aboriginies who are asking for the 'remains' back from our (UK) museums... they've taken remains from Liverpool Museum and reburied them back in Australia.

Here's another issue: why is HMS 'x' protected yet the TITANIC isn't? To broaden that out, all the merchant ships that sailed the oceans with DEMS gunners aboard who went down. Service men on a merchant ship... I don't think they, or their ship, is protected? Anyone?

[Clio]

War graves remain war graves 'in perpetuity'.

[centurion]

War graves remain war graves 'in perpetuity'.

So who do we prosecute over the Mary Rose?

[phil@basildon]

So who do we prosecute over the Mary Rose?

I have heard that the remains from the Mary Rose are going to be or have been buried with a religous ceremony appropiate to the time of their deaths.

[centurion]

I have heard that the remains from the Mary Rose are going to be or have been buried with a religous ceremony appropiate to the time of their deaths.

But under Clio's definition its still a desecrated war grave.

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

Related to this thread was a post on ubootwaffe.net about someone selling the bones of a Kriegsmariner taken from a u-boat. Probably one of the nastiest things I have heard.

http://ubootwaffe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1275

-Daniel

[grantowi]

the key word is 'graves', the ship that sailors died in is their grave as that's how the govt. see things... the craft was the final container and site where servicemen died and the govt. is doing the best thing it can for the remaining familys and have classified the site/wreck as a 'grave'.

Many of the men who died on these ships, died in the water, not on the actual ship itself. those who did die on the ships have long been reclaimed by the sea so there are no bodies per se, not in open ships anyway (sealed subs, then there are remains), Men died inside pill box's and yet there is no rush to block them up and declare it a war grave

On land, people walk over battlefields, and, in your phrase, 'enter pillboxes' but they are not 'graves', nor do the poeple walking the battlefields enter or disturb a known gravesite. They are simply walking the earth.

I was in Normandy last year, on one of the headlands overlooking the D Day beach's there were people having picniks and playing amongst the defence earthworks and bunkers, would this be allowed in a cemetery ? or are we to assume that all of the bodies were recovered ?

If a man was in a pill box hit by a massive shell (technical term) or it was blasted by grenades, there would be very little if any left of the man, so logically that pill box becomes his "grave"

The people who pick up bullet cases and buckeles that they find on battle fields, are they not guilty of plundering gravesites ?

It's funny that to walk over the site of dead people is OK, but to dive over a site is a NoNo. Why is it ok to leave the sites of battlefields open to people to trapse over by millions, yet close off a site visited by a handful?

I accept that there some divers who will remove items from wrecks, but do you really think that by banning divers from ship wrecks that this will stop them ? No, it will make their work even easier with less people around to see them.

Grant

[grantowi]

One question that arises out of this (and one I've asked before without response) is how long is it before a wargrave ceases to be one?

We asked this question of the goverment a few years ago when they wanted to place a blanket "war graves" ban on all WW1 and WW2 navel vessels, thats not ALL ship wrecks, just navy ones, they came back with "until they felt it (the ban) wasn't needed anymore"

The merchantmen and their ships didn't warrent inclusion in the propased ban, possibly to get around the issue of scrap salvage.

A few years ago I dived in a place called Truk Lagoon in Micronasia, its where the Americans got there revenge for Pearl harbour in WW2. Many ships and air craft were sunk and many hundreds of Japenese men went down with them,

Today the ships are classed as the top dive location in the world even though they still contain the remains of many dead men, as divers explore and dive deeper into the ships more and more bones are discovered, these are reported to the dive guides (by divers) who arrange to collect them and pass them on to the japanese goverment for burial in japan.

The japanese are willing to let people dive on there "war graves", in return they are getting back their men a lot quicker.

As I have said most divers are very respectful when on ANY wreck

Grant

[Seadog]

Hi Grant, your post has prompted me to inform members of the High Court decision over the WW2 merchant ship SS Storaa. This ship is now a “Protected Place” and is to my knowledge the only merchant ship so designated. I was in the High Court when the case against the Defence Ministers reluctance to treat merchant ships in the same way as RN wrecks was heard. Believe it or not the government declared that the merchantmen were not on war service when sunk by enemy action. This slight to the memory of the thousands of merchant navy sailors has now been corrected after 60 plus years. The decision also has far-reaching implications for WW1 merchant ship wrecks as well. The full story of the SS Storaa can be viewed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Storaa

It makes interesting reading

Best Wishes

Norman

[domsim]

My understanding is that the Mary Rose was excavated and raised because the damage caused by continual attrition of the wreck by modern ocean going traffic. More was brought up recently because of dredging access for the new Royal Navy carriers.

I also understand the human remains are going to be reburied on land>

Cheers

Dominic

[Clio]

The legal answer is that war graves will be classified as war graves 'in perpetuity' (assuming they dont develop Meaulte as the next Parisian airport...)

'...there were people having picniks and playing amongst the defence earthworks and bunkers, would this be allowed in a cemetery ?'

As Western Front regulars know, tour groups often picnic within CWGC cemeteries and do so with the utmost respect. Indeed the practice has its parallel in the Classical agape feast of remembrance but I shan't bore you with that.

[truthergw]

Some interesting posts in the thread and some questionable assertions. Be that as it may, the fact remains that removal of any artefact from a ship which has been declared a war grave, except under very special circumstances, is a criminal act and marine archaeology is not. A similar distinction can be drawn between a controlled excavation by trained and qualified archaeologists and grave robbing by thieves armed with metal detectors.

[Clio]

Since when has the Mary Rose been a statute-designated war grave ?

It is a site of international archaeological/historical and scientific interest (SSI) but the protection afforded to it has nothing to do with the human remains found therein.

[Clio]

'...But under Clio's definition its still a desecrated war grave'.

Not my definition, Rather the definition of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. QED.

[ph0ebus]

The people who pick up bullet cases and buckeles that they find on battle fields, are they not guilty of plundering gravesites ?

It's funny that to walk over the site of dead people is OK, but to dive over a site is a NoNo. Why is it ok to leave the sites of battlefields open to people to trapse over by millions, yet close off a site visited by a handful?

I accept that there some divers who will remove items from wrecks, but do you really think that by banning divers from ship wrecks that this will stop them ? No, it will make their work even easier with less people around to see them.

Grant

Hi Grant,

I don't think anyone is saying 'no diving wrecks' here, so much as dive them but don't remove items from wrecks in which men, women and children died just for the sake of putting something on your mantle. Re: your comment about picking up stuff off of battlefields, I see that activity as just as egregious. Looting, whether on dry land or in the water, only robs future generations of the possible knowledge and understanding that a proper scientific analysis would have afforded. An artifact without its contextual info is all but meaningless.

-Daniel

[ph0ebus]

I was in Normandy last year, on one of the headlands overlooking the D Day beach's there were people having picniks and playing amongst the defence earthworks and bunkers, would this be allowed in a cemetery ? or are we to assume that all of the bodies were recovered ?

Grant

In my opinion I would say picnicing in a respectful fashion (i.e., cleaning up after one's self, etc.) is fine; there's a long tradition of having a picnic in cemeteries here in the US (not by all, but by some). I even recall reading that back in the day, people used to picnic on battlefields and have their lunch while the battles were actually underway (this being in the days of colorful uniforms, and full lines of men firing in lines, taking turns, etc.). Playing perhaps is not the most appropriate thing to do. Parents should really be teaching their children better.

A modern parallel is what I would see at Ground Zero here in NYC on a daily basis...I passed the WTC site twice a day going to and from work and would see vendors selling pictures of the dead, and people taking goofy pictures of one another, smiling. After several years of politely trying to help people understand that a little respect was merited, I had to give it up. The police would not prosecute the illegal vendors and people bought up their ghoulish wares by the truckload. This activity is happening right now as I type this.

-Daniel

[jon_armstrong]

I was in Normandy last year, on one of the headlands overlooking the D Day beach's there were people having picniks and playing amongst the defence earthworks and bunkers, would this be allowed in a cemetery ?

Years ago, when I went on a tour of the huge Victorian General Cemetery in Sheffield, the guide told us that when the cemetery was active this was exactly the sort of thing the Victorians did, and it wasn't considered unusual or disrespectful at all. Something to do with their society being a lot more used to death, I think.

[truthergw]

The question of what is appropriate behaviour in a war cemetery has been discussed, warmly and at great length, elsewhere on the forum. I don't think any real consensus was reached although vandalism and scattering litter seemed to be a no-no in most people's books. Might I say that these are all red herrings ? The OP was quite explicit. There was proof of a war grave having had objects removed. What was to be done? I fail to see any reasonable comparison between that and children picnicing on the Normandy beaches.

[grantowi]

Tom,

Two people on this thread has suggested that ships sunk with members of the crew still abroad should be classified as war graves and hence not dived upon, I disagree with this argument and made the comparision, I dont feel that they are red herrings (as you call them), they were in answer to "should people be diving on war graves"

The majority of diver will not remove anything form either military OR civillian wrecks, they are all treated with the same respect, there was a big uproar in the diving world when they started to bring items up from the Titanic - there is no need to, there are thousands of photos of the three sister ships - yet not a single word was mentioned about "grave site" or "violating the dead" (they even brought up a pair or boots that some unfortunate was wearing when they hit the sea floor) because it was done in the name of research

Grant

[grantowi]

As Western Front regulars know, tour groups often picnic within CWGC cemeteries and do so with the utmost respect. Indeed the practice has its parallel in the Classical agape feast of remembrance but I shan't bore you with that.

The same can be said of the majority of divers. If a CWGC cemetry is vandalised by a few muppets, should all of the CWGC sites be declared off limits unless you have a special permit ? Of course not, so why should the same argument not apply to ships ?

Grant

[NigelS]

Hi Grant, your post has prompted me to inform members of the High Court decision over the WW2 merchant ship SS Storaa. This ship is now a “Protected Place” and is to my knowledge the only merchant ship so designated.

Hi Norman

That appears to have been the case until last year when Atlantic Conveyor was added.

See http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceN...stingPlaces.htm

Interesting to note the comments in the final paragraphs of the article about aircraft lost at sea being automatically protected.

NigelS

Edit: having just re-read the full article it looks as if the SS Storaa and Atlantic Conveyor were both designated as 'protected' at about the same time.

[Seadog]

Nigel you are of course quite correct. An oversight on my part.

Regards

Norman